ORIGINAL: whoofe
grumpy mel does make one good point in that post. it would be interesting to have a different (dare I say random?) set of strategic bombing objectives given the WA (and unknown to the axis side) at the start of each game, possibly changed every 6 months or so?
perhaps HI and manpower always give VPs, but the oil & fuel could be randomly changed with other targets
for example - at the game start, WA is told that bombing aircraft factories and resources is the strategic objective that gives positive bombing VPs rather than fuel and oil. the axis player would not initially know this, and would have to learn it by paying attention to what targets are being hit.
then on January 1, two new strategic targets are chosen at random - perhaps this time oil and AFVs. it doesn't have to be totally random, perhaps a weighted table of some sort. and the VPs gained may have to be weighted based on target potential. I am sure its a bit complex, but at least an option to think about
dunno if that possible to implement, but it would make for a some interesting change and replayability.
Whoofe, while that would be a twist that would help reduce predictability.... I'm not sure that would be better in actualy giving the player AGENCY over their decisions and setting their priorties ..... which is really more what I'm talking about.
For example....
Does the player concentrate on fuel and rail to strangle the Axis mobility?
Does the player hammer Axis aircraft production so they get air superiority sooner and more decisively, and allow them to effectively hammer other industries as well as more freely stage landings and deliver close air support?
Do they put less emphasis into strategic targets and more into direct combat support, or interdiction... even if some of those bombers aren't ideally suited for it?
Do they hammer the Axis armament and AFV industries to starve the important Axis combat units of weaponry?
Do they go all in for manpower? To make the Axis unable to replace their combat losses of troops?
Do they go for U-boats and V-weapons to try to reduce the Axis abillity to threaten shipping and the flow of men and materials to their own combat forces as well as the "National Morale" (which probably effects how well their combat forces actually fight)
These all seem like potential viable strategies for trying to "win the war" from the air side of things. Ideally, (in my perfect game) the player would have the agency to choose which one or one's they wanted to try to pursue. The VP system... if the player actually pays attention to it, really cuts into the players agency to make that decision and see how it works....and rather forces them to follow it's own script.
There is an easy solution though...and I think it's one that I am likely to take.... just ignore that system entirely and play the way you would want if it didn't exist. Just seems a bit of a shame to me, but I guess that's ok.
P.S. Warspite.... I think perhaps what we are bumping into here is that people play wargames, even as narrow an audience as would play WitW, for different reasons and look for and want different things out of them. The Designers can't satisfy all...and their own design goals trump all.... it doesn't mean people are not going to express their own ideas, feelings and preferences about it in the games forum though. Heck, it doesn't even mean that the designers should try and accommodate those players in that particular game.... but maybe it's informative if they ever try to release a different game in future for a slightly different target audience... gives them an idea of the different sorts of audiences that are out there which might have some interest in their releases.
P.P.S. I think what Pelton described is clearly just a detail of how 1 particular mechanic can be "gamed".... a few of the rest of us are just spouting off about different preferences of VP system styles.
