Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE

[Joel Billings]

The initial post re the sudden drop in garrison requirements is a reasonable concern. We're considering options here.

As for the rest of the debate re victory points I would like to remind everyone of the many comments in WitE about how our victory system was too simple and didn't account for anything but the situation at the end of the war. We tried hard to come up with a system that would score players on how they were doing during the game, encouraging certain actions. Also, there were outside circumstances that forced choices on the player that he wouldn't make had he free reign and/or 20/20 hindsight. Some of the posts seem to just be a reaction to having negative points. Changing some items from negatives if you don't do them to positives if you do just changes the math but doesn't really alter the final results. Also, we put points on casualties for a reason. It's not simply a matter of allowing the Allies to clean out their manpower pools. We think there should be a penalty associated with taking higher losses. The last thing I want to do now is to throw out the scoring system, build a new one, and then have to balance it. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but a do over is not in the cards.

[decourcy2]

Sorry Joc, I am with Joel on this, i like the vp system here in WitW.
I think a change for garrison requirements after a withdrawal could be a one full turn leeway before the garrison requirements kick in again.

Other than that i think Italy needs more vp's around to represent the importance of Italy to the political leaders.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The initial post re the sudden drop in garrison requirements is a reasonable concern. We're considering options here.

As for the rest of the debate re victory points I would like to remind everyone of the many comments in WitE about how our victory system was too simple and didn't account for anything but the situation at the end of the war. We tried hard to come up with a system that would score players on how they were doing during the game, encouraging certain actions. Also, there were outside circumstances that forced choices on the player that he wouldn't make had he free reign and/or 20/20 hindsight. Some of the posts seem to just be a reaction to having negative points. Changing some items from negatives if you don't do them to positives if you do just changes the math but doesn't really alter the final results. Also, we put points on casualties for a reason. It's not simply a matter of allowing the Allies to clean out their manpower pools. We think there should be a penalty associated with taking higher losses. The last thing I want to do now is to throw out the scoring system, build a new one, and then have to balance it. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but a do over is not in the cards.

Joel,

With all respect. You are not encouraging anyone to do anything. You are punishing players if they don´t behave in a certain way. Its a big, big difference between the two. And I think you are downplaying the difference by saying its just a difference between positive and negative scores. Its not just about math. And there are a million reasons for not having a system like the current one. Most have to do with humans psychology. Not all of us see everything in pure numbers. The best example is with the combat losses. If you attack as the WA and win a battle you are still punished with negative VPs. This messes with the brain reward system (don´t know the English term) something terrible. I could write an essay on this but I won´t clutter this anymore then I already have.

I think the current system have a much larger impact on the way people play this game then you realize. And not in a positive way. The whole system actually discourage you to do anything as the WA. To remedy that you have put in huge penalties to force people into action. I´m sorry but that is not a good design for a game.

I´m also sorry to hear nothing will be done about it. I can certainly understand the reasons for not doing it but I still think its a wasted opportunity to get it right. I´m also fearful it means we will continue to see the use of this system in the next installments/addons. And that is not good news for the franchise and a possible future "War in Europe".

As someone wrote in one of the AAR. "The current system feels like its designed by a mathematician rather then a game designer". Its a good observation and one I think you should listen too. Mathematicians are probably not the best people to design a game... [:)]

[RedLancer]

How you can have that point of view and post "Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well" confuses me. Am I missing something?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

How you can have that point of view and post "Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well" confuses me. Am I missing something?

Yes, reality doesn´t always make for a good game? The current system reflects the realities very well. But its a poor design for a game.

[smokindave34]

You have to constrain players to some sort of reality with the VP system or you get what we have in WITE - which is players on both sides taking actions that would never have been considered in the actual conflict. I love the fact that as the axis I'm forced to garrison cities/areas to a certain level. This reflects one of the realities the high commands had to deal with.

[RedLancer]

...but if your design ethos is to reproduce the frustrations of history then it's a fair call. When I played my Op Mars scenario for WitE as the Soviets I hated my fruitless assaults and knew I'd got it pretty correct. I appreciate your view on this being a game but when I want to relax I don't play WitW - soldiering is hard work and IMO WitW's success is reproducing the same mental processes.

[marion61]

Well you got it right! It's frustrating![;)]

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...but if your design ethos is to reproduce the frustrations of history then it's a fair call. When I played my Op Mars scenario for WitE as the Soviets I hated my fruitless assaults and knew I'd got it pretty correct. I appreciate your view on this being a game but when I want to relax I don't play WitW - soldiering is hard work and IMO WitW's success is reproducing the same mental processes.

Absolutely a valid point. But I strongly believe the vast majority of people play games to have fun. Not to torment themselves. [;)] I personally believe WitW would be a better game and more fun given a different approach when it comes to the VP system. I think most game designers are confronted with the dilemma of game/fun vs. reality/historical accuracy at some point of the development. Personally I think that while many players might enjoy reality and historical accuracy a game has to be fun and make sense or they will stop playing at some point. Regardless of historical accuracy.

As I said I understand the VP system and its a good reflection of the problems faced by Allied commanders. Absolutely. But you could have achieved exactly the same thing using a more "game minded" approach.

I can only urge you to take a step back and look at the current system for the next development in the series. You can´t turn a blind eye to the fact that some things are not working well and creating frustration rather then enjoyment. And do you really want to keep piling on penalties and rules to get the desired result rather then having people do those things willingly? The ruleset for WitE 2.0 would be...interesting using the same system.

I like WitW. Especially the air war. But for me the VP system ruins the experience. Especially when it comes to multiplayer. Hopefully for you guys I´m a minority...

[whoofe]

I am ok with the penalties. I look at it as Churchill demanding the U-boat factories be taken care of early on, and then V-weapons afterwards.

and there should be some political pressure to win the war but at the same time not throw lives away like the Russians did.

that being said, some adjustments can still be made to improve the VP system. I wonder if the casualty VP losses are partially due to the way some people are playing? would be interesting to find out if anyone is using a strategy that has fairly low casualty VP loss. has anyone won a pvp major victory as WA?

[NotOneStepBack]

Don't get me wrong, I think WITW is awesome too. I want it to be realistic, but not punish you for following history. But it is a game, and it should be fun. I don't play to get the same feeling the Allies did during the war, that is awful, war isn't fun in real life. If I really wanted to experience war, I'd go fight ISIS.

Here is the thought process I have currently as a WA player:

1. Where should I invade? Well, historically it was Italy and that was a slog. I want to win the game. So I'm going to attack as little as possible in order to not incur any VP losses, so this rules out the whole Italian invasion. I also PRAY that I don't incur transport losses which are mostly random, and outside my control. I think this is a major mistep, because the player should have an incentive to move up the boot, it's actually challenging and a lot of fun if it didn't cost you a victory.

2. So I've ruled out invading Italy. Where can I invade and cause minimal casualties? I guess I'm going to retarget and either hit S. France early, or a N. Europe invasion is in order. Since I don't want to have a "no beach head" penalty loss because that will cripple my victory, I have to either take x hexes of italy and call it a 1943, or I will invade Europe early and hamper the German who still has garrison reqs. The current rule set makes it clear an early invasion is the way to go.

3. I invade northern europe in 1943 to avoid most penalties, and now the German is tied up. He doesn't have ample defenses here, so I will sit until '44 and push like hell to get Berlin early, as that is the only way I can win due to incurring casualties along the way. The mediterrean is an after-thought.

4. I only bomb specific targets in order to hit arbitrary targets to not incur losses. I don't think the u-boat or v-weapons actually matter to the war effort, but I am forced again.

I already see the game going this way in the AARs with allied players. Who really thinks a 1943 european invasion would have truly happened?

[RedLancer]

Thankfully design choices are well beyond my remit - I express opinion, often strongly too, but I am neither judge nor jury. I respect your opinion which is courteously and well expressed and would counter that a hardcore game perhaps warrants a more hardcore approach. Now where is my cilice? [;)]

[Fallschirmjager]

I have to come down on the side of the 'less punishment' crowd. I wanted to try out an option where I took Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia and then invaded south France and skipped Italy.
I am of the opinion that Italy was far too many casualties for too little gain. But in WitW I suffer a huge penalty for not invading Italy by a certain date.

I understand the design concepts involved. But I was hoping for a little more of a sandbox approach in which you could tackle the war in Europe from many different approaches. Instead the current design seems to shuttle you along the save avenue every time by saying 'you have to do this and this and this in this order to suffer huge VP penalties'

WITP is still so re-playable after almost a decade because it is historical while at the same time offering a sandbox approach in which either side can tackle the war in different manners.

[Smirfy]

As usual mel does a pretty good job of explaining, this time the lack of warmth with the VP points. The trouble with doing a a straight wargame is the VP system will be a bit contrived. What I do find strange is as politics was the central dynamic to the campaign in the west 1939-45 why has Gary's War between the States have deeper political mechanics? For me the most interesting narritives were the politcal and military clashes over strategy. Strategic use of Conferences, Bombers or Not, Day or Night, Pacific First, Lubjana Gap, Anvil, 43 or 44, broad or narrow front, Patton or Monty etc etc etc. I suppose the trouble with gaming the war in Europe is all the allied powers had divergent war aims yet we only have one Allied side. I have given up on the present VP system that has to do with losses and it is impossible to minimize them.

[Joel Billings]

Allowing the Allies to avoid opening some kind of second front in 1943 without paying a cost does not seem reasonable. If you disagree, you are free to ignore the rules and just add the lost points back to your score.

[decourcy2]

NOSB, I disagree with everything you said as it was overblown hyberbole. And yes, the Allies did invade Europe in '43 as last i checked Italy is in Europe. If you are saying NORTHERN Europe the issue was more where Allied assets were in July '43. So, I feel if Allied assets had been in England in July, then yes, a North Europe invasion could have taken place. It would have been riskier as it would be a more open front. But that goes both ways.

Fallschirmsjager you are a better person than this; you were told in a different post when you brought this up that landing in Europe will prevent point loss in Feb '44, it can be Italy it does not have to be Italy.

The point of going to Italy is for the bonus points for Rome and Naples, but there are of course risks. Real life there.

Again, i feel that there should probably be a few more points in Italy for the Allies, and i agree the game should not start at negative points, other than that this is fine.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Allowing the Allies to avoid opening some kind of second front in 1943 without paying a cost does not seem reasonable. If you disagree, you are free to ignore the rules and just add the lost points back to your score.

I agree with you 100% on the second Front. I fully understand its not practical to revise the VP model. From a practical point of view is a deeper political/strategic/victory background possible with the release of further add-ons or as a stand alone module. The Strategic gameplay of the game is really strong and would love to see it get more beef

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.

You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?

How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?

Its a great way for the WAs to gain VPs. The most effective one in the game actually.
1. WAs land in Nortern Europe.
2. Axis Garrison requirements drop so the Axis player moves out units to combat the landing.
3. The WAs pull back from Nortern Europe.
4. Garrison requirements are magically back and the Axis player won´t have a chance to move his units back to meet them.
5. Boom! Massive VP gain for the WA.

This is what happens and will continue to happen with the disastrous VP system. WA players are turning every rock and stone trying to find ways to avoid combat and the massive VP drain that comes with it. Avoiding combat. In a war game. [8|]

No this is what happens when a game is released.

Players find the loop holes and exploits.

Normal really.

The VP system clearly needs to be balanced

The garrison system needs a delay of 2-4 turns.

This is not Star Trek Germany can't teleport units in a single turn

[HMSWarspite]

Wow... let's all take a chill pill guys. Did 2by3 sneak in an steal someone's favourite toy?

I fully understand the rationale of the VP system that is in place now, and also acknowledge that it is probably too early to judge the balance. I think we need to remember who the WA player is... they are Ike meets the general staff, with a hint of political power as well. Thus the player needs to have real constraints that reflect the main other players (politicians, public opinion etc). The Uboat war through 1943 has influence that is not reflected in the game, and thus needs extra stimulus. There are 2 ways of doing this: a penalty for not doing enough or a reward for doing it. The snag in the reward is you would have to do less on the ground if you were really thorough in suppressing them. Is this realistic? No, because defeating the Uboats doesn't win the war, it just avoids a cut in food rationing in UK (for example) and creates the situation that enables the reinforcement schedule built in the game. If you ignore the Uboats, you still have the issue that the reinforcement schedule is invalid, but at least you could still win the war realistically if you do really well militarily (compensating for the loss of public/political support with faster/cheaper victories). Thus negative victory points for not doing enough is the best option. The only better one would be a (smaller) negative, but a (realistic) slow down in reinforcement. Overall the current system works for me, since I wouldn't think the effort t have variable reinforcements as worthwhile.

The V weapons issue is the same... the V1 required a huge effort to counter it and it shouldn't be possible to turn successful prosecution of the threat into a positive... merely failing to must be a negative. If allowed to progress, the V2 threat would have been even worse.

For losses, anyone who thinks that casualties were acceptable (and hence don't warrant a loss of points) needs to remember the huge trauma of WW1... The Allies need to defeat Germany without too many casualties. Whilst resource limits might be enough for the UK, limiting US resources is just not realistic. Using all the possible forces to defeat Germany would be a walkover, and limiting them ahistorically ruins a good historical game.

As for people not 'liking' negative victory points (either in total or losing points in turn)? Really? We can manage the air game, and the SUs and the supplies, and the rail, but we find negative VPs off-putting? Really? Wow!

Oh, and this garrison tactic... I agree that the Ge should get a turn or 2 to restore CV to areas after a withdrawal, but I am not sure a multi-division invasion (intending to withdraw) is actually a viable tactic for the WA. Multiple amphib HQs used and withdrawn equals weeks of delay to the 'real' invasion (you have remembered the WA cant win by not ultimately getting to Germany right?) I have not tried it but I suspect it wont deliver a win, and the Ge ought to be greeting a withdrawal with glee (even if they do lose a few VPs).

Not of this is saying the points don't need a tweak, mind.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.

You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?

How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?

Chill bro heheh I am thinking your frustrated.

1. VP system needs some tweaking to help Allies. I only play Germany so when I say Allies need some love just agree for once. The player base sees it like the sun in the sky, so disagreeing seems like stonewalling.

2. Garrison system needs a delay 2-4 turn back to levels before invasion to cut out that exploit and yes its like the yellow thing in the sky we ALL see it.


Both of these are minor tweaks.