Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[Harrybanana]

I think I probably could have scored the most VPs if I quit attacking altogether on or before August 26, 1944 (turn 61). Had I done so I would have scored 14+ points per turn through the remainder of 44 (17 turns) and about 10 per turn in 1945 (17 turns) for a total of 408 more points and a grand total of 608 VPs. Admittedly QBall might have reacted by attacking me to increase my casualties, but I would still have ended with far more VPs then I will by attacking.

Well actually I think I could have scored the most VPs if I stopped attacking as soon as I had the necessary number of hexes to avoid the beachhead penalty; but I will have to play test that. Is anyone willing to play me to test this knowing that I will stop attacking early? Should make for a quicker game?

Even if I had just stopped attacking on turn 81, when I had 293 VPs, I would have collected at least 12 VPs per turn for 16 turns for 192 VPs and a grand total of 485 VPs.

If anyone besides me and the people who have already posted think this is wrong please post here to voice your opinion. For that matter, even if you think this is OK please post here to voice your opinion.

[LiquidSky]

Way back in the spring, I played a game against somebody who had the full use of the EF box when it was broken. Knowing this I decided to fight in Italy to gain airbases...do a minimal invasion to cancel the BeachHead penalty and bomb bomb bomb for victory.

The German resigned when he realized I had destroyed his Luftwaffe and was probably going to skate to a minor victory....and that his large German army stolen from the EF box was probably not going to help since I wasn't actually fighting a ground war. We didn't realize that the EF was so broken that he wasn't going to pay a vp penalty, but I still positive vps heading for minor victory.

But this was also back when I had just figured out how to fight a strategic war. And before I figured out ways to counter it with the Germans.

If you want to play a game, well...I am game. Not playing anything at the moment so I have a lot of free time. Set something up on the Server, and I will play you.

[Seminole]

March 10, 1945 was one of my better turns militarily. I made an actual breakthrough in the North, cutting off (but not yet isolating) the German Army in the Netherlands.

Re-position the northern TF between the ferry hexes and you'll bag the lot (looks like about a dozen divisions)! Nice move!

[HMSWarspite]

The key here is not can/do the allies win, it is what % of their points come from SB. I don't know whether absolute SB points need to change but I am with Harry in that the % certainly does. Thus more points for cities (or whatever) may or may not need to be offset with slightly less for SB.

[zakblood]

i'm not cleaver enough it seems to make a worth while comment in here[:D][;)]

so i'll edited it and pretend i didn't post it[;)]

[HMSWarspite]

On this one result we have (net contributions, and allocating losses totally to the ground war), +500 bombing points and -140 odd ground war. This seems to make the case rather well. To even it up you need about 180 points from each. SB needs to drop from about 5 per turn average to under 2, and (if we keep cities constant) losses need to drop from 1150+ to 850. This is just under 20% reduction for loss points. So one way to even things up at constant total would be to change the loss divisors by that 20%. On the other hand, this is not a winning position.

If the vp for SB are kept the same, losses need to drop to 520, or halve. Obviously increased city points does the same.

I do agree that in this case the split (air war to ground war) is untenable. Has anyone got a counter example (net points for ground at least the same as SB)? Because otherwise I am with Harry.

We need to split this debate into the two areas: total vp for allies, and the split ground: air. Assuming we view allied turtles as an unconditional bad thing (unless their army is trashed, losses in men well above the levels here) something does seem to be necessary?

Edit: I have messed this up. To avoid turtling, we only need the ground war to be positive, so the figures Harry has posted would suggest a loss divisor (or city point) change of c15% to break even (reduce casualty points from 1170+ to 1020).

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Way back in the spring, I played a game against somebody who had the full use of the EF box when it was broken. Knowing this I decided to fight in Italy to gain airbases...do a minimal invasion to cancel the BeachHead penalty and bomb bomb bomb for victory.

The German resigned when he realized I had destroyed his Luftwaffe and was probably going to skate to a minor victory....and that his large German army stolen from the EF box was probably not going to help since I wasn't actually fighting a ground war. We didn't realize that the EF was so broken that he wasn't going to pay a vp penalty, but I still positive vps heading for minor victory.

But LiquidSky didn't it bother you that you could have used the exact same strategy even with the EFBox Off to win a Minor Victory?

But this was also back when I had just figured out how to fight a strategic war. And before I figured out ways to counter it with the Germans.

If you can counter this with the Germans than that is what I want to see. Though if you can I suspect all it will prove is that a very good German Player can beat a competent Allied one. Still that is better than I thought was possible so should be interesting.

If you want to play a game, well...I am game. Not playing anything at the moment so I have a lot of free time. Set something up on the Server, and I will play you.

I will set up a game and PM you the password. May be a while before I can get a first turn back to you though as have other commitments at the moment.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Re-position the northern TF between the ferry hexes and you'll bag the lot (looks like about a dozen divisions)! Nice move!

I don't think I can re-position the Northern TF as I can't enter the Zuider Zee.

Thanks for the compliment, but it was not a "Nice Move." At least not if I was trying to Win the Game. This move and the other ones I made this turn cost me about 33 VPs. The 13 I could have had if I had done nothing and the 20 I lost by attacking. There is no way I will make up those 33 VPs in the turns remaining.

Indeed almost every move I have made since the late summer of 44 (and perhaps earlier) has been a very stupid move that would only be made by a complete idiot. The only turns on which I have made smart moves are the bad weather ones where I have just sat and clicked End Turn.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

On this one result we have (net contributions, and allocating losses totally to the ground war), +500 bombing points and -140 odd ground war. This seems to make the case rather well. To even it up you need about 180 points from each. SB needs to drop from about 5 per turn average to under 2, and (if we keep cities constant) losses need to drop from 1150+ to 850. This is just under 20% reduction for loss points. So one way to even things up at constant total would be to change the loss divisors by that 20%. On the other hand, this is not a winning position.

If the vp for SB are kept the same, losses need to drop to 520, or halve. Obviously increased city points does the same.

I do agree that in this case the split (air war to ground war) is untenable. Has anyone got a counter example (net points for ground at least the same as SB)? Because otherwise I am with Harry.

We need to split this debate into the two areas: total vp for allies, and the split ground: air. Assuming we view allied turtles as an unconditional bad thing (unless their army is trashed, losses in men well above the levels here) something does seem to be necessary?

Edit: I have messed this up. To avoid turtling, we only need the ground war to be positive, so the figures Harry has posted would suggest a loss divisor (or city point) change of c15% to break even (reduce casualty points from 1170+ to 1020).

As I think everyone knows the current VP System provides for VPs to be awarded to the WA Player every turn based on the number of city, urban and capital city hexes he controls (let us call these "Objective Hexes"). There is a divisor that changes from year to year so that he will earn only 1/3rd the VPs in 45 that he would have earned in 43 for the same Objective Hexes. This makes some sense as the WA player should control more Objective Hexes in 45 then he will in 43. So the idea, I assume, is that he should earn roughly the same number of City VPs each turn. The problem is that this encourages the WA player to capture Objective Hexes in 43 and early 44 because he will then score more VPs per turn for them over a longer period of time. But it discourages him from capturing Objective Hexes later in the game because the VPs he will lose in trying to capture them (via casualties) will never equal the VPs he can hope to gain from them over the turns remaining.

So if we reversed things so that the WA Player scores more VPs for Objective Hexes in 45 than he earns in 43 while at the same time reducing the negative Casualty VPs as the War progresses this would encourage him to continue attacking longer. But I have not had a chance yet to figure out if this can be accomplished while still maintaining game balance. In any event, unless you have some end game consequences for not capturing certain Objective Hexes (like there is in every short scenario) there will still come a point in every game where the WA Player will maximize his VPs by turtling. The best we can achieve is to delay this date.

[LiquidSky]

The only way to avoid turtling is to have an End Game vp condition.

When I play a game I always study how to gain vps. What the victory levels are. Then I decide how to best achieve that victory.

Fun Example: I was playing a game of Empire in Arms. There was 7 of us. I was the Prussians. I realized that when the French walk into one of my combat units, he has to stop and fight. And that if the battle is greater then 4-1 there are no vps awarded for fighting. So I created a number of corps with a single point of infantry in them to delay the French...costing me nothing.

The French player cried foul, but we all agreed it was in the rules and we played on.

Next game, I happened to be the French and he was the Austrian. He gleefully tells me he is going to do the same thing. I create a bunch of corps with 3 inf and 1 cav in them and attack his delaying corps. Earning vps because the battle is 4-1 (and I cant lose!)

At the time I won by bombing only.....a very small number of people were beginning to realize you could even bomb for large amounts of vps. Germans hadn't yet figured out how to defend against it. The EF Box was badly broken allowing the entire German army to fight the west with little in the East. I knew I could not win a ground war so I had to win by air.

Perhaps my opponent could have countered it. He could have brought the Luftwaffe over instead of a ground army from the east. He could have built airfields, transferred flak...but that costs admin, and interfered with the vast army he was transferring. He wanst countering my vps, he was playing a different game.

So no..I don't feel bad that I won by bombing alone.

All in all, I don't overly care what system is in place for how vps are awarded. I will study the system, then decide if a win is doable, and what the best path to that victory is. If the only way I can gain vps as the Germans is to attack allied units, then I will figure out the best way to do that. If have to lessen the vps from bombing I will figure out a way to do that.. I maximize my garrisons so that I gain vps...and so on.

If the system is changed so that only one side can gain victory while the other is a replacement for an AI, then I will try and figure out a way to break your morale so you want to concede.

As it stands, I prefer to play the allies in general because they get rewarded for smart play more then the Germans. But I am not a fanboy of either side.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The only way to avoid turtling is to have an End Game vp condition.

When I play a game I always study how to gain vps. What the victory levels are. Then I decide how to best achieve that victory.

Fun Example: I was playing a game of Empire in Arms. There was 7 of us. I was the Prussians. I realized that when the French walk into one of my combat units, he has to stop and fight. And that if the battle is greater then 4-1 there are no vps awarded for fighting. So I created a number of corps with a single point of infantry in them to delay the French...costing me nothing.

The French player cried foul, but we all agreed it was in the rules and we played on.

Next game, I happened to be the French and he was the Austrian. He gleefully tells me he is going to do the same thing. I create a bunch of corps with 3 inf and 1 cav in them and attack his delaying corps. Earning vps because the battle is 4-1 (and I cant lose!)

At the time I won by bombing only.....a very small number of people were beginning to realize you could even bomb for large amounts of vps. Germans hadn't yet figured out how to defend against it. The EF Box was badly broken allowing the entire German army to fight the west with little in the East. I knew I could not win a ground war so I had to win by air.

Perhaps my opponent could have countered it. He could have brought the Luftwaffe over instead of a ground army from the east. He could have built airfields, transferred flak...but that costs admin, and interfered with the vast army he was transferring. He wanst countering my vps, he was playing a different game.

So no..I don't feel bad that I won by bombing alone.

All in all, I don't overly care what system is in place for how vps are awarded. I will study the system, then decide if a win is doable, and what the best path to that victory is. If the only way I can gain vps as the Germans is to attack allied units, then I will figure out the best way to do that. If have to lessen the vps from bombing I will figure out a way to do that.. I maximize my garrisons so that I gain vps...and so on.

If the system is changed so that only one side can gain victory while the other is a replacement for an AI, then I will try and figure out a way to break your morale so you want to concede.

As it stands, I prefer to play the allies in general because they get rewarded for smart play more then the Germans. But I am not a fanboy of either side.

Well I suppose that is the difference between us, for me the Victory Conditions are very important. If the winner of the game was whoever controlled Copenhagen at games end I would not be happy, even if the game was otherwise balanced. I would similarly not be happy if the game only awarded VPs for winning or losing land battles. To me battle are just the means to the end. I can see why VPs are awarded for SB, but victory should be primarily determined on the capture of key cities.

[KWG]

A award system that results in playing to the end as much as possible.

Except for Uboots and Vweapons the other SB VPs targets, and Allied losses, give double bonuses/negatives to both players, with VPs and in game consequences. And there is such a small number of SB VPs compared to all the targets. Just something about that...

Got to be a balance/combination of Destruction/Losses caused and Territory held.

[LiquidSky]

You misunderstand me. The difference between us is you think VPs are very important...and I think they are everything. The sole reason for playing.

I've played many kinds of gamers through the years. Roleplayers that think they are Patton, or Captain Kirk or whoever. I've played historians that think recreating some event is more important. I've played people that come up with some rigid plan for victory (or copy it from somewhere) and cant adapt. People who think they can win by changing defeat in one game to be a victory in the next. People who play for 'fun' with no regard to victory.

These people lose.

To win you have to focus on the prize. Adapt and overcome obstacles. It cant be a one person race. Both sides need to be able to fight for the prize.

In WiTE....originally Berlin was the only objective. Take it, you win...otherwise you lose. People got upset. The midgame was meaningless. You could take Moscow, Stalingrad....Leningrad...but lose anyways. Didn't seem fair. Took away the whole meaning of Barbarossa and turned it into how to save Berlin.


Victory points need a mid game. It drives the game. It needs an end game....some goal that needs to be gained to keep it playing to completion. It needs balance....so it is not determined in the first year how the game will end...or be meaningless if some end goal is achieved.

If victory is primarily determined from taking key cities, then that will be my goal. I will take them. Doesn't matter how....paradrop, invade near them....whatever. The rest is just a ways to a means. If taking Berlin ends the game as victory...and nothing else matters...then I will use my airforce in whatever means gets me that victory. I will not roleplay Harris or Doolittle nor will I care what my casualties are...if I only have 3 divisions left and I take the victory hex, then I win. There is no yeah, but.

Also people have to stop looking at casualty points as a punishment to the allies. It is not. It is a reward for the Germans. It is a tiny way for them to inject some VPs in their favour into the game.

So how does the Germans get vps in the game anyways? Since I am playing Harrybannana I will point out what I am looking at.

1) slow down strat bombing. A damaged bomber not only doesn't bomb, it probably loses morale and wont bomb the next week. So put flak...lots of it where they allies have to bomb. Which means the Ruhr. Keep the airforce back to guard cities that he cant escort to.

2) repair the factories. That means priority repair on all VP industries. Make sure no units are in the way for stacking.

3) Move as much of the panzers as you can to garrison duty. Try and spread them out though to all the garrison areas.

4) Put the entire german army on refit. National Morale is 70 until the end of the year. All those 60-65 morale divisions will train up giving more garrison points. As well..they will get stronger..more vps and later...stronger response to Italy.

5) Attack early invasions. Attack weak penetrations. Even if you know you wont take the hex, you are trading manpower for vps.

6) Set up traps. So far I have managed to make at least one allied division surrender per game as the Axis. Usually more. They are worth over 10vps I'd tell you where, but a girl needs some secrets [;)]

7) Balance manpower loss with territory loss. Do the math....giving up Rome or Paris in Winter '44 is probably a win for the Germans. Gaining 100 points in casualty vps can be balanced with how much you give him in city points.

8) Try not to use Reserve. Sure you may have held the hex when the panzers come to the rescue, but they got beat up by interdiction..and they are not refitting. You get more vps if they attack..take the hex, move in (now non-entrenched) and you attack with those panzer divisions. Sometimes you don't want them to take the hex though.

9) Save the bombers. They will give you some vps when the allies start to roam away from England. Don't throw them away trying to buy one turn or two interdicting supply to a port. Unless you can get casualty points shutting their supply down.

[KWG]

Maybe for WiTE a random, hidden, fuzzy logic VP system.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


You misunderstand me. The difference between us is you think VPs are very important...and I think they are everything. The sole reason for playing.

No, I think I understand you perfectly; but you misunderstood what I was saying, my fault as I didn't express it clearly. You care about what the Victory Conditions are to the extent that you want to know them very clearly so that everything you do in the game is aimed at achieving Victory. But it sounds to me like you don't actually care (or at least not very much) whether or not those Victory Conditions have any basis in historical reality. I say this because you don't really seem to care that the WA Player can win the game even if he never takes Rome or Paris or even gets within a hundred miles of the German border. I don't blame you for this, I want to win too. But to me WitW with its present VP System is like if someone came up with a computer football game which modeled real football perfectly, except that a Point is scored every time a team either kicks a Field Goal or scores a Touchdown. It appears to me that if you played this football game you would just shrug your shoulders, trade for the best kicker and develop strategies that would get you to the 30 yard line so you could kick your damn field goal and not care a whit that your team never scored a touchdown. But for me I would have a big problem with that game and I'm not even a football fan.

[LiquidSky]

Exactly! Now you get it. There is nothing about Rome that makes it important as a war winning objective. Not even in history. It didn't make the Italians quit the war...they did that earlier. It didn't make the Germans give up Italy..they still defended as much as they could. Only the newspapers cared about Rome. Or Paris. The war continued on.


If you want to look at history and figure out what victory conditions they were playing for..well...they played until the other side quit. Or were made to quit. That's it.

Game victory points is not a measure of history. It is a measure of how you play a game. If, in your football example, the game rules are changed so that points are scored differently....and your favourite team decides to keep playing the game the same way and losing then the coach would be fired for being stupid. No body would praise them for being 'historical'.

And history has no place in a game. As soon as the first counter is pushed, history and game diverge. If I invade Italy, push over the Alps and take Berlin in spring '45 I will probably lose the game.

Victory points are used to guide behaviour. And that behaviour is defined by the victory points. The problem is not the behaviour.

[Seminole]

And history has no place in a game.

Maybe not in a game of chess, but this is a game with a very specific context.

As soon as the first counter is pushed, history and game diverge.

True, but that isn't the same as saying history has 'no place'. History is actually how we decide what matters in the context of this game.

If I invade Italy, push over the Alps and take Berlin in spring '45 I will probably lose the game.

Part of the problem with the game's VP system is that you don't know what that would be worth. You say probably, but can you even offer a WAG on what capturing from the Alps to Berlin would be worth? In a sense, we already have a 'fuzzy' VP system. I remember when Jocmeister was bemoaning the VP system in his AAR he talked about how in WitP people have huge spreadsheets to let them number crunch on what strategic axis and pace will put them on a winning path. I'm not aware of anything like that for WitW (Red mentioned something he made to help him with scenarios).
I did a little bit of it to try and get a handle on what sectors of Italy were 'worth' each turn through the game, but I don't have the interest to do that for the whole map.

[KWG]

"In a sense, we already have a 'fuzzy' VP system"

only fuzzy to us until a spreadsheet is done. As Iam sure some have done already. It needs to be fuzzy in terms of the game itself.

[LiquidSky]

Well..pushing over the alps to Berlin will probably cost me the game from the -1000 vp cost of not invading France. But your right...I haven't done the math.

History has no place once the game starts. I agree that it has a huge influence on how the game is created. How the objectives may or may not be assigned. How the pieces work.

But once the game starts....history has no place. It has done its bit. Now it is my turn.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

And history has no place in a game.

Maybe not in a game of chess, but this is a game with a very specific context.

As soon as the first counter is pushed, history and game diverge.

True, but that isn't the same as saying history has 'no place'. History is actually how we decide what matters in the context of this game.

The soul gets squeezed out in favor of dry analytical play to get the best final score.