Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[Harrybanana]

Here is some info from my last turn with QBall. And just to be clear I am not attacking indiscriminately to wrack up Allied casualties just to prove my point. But I am doing my utmost to capture the Ruhr and other key cities prior to game end.

I don't understand the -5 VWpn VPs. According to my recon all of the major Vwpn factories and launch sites are damaged. I am assuming that my recon of Cherbourg is wrong. Unfortunately it is now heavy rain, so no chance to bomb this turn.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Sorry for posting late in this debate, but here are the current results for my game vs. Carlkay. It is the first turn of January, 1945

Current VP total is +368, and if Carlkay chooses to sit, he should finish around +500 VPs

A couple notes on this game:
--Overall, Carlkay's strategic bombing campaign scored lots of points; he was consistently close to 20 a turn in 1943
--The airwar in general he did a really good job with, including interdiction
--ROME fell in March/April 1944. I did give it up willingly; I did so to simplify my garrison requirements ahead of the invasion of France. In retrospect, I may have stayed.
--The Allies right now are pinned on the Cotentin Peninsula, and in Brittany. I hold RENNES and ST LO as the most forward towns. I have 2 Corps along the Seine with a fortified line, so no matter what I do not expect to lose Paris.
--In Italy, the Allies are at the Gothic Line
--Carlkay has minimized casualties, with the exception of a botched invasion of Aquitaine, which is really why he is stuck. That cost 8 Allied divisions captured. Absent that, I think he would be in the mid-400s already

The issue to me is that the Germans can't score any points in this situation, other than by silly attacks.

QBall, I am assuming that these VPs were scored for the last turn of 44. If so with the 45 divisors his City VPs should reduce to 6 per turn and his SB Vps to 5 per turn. So with him also gaining -9 Casualty VPs per turn (which I assume is primarily attrition) he probably won't gain any more VPs. So in order to reduce him by 70 VPs in the approx 17 turns you have left you will have to inflict about 4000 extra casualties per turn (less for non-Americans).

But I agree that being required to do this by the game VP system is pretty silly. Even if it was historical for the Germans to attack aggressively (which I don't agree with) it was certainly not historical for the Allies to turtle like this. But i am not blaming Carlkay, it is the game VP system that is causing this.

[HMSWarspite]

One issue that I have raised before but never got discussed was: did the WA win on points in RL (as in: real life performance assessed in game)? If we can agree this, we then have one data point to compare with the game. My personal view is there are maybe 2 significant mistakes the WA made: poor Italian campaign, failed to tie down enough German troops and took too much effort to do it (minor German victory there?), and the broad front policy in Sept 44. They should have concentrated on clearing Antwerp, to set themselves up for the late autumn//winter (draw on this point ?). On the other hand the Germans made at least 2 major mistakes. Mortain and Bulge (with Bodenplatte as a minor aperitif). Both of those I would rate as major WA victory type events. There were issues with SB in 1943 but given the relative bombing strength I don't think they are too significant in terms of the ground war. Maybe oil could have been hit harder but it's hard enough to significantly affect Normandy even if done 'well'. Maybe a draw effect there. The post D Day SB was mostly good I think. Thus I would crudely give the WA VP record as. "2x major victory, 2 X draw and 1 minor defeat". I put that as minor WA victory. If the WA had not made their mistakes and Germany had still made theirs it could be better but in Balanced terms not too much scope for big swings pro allies but lots for pro German.

Now, why do I think it was a minor victory? Because Germany was conquered. Early May is the variable. Might have done it a month or 2 earlier. Could easily have been a month or 2 delayed. Would we count it as a victory if the German army was on its last legs in May 1945 as Berlin falls but the Allies are west of the Ruhr? I don't think so. So medium successful SB, but less cities gives poorer result. So we need more points for cities to discourage a turtle being see. As success.

Let's have opposing views and discuss it. Then we can decompose the result as agree on as to which elements we think are important and which less so. For instance I think the SB can be characterised (in RL) as the WA bombed for more for VPs in 1943 than for prime ground effect (transport/AFVs/Oil)...

[KWG]

Here are some of my thoughts and ponderings on this.

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." - Churchill

Real life was it?
Allies - unconditional victory.
Axis - total defeat.



I see the entire Vp system in game as a tie breaker when its not obvious who won. Though it may be possible for the Allies to wipe out the German forces, capture Berlin and still lose in VPs.

The Germans can throw every invasion attempt into the sea and lose with Vps.

As Germans I can defeat the Allies on land but lose from VPs and I dont strip down garrisons. I do take some units off garrison and it doesnt take much to take severe garrison VP hits.


In real life did the strategic bombing produce even less VPs?

German production increased, new technologies. No matter what the target of the day was strategic bombing evolved into what was done to Hamburg in '43, both day and night bombers became city destroyers and had one true target - manpower.

Many people at the time believed that strategic bombing was a waste of resources. And looking back, more believe it was, watched a documentary last night where one person argued so.

Yet at the time there were those that said strategic bombing would win the war, as the when the Allies turtle down is represented in game.

Seems it's easier for the player to do better as German than as Allies. When the player does a better than historical response in dealing with Invasions what must the Allied player do?

As I posted above:
"Some way to account for "All Types of Destruction to Enemy" and "Territory Held" for both sides."

One can have a pyrrhic victory for winning a battle, can it also be said of winning the war?

[Peltonx]

Turn 39 VP’s this turn: 3 Total: -258
Troop ships lost: 147 Cargo: 1186

The cost of taking Italy first tragedy.

[Peltonx]

The safe Brittany invasion strategy

[Peltonx]

The invasion spam stragegy

[Peltonx]

Lets invade southern france (skipping 2nd Italian invasion<Anzio>), then Normandy then Denmark strategy.

[Peltonx]

Germany can not "win" WitW, but can do better then Historical. That's the only gaol possible as Germany all things being equal.

WitE Germany can win and win the War so to speak.

[Peltonx]

Just a hint logistics is what matters not invasion spam.

Good supplies and grind-KWG has it 1/2 right. Could post another dozen games but we all get the point.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

One issue that I have raised before but never got discussed was: did the WA win on points in RL (as in: real life performance assessed in game)? If we can agree this, we then have one data point to compare with the game. My personal view is there are maybe 2 significant mistakes the WA made: poor Italian campaign, failed to tie down enough German troops and took too much effort to do it (minor German victory there?), and the broad front policy in Sept 44. They should have concentrated on clearing Antwerp, to set themselves up for the late autumn//winter (draw on this point ?). On the other hand the Germans made at least 2 major mistakes. Mortain and Bulge (with Bodenplatte as a minor aperitif). Both of those I would rate as major WA victory type events. There were issues with SB in 1943 but given the relative bombing strength I don't think they are too significant in terms of the ground war. Maybe oil could have been hit harder but it's hard enough to significantly affect Normandy even if done 'well'. Maybe a draw effect there. The post D Day SB was mostly good I think. Thus I would crudely give the WA VP record as. "2x major victory, 2 X draw and 1 minor defeat". I put that as minor WA victory. If the WA had not made their mistakes and Germany had still made theirs it could be better but in Balanced terms not too much scope for big swings pro allies but lots for pro German.

Now, why do I think it was a minor victory? Because Germany was conquered. Early May is the variable. Might have done it a month or 2 earlier. Could easily have been a month or 2 delayed. Would we count it as a victory if the German army was on its last legs in May 1945 as Berlin falls but the Allies are west of the Ruhr? I don't think so. So medium successful SB, but less cities gives poorer result. So we need more points for cities to discourage a turtle being see. As success.

Let's have opposing views and discuss it. Then we can decompose the result as agree on as to which elements we think are important and which less so. For instance I think the SB can be characterised (in RL) as the WA bombed for more for VPs in 1943 than for prime ground effect (transport/AFVs/Oil)...

keeping to this theme - I'd agree with your scoring but disagree with your interpretation. To grossly oversimplify, I'd argue that to the end of 1944 both the Western Allies and the Soviets had one fundamental war goal - to destroy Germany - and mostly were prepared to see this done by the side that could do the most damage. By 1945 both had an increasingly important other goal - to beat the other side to the share of the spoils. You can see this most clearly in the shift in allied approach in Italy.

By the end of 1944 they stopped supporting the partisan war (some Italian communists believe they were effectively betrayed to the Germans in the winter), started to do deals with senior figures in the Republic of Salo (so as to inherit a functioning state), and the race for Trieste in May 45 to beat Tito. Note I am not saying in the slightest that the Soviets weren't up to far worse in their sphere.

So I'd argue it ended with an allied marginal defeat. For the moment, the Soviets won - that they couldn't digest their huge meal is a different point.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Just a hint logistics is what matters not invasion spam.

Good supplies and grind-KWG has it 1/2 right. Could post another dozen games but we all get the point.

Your point, I assume, is that most of the Allied strategies attempted against you so far have all been failures. But has any one yet tried against you the "Maximize SB VPs and Turtle Strategy"? If not then when you have the time I would welcome the chance to introduce you to it.

[Harrybanana]

Last turn was heavy rain so my attacks were limited. This meant that I actually gained some VPs. It is now March 10, 1945. I am close to winning a Minor Victory; of course, not as close as I was 20 turns ago when I actually was winning a Minor Victory. So I ask again, in the 8 turns left to me what would be my best strategy to win this victory? Keep on the offensive to capture key German Cities and industry, or Turtle? Personally I think the answer is obvious. But perhaps Carlkay is correct and there will be some payoff for me at the end of the Game, so the offensive resumes.

[HMSWarspite]

Ok, I accept your logic although I was leaving the wider political aspect out. In your terms, WA did turtle right at the end in line with agreements at Yalta.



Taking your analysis, how could WA do better than they did? I don't
see them doing much better in the north. I guess they could have used a much more agressive amphib strategy in Italy after DDay and knocked them out of the war. Then what? On the other hand, without Bulge the Germans could have held on longer... Although not much as their economy collapsed under the bombing. But in your analysis they need some hundreds of extra VP from somewhere.

Back to in game, they could get a few more in Italy. The only other places are more SB points or less casualty points. If they had more SB under the current system it would have to have come 1943, which means even more likely for a player to turtle. I am looking at casualties at the moment, and will be surprised if they can come from there.

Your political logic points to lots of VP being given at end of game for Italy, Denmark, and certain deep cities in Germany... Get to at least the Elbe. Not Berlin though?

[HMSWarspite]

Has anyone tried an audit of VPs vs real life. There are 3 aspects (mostly):
- casualties: should be possible. For example the US ETO/MTO deaths are c175000, and total (dead, wounded, prisoner) of 750000. Eliminating pre-Husky, gives c746,000. There needs to be a correction to this for AF - in game each a/c is '1' crew regardless, so the AF losses need correcting for this - reduce them by 50%? I need to find a source of 'others' casualties. But US casualties will be c700 VP? (I need to check the exact implementation of the VP - for example the disabled at start probably means I should not exclude 'pre-Husky'
- cities: easy by tedious to do (capture date of the cities gives the required info)
- SB:very difficult, but I would propose we discuss an average sustainable rate for a PvP, (not extreme best). Maybe 12-15VP per turn (pro-rata with the divisors).

This then gives a VP 'total' for real life, and we just need to decide what level of victory that is, and whether we can then stimulate anti-turtle activity... i.e. extra VP at end etc.

[Harrybanana]

The problem with the VP System is that there is a real payoff to the WA for performing Strategic Bombing, but no payoff for the ground war. For example, If you look at my VPs above you will see that my net SB Gain is 477 (631-154) while with my ground campaign I have a net loss of 114 (1121-1007). In other words, it has cost me more VPs to capture cities than the VPs I will gain from them. Although Carlkay's numbers are different his results are the same.

As the War progresses and there are less turns to gain VPs from captured cities the incentive to capture these cities evaporates.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

The problem with the VP System is that there is a real payoff to the WA for performing Strategic Bombing, but no payoff for the ground war. For example, If you look at my VPs above you will see that my net SB Gain is 477 (631-154) while with my ground campaign I have a net loss of 114 (1121-1007). In other words, it has cost me more VPs to capture cities than the VPs I will gain from them. Although Carlkay's numbers are different his results are the same.

As the War progresses and there are less turns to gain VPs from captured cities the incentive to capture these cities evaporates.

And that is, I think, the key. We could work out in RL the casualty VP 'lost' by the Allies, and the city VP won. I suspect that this is seriously into draw if not worse. Then SB is the only way out. Therein lies the problem.

To re-balance, we need a competent attack against a competent defence to be just profitable. Then, to win, you have SB, or a better than competent ground war (or poor defence). I am pretty sure we haven't got that. Or the players who can are all staying silent...

[LiquidSky]

It's too easy as the Allies to 'accelerate' the timetable and take cities. Rome can and will fall before 1944. Casualties can be kept low by making the axis retreat. The Netherlands is filled with cities all in close proximity to a lot of airpower.

If you balance the game for the extreme, then the average person who wants to try an historical route will lose..and be frustrated. If you balance it for the historical route...then the person who knows how to read a map will win.

There are a lot of complexities in this game. A lot of different ways to reach the end. I don't think it will be work to compare the game to history. When the game begins, the allies didn't even know what they were going to do following Sicily. The Germans had no intention of defending all of Italy, and were planning to retreat to the north. All this changed later..after the game starts....essentially freeing the players to come up with their own strategic plans.

Even the strategic bombing campaign went through some revisions during the war. Unlike the eastern front, where the strategic goal is cut and dried (Take Berlin! At all costs!) The strategic goal in the west is in flux.

So how do you make a victory point system that rewards 'historical' behaviour, if that history was unstable?

I think we all need to take a deep breath and accept the fact that the vps are not going to make logical sense to everyone. So throw out the idea of history, and just come up with a vp system that covers the basics. The players will know who won. Because winning the game is not the same thing as winning the war.

[LiquidSky]

If you are curious as to what the basics are:

Both sides need to be able to earn vps. Its okay to use negative to denote one side and positive for the other. We are all educated enough to do simple arithmetic.

It doesn't have to be gained for the same things, but they should complement some how. Strat bombing cities for vps matched with bombers shot down for example....casualty points on one side with cities taken on the other. And none of the systems should overpower the others. You want to aim for zero being a draw. The more positive (or negative) the better the win. That way we can compare. Peltons German win at -449 compared to somebody elses at -490...

A sliding scale is fine, but should reflect urgency and scale of forces. As said before, you don't want one vp system being much greater then another. You want people to being using every system they can to get the most vps they can. Not throwing one system out for another because it is an order of magnitude better.

As it stands the system that is in place is pretty close. The casualty points tend to overshadow the city points, but the strat bombing can make up for it. The real problem I think is that the German side has little control over vps.. and can only win if the allied player makes mistakes. I am confident of beating anyone as the allies, but as the Germans, I have to hope I can guess certain events. Or for the allies to make a mistake.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

It's too easy as the Allies to 'accelerate' the timetable and take cities. Rome can and will fall before 1944. Casualties can be kept low by making the axis retreat. The Netherlands is filled with cities all in close proximity to a lot of airpower.

You are correct that it is too easy for the Allies to accelerate the capture of some cities (not sure as I agree with you about the Netherlands though). But at the same time I believe it may be too difficult for them to take others that historically were captured, especially in Central Germany. But I think you make my argument for me. To win the game as the Allies you just have to capture the easy cities and then let your SBs do the rest.

If you balance the game for the extreme, then the average person who wants to try an historical route will lose..and be frustrated. If you balance it for the historical route...then the person who knows how to read a map will win.

There are a lot of complexities in this game. A lot of different ways to reach the end. I don't think it will be work to compare the game to history. When the game begins, the allies didn't even know what they were going to do following Sicily. The Germans had no intention of defending all of Italy, and were planning to retreat to the north. All this changed later..after the game starts....essentially freeing the players to come up with their own strategic plans.

With respect, if you don't compare the game to history (ie by measuring Victory in terms of historical objectives) then I for one would lose interest very quickly. You may be correct that there may be different ways to reach the end; but the end goal for the Western Allies was the defeat of the enemy as quickly as possible. As the war progressed a secondary goal was to capture as much territory as possible before the Russians. Neither of these goals would have been achieved by the Allies Turtling.

Even the strategic bombing campaign went through some revisions during the war. Unlike the eastern front, where the strategic goal is cut and dried (Take Berlin! At all costs!) The strategic goal in the west is in flux.

So how do you make a victory point system that rewards 'historical' behaviour, if that history was unstable?

The strategic goal in the West was never "in flux." The goal was always to defeat Germany as quickly as possible, preferably with low casualties, but if high casualties were necessary then so be it. The only thing that was "in flux" was how best to achieve this goal. To defeat Germany the Allies always knew that they would probably have to invade Europe and Germany itself. So yes, prior to Sicily the Allies had not firmly decided where they were going to attack next; but that they would attack somewhere was a given. Even Bomber Harris was not suggesting that the war could be won by SB alone. And I would suggest that this is no different than the Eastern Front. Prior to the their Winter 42/43 Offensive the Russians had not decided where they were going to attack next either.

I think we all need to take a deep breath and accept the fact that the vps are not going to make logical sense to everyone. So throw out the idea of history, and just come up with a vp system that covers the basics. The players will know who won. Because winning the game is not the same thing as winning the war.

You may be right that whatever VP system you have not everyone will be happy, but I think we can please a lot more people with a VP system that gives more weight to the territory occupied by the respective combatants at Wars end.