VPs that encouraged historical strategy

[karonagames]

I am going to put together an excel sheet just for fun to see what values one would arrive at using the historical capture and recapture dates of cities in the Soviet Union. For a start I am going to give each city hex 1 VP per turn, with certain exceptions:

Why don't you use the existing VP system, so you could do a direct comparison - the current system shows the number of VPs held each turn, so you could work out the "historical" culmulative amount of VPs for each turn, so players could keep their own spreadsheet to see how they are comparing to the historical VP levels.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.

Why the WITE began? Because of Stalin?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.

Why the WITE began? Because of Stalin?

I guess if Stalin went by his birth name, it would of never started.

Jughashviligrad doesn't have the same ring to it though.

[alfonso]

The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start. I really have serious doubts about Simferopol being an important part of Hitler rationale for invading the USSR. I think that the easy willingness perceived in some posts for exchanging geographical locations for political imperatives (as if they were the same) shows some lack of consistency in the proposal.

Each Axis player should have the option to choose what cities he wants (for depriving the other side of manpower, to grab resources, to “activate” the Finns…). If I think that the conquer of Crimea is a diversion I cannot afford to reach my ultimate objectives, why should I be forced, or even encouraged, to conquer it? Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives.

The game already rewards the possession of urban hexes at the end, and the player who holds them more turns has already the correspondent manpower and resource benefits. The VP system is a generous (albeit a little bit non-historical) attempt to give the Axis a fair chance to “win”. If we want to play a historical 1941 GC game, as stated by the OP, anything that is not the complete destruction of the Soviet will to fight is a German defeat. And if we want force us to reach historical geographical objectives, then everything short of the Murmansk-Astrakhan line is a German defeat.

That said, I think that as option, or mod, or scenario, or whatever (optative) the proposal is interesting, but I don’t like the suggestion that those who are more or less OK with the victory points being earned only at the end turn are playing “for nothing” or playing a non-historical game.

Summarizing, the proposal has its merits, but presenting it as more “historical” is unfair.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start...Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives.

I thnk you are being too harsh on Tarhunnas' proposal. The bottom line is that this game treats every city hex exactly the same (OK, other than industry), which completely ignores important political and diplomatic aspects which weighed on actual decisions to some extent during the war. His mix of cities might not be 100% correct, but his proposal hardly "throws history out of the window"; rather playing without any political context at all is rather unrealistic.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start. I really have serious doubts about Simferopol being an important part of Hitler rationale for invading the USSR. I think that the easy willingness perceived in some posts for exchanging geographical locations for political imperatives (as if they were the same) shows some lack of consistency in the proposal.

Each Axis player should have the option to choose what cities he wants (for depriving the other side of manpower, to grab resources, to “activate” the Finns…). If I think that the conquer of Crimea is a diversion I cannot afford to reach my ultimate objectives, why should I be forced, or even encouraged, to conquer it? Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives.

The game already rewards the possession of urban hexes at the end, and the player who holds them more turns has already the correspondent manpower and resource benefits. The VP system is a generous (albeit a little bit non-historical) attempt to give the Axis a fair chance to “win”. If we want to play a historical 1941 GC game, as stated by the OP, anything that is not the complete destruction of the Soviet will to fight is a German defeat. And if we want force us to reach historical geographical objectives, then everything short of the Murmansk-Astrakhan line is a German defeat.

That said, I think that as option, or mod, or scenario, or whatever (optative) the proposal is interesting, but I don’t like the suggestion that those who are more or less OK with the victory points being earned only at the end turn are playing “for nothing” or playing a non-historical game.

Summarizing, the proposal has its merits, but presenting it as more “historical” is unfair.

No, as I said in #59, my suggestion was that all city hexes would give 1 VP to the player posessing them at the end of the turn. Thus, Engels and Saratov, as cities, would give VP to the side that controlled them.

I suggested 2 VPs per turn for some cities, among them Simferopol, not because the place in itself is important, but to simulate the political effect (on turkey and Rumania etc) of occupying the Crimea. This would give the player the option of either bypassing the Crimea to pursue other aims, foregoing the VPs, or taking it to gain the VPs, simulatiing the political imperatives for taking it.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start...Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives.

I thnk you are being too harsh on Tarhunnas' proposal. The bottom line is that this game treats every city hex exactly the same (OK, other than industry), which completely ignores important political and diplomatic aspects which weighed on actual decisions to some extent during the war. His mix of cities might not be 100% correct, but his proposal hardly "throws history out of the window"; rather playing without any political context at all is rather unrealistic.

Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical.

Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: alfonso


Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical...Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view...

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding your perspective. Some cities/locations had a political significance far greater than their economic value. While I don't claim to be able to give you a list of cities and reasons for their political significance, you seem to be basically saying that political considerations should play no role at all? The most important cities from a political/diplomatic perspective, are, well, the cities that had the greatest political and diplomatic significance, for reasons of prestige, etc. Sevastopol is one example, Stalingrad another. Moreover, I've read several posts on this forum that there is not much point in capturing Moscow, because "it is just another city". In the game this is correct, although IRL there was at least some chance (admittedly perhaps not very high) that capturing would lead to the fall of USSR--in the game this is absolutely not the case.

[Aurelian]

Politics?

Not in a game that neither is about nation building or even cover WW2.

And why would Simferopol play any role? And just who would it effect? Not the Axis allies, as they are already in the war. Certainly not Turkey. Russia lost the whole Crimea. German troops got as far as Alagir, and Turkey stayed out.

You want politics to play a role? Then the Axis have to get to the AA line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line

Alfonso is right. History is getting thrown out the window.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: alfonso


Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical...Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view...

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding your perspective. Some cities/locations had a political significance far greater than their economic value. While I don't claim to be able to give you a list of cities and reasons for their political significance, you seem to be basically saying that political considerations should play no role at all? The most important cities from a political/diplomatic perspective, are, well, the cities that had the greatest political and diplomatic significance, for reasons of prestige, etc. Sevastopol is one example, Stalingrad another. Moreover, I've read several posts on this forum that there is not much point in capturing Moscow, because "it is just another city". In the game this is correct, although IRL there was at least some chance (admittedly perhaps not very high) that capturing would lead to the fall of USSR--in the game this is absolutely not the case.

Stalingrad was only a name in the map until the erratic moves of a gigantic war made a schwerpunkt of it. Just to cite an example.

I would concede that some extraordinary cities may have some additional value, like Berlin. Leningrad and Moscow are possible additional examples. As these two Russian cities never were taken, there is no historical fact to base the consequences of their capture. The game assigns a role to Leningrad when activating the Finns (not a random event, but a certainty), so it seems a fair trade already.

[alfonso]

The problem with turn based victory points is the following

August 1944: A soviet huge offensive destroys in a single climactic blow Army Groups Centre and North. Nothing interposes between Zhukov and Berlin. After hitting F12, the Soviet player is informed that he has lost already because Simferopol was held by the Axis during 148 turns and the advantage in VP cannot be countered.

I then would like to read the posts in the forum...

[Thomas_B]

Actually, to address your immediate point Alfonso, I'd rather ask the Soviet player why he conducted this war winning offensive in the AGC/AGN area instead of where it apparently mattered with regard to determination of victory conditions - given that the VP conditions are transparent to both sides.

Still, I think the debate is going a bit astray with this artifical focus on places like "Simferopol" or whereever. I don't think there is a need to invent victory points for arbitrary locations - key geographic/demographic/political/economical centers have already VP associated with them, (as does the destruction of the opposing military forces) - just award those points pro rata on a per turn basis instead of in one lump sum at games end.

I believe this could very well change the dynamics of campaign games

[Aurelian]

Awarding points on the Soviets on a pro rata basis works.

Oh, wait. It doesn't matter how many points they get.

Being that they don't get any.

And the destruction of units has no point value in the campaign either.

And it is the campaign some want to change.

[matt.buttsworth]

It is a simple problem.
In my games of WITP AE we always have agreed houserules before the beginning of the game.
Why not do that with your opponent in WITE on a private basis?
By memory the victory points in WIR were

Moscow 3 points
Leningrad 1 point
Gorki 1 point
Stalingrad 1 point

The German player needed 5 victory points to win.
Victory points for the Russian player were meaningless as by the time he reached Berlin he would be crushing everything.
Victory points for the German player were thrilling as it gave him a good chance of winning if he gained Moscow and Leningrad (possible) and made the Soviet player desperate to hold Moscow at all costs.
Quite an enjoyable scenario.

Matthew Buttsworth

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

Actually, to address your immediate point Alfonso, I'd rather ask the Soviet player why he conducted this war winning offensive in the AGC/AGN area instead of where it apparently mattered with regard to determination of victory conditions - given that the VP conditions are transparent to both sides.

Still, I think the debate is going a bit astray with this artifical focus on places like "Simferopol" or whereever. I don't think there is a need to invent victory points for arbitrary locations - key geographic/demographic/political/economical centers have already VP associated with them, (as does the destruction of the opposing military forces) - just award those points pro rata on a per turn basis instead of in one lump sum at games end.

I believe this could very well change the dynamics of campaign games

The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944….

Ok, you say, forget about special political incentives: just keep the points as they are, highlighting “important” cities, but in small pieces instead of a big cake at the end. I do not see why this would add historical flavour to the game, because in real wars it is the final result what tends to matter. Imagine, after the hard fought battle at Omaha Beach, that the American soldiers were informed that they have lost the war, because Germany has held Paris during 4 years already…

The only city for which I could find that system appropriate is Berlin itself, expressed in a slightly different manner: if Germany holds Berlin until turn 200, (or 250, or whatever), Germany wins. It's the German player who decides where he wants to stand and fight.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

It is a simple problem.
In my games of WITP AE we always have agreed houserules before the beginning of the game.
Why not do that with your opponent in WITE on a private basis?
By memory the victory points in WIR were

Moscow 3 points
Leningrad 1 point
Gorki 1 point
Stalingrad 1 point

The German player needed 5 victory points to win.
Victory points for the Russian player were meaningless as by the time he reached Berlin he would be crushing everything.
Victory points for the German player were thrilling as it gave him a good chance of winning if he gained Moscow and Leningrad (possible) and made the Soviet player desperate to hold Moscow at all costs.
Quite an enjoyable scenario.

Matthew Buttsworth

Yes, I liked that too...

Moscow and Leningrad are obviously important, and Gorki and Stalingrad were more or less the east edge of the map, rather than important cities by themselves. I think Saratov also gave 1 point, for the same reasons.

[matt.buttsworth]

yes I forgot Saratov.
That was doable. And made the second year German offensive more gripping.

MB

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944….

I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944….

I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion.

Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made.

Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians?

[Pawlock]

Well I like the idea of some kinda VPs for the GC .Perhaps then maybe you may see some more games going past mid 1942 . Lets face it, good luck finding an Axis player who likes getting steamrollered for around 170 odd turns just to see if Berlin falls or not.