Why oh why do developers of tactical wargames keep leaving out the features missing from all previous similar games that players keep asking for, like multi level buildings. I don't get it. If I was going to all that trouble and hard work of developing a new tactical wargame I'd make sure it has all those features that are always requested and always missing. That way I know the game will stand out from the crowd and offer players features\mechanics missing from all previous similar games. Otherwise why make a game that's like all the previous ones. Seems alot of hardwork for nothing new.
From Game Designer Barry Doyle
I had one goal in mind when designing this game: simplicity and realism. For me, the fun of playing a wargame is more dependent on historicity than rules. I like a simple, very varied (units, situations, scenarios) wargame much more than complicated simulations.
Often times a simple wargame is not considered realistic, but I always thought that realism was subordinate to the system in question. For example, sub-tactical wargames typically use complicated formulas to determine armor and fire penetration factor. A simpler system tends to use a more abstract approach, more apt to focus on tactics and not on data; Art against Science! Realism, in my humble opinion, is represented by two things: the story contained in the game and the capacity of a unit in relation to others and to reality. For example, if a Stuart has weaker armor than a Sherman and the Sherman has weaker armor than a Pershing, then the system is realistic. With V&V, most of the complicated mechanics of other tactical and sub-tactical wargames have been put aside or simplified in favor of gameplay. For example, morale - a notion I have always viewed as slowing down the flow of a game - is captured in personal fights through the use of loss points. This simplification, althoughretaining some abstract form of morale, keeps speed as a focal point, at the heart of this combat system.
I knew from the start that I wanted a modified - or inspired by - version of Avalon Hill's elegant zonal infantry combat system, but I didn't know how to go about it. In fact, many friends had told me that it was nearly impossible with tactical or sub-tactical play, although Avalon Hill had done it before in Storm Over Arnhem.
As I designed the game and then tested it, I realized that my system worked, but the tactics would be totally different from other tactical games. I think all of this makes me appreciate V&V even more. And I'm glad I persevered with my original idea. The armored fighting system owes a lot to games such as Rommel’s Panzers and Stalin’s Tanks from Metagaming. In fact, these two games are my favorites and were the origin of V&V. Many nights I would wake up thinking about all the extra pawns and units that could have been added, wishing Metagaming had continued the series. Valor & Victory, through many hours of design and testing eventually evolved into the tactical and sub-tactical game that I had always dreamed of owning - and more importantly - playing. The effort was monumental, but often challenging and rewarding. I sincerely hope you enjoy putting this game together and playing as much as I enjoyed designing it.