Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE

[HMSWarspite]

The Mk XXI was a throwaway remark, and not exactly key to the debate. But just out of curiosity, why did the Germans go to all the trouble of dispersing production and making it in sections? I suppose they felt it would be more fun,and stretch their manufacturing engineers, or provide an employment scheme for surplus Quality Assurance staff?[8|]

I do not accept that bombing did not affect the production rate. In exactly the same way the bombing campaign generally was not a failure merely because German production rose during it. The question is 'what would it have done without the bombing?'

[HMSWarspite]

But what is the forced behaviour you object to? I have shown that the only 'real' one is the bombing. The land campaign not forced. Unless you object to paying for casualties... in which case this isnt exactly the first game with a 'cost' for casualties.

You are right... I really do not get what your issue is. You cannot play different air strategies (with any semblance of realism) without recognising there are aspects that are not modelled.

I appreciate that this game has constraints, but then it is a game of WW2 in the West. These debates are similar to the old 'why no production control' in WitE. Or Why can't I do the Balkans strategy? Not in the scope of the game,and to be added, requires loads of other stuff (like a full model of German industry/economy and WA supply network from the US.

Back to the original point? What about the gradual change to GArrison rules I suggested earlier, rather than a lag in switching back on again?

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

A few things to keep in mind:

* The Allies can and will conduct more amphibious invasions than were done historically. There were six major invasions in Europe (North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Normandy and South France). A WA player can easily exceed that through outflanking maneuvers in Italy, for example.

* WITW exacts no penalty for a failed amphib. I and others have seen Allied assault bridgeheads totally wiped out. That never happened in real life (not counting Dieppe, which was more of a raid). If it had, Allied heads would have rolled from Ike on down. WITW assesses VP losses for troops and ships destroyed, but not for the simple fact that an invasion force was destroyed.

* The above means that the Allies will be more aggressive than historically, but that may be necessary because an experienced German can make a good guess at when and where the Allies will land, how long it will take the amphs to recycle for the next landing, and they will probably have the EF box to draw on.

How this should play out in VPs, or in the question of historically realistic gameplay, I don't know. It looks to me like the VPs are unduly harsh on the Allies, but on the other hand, the Allies will be far more aggressive.

I have not worked it out... the game does allow more than they did, but does it allow more than they could have done?

[decourcy2]

Some great replies here.
I would add that you might want to quit looking at your vp's every turn if they are getting you down. With strategic bombing targets like aircraft, armour, vehicles your reward as the Allied player is conquering Germany faster because they have less. I have a feeling that the vehicle industry could be vulnerable but i am unsure.

Will conquering Germany quicker equal or exceed the points you get for bombing U-boats? I don't know but it will be interesting to find out.

I didn't know how this discussion got started as i almost never look at my vp total. Don't care.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

Some great replies here.
I would add that you might want to quit looking at your vp's every turn if they are getting you down. With strategic bombing targets like aircraft, armour, vehicles your reward as the Allied player is conquering Germany faster because they have less. I have a feeling that the vehicle industry could be vulnerable but i am unsure.

Will conquering Germany quicker equal or exceed the points you get for bombing U-boats? I don't know but it will be interesting to find out.

I didn't know how this discussion got started as i almost never look at my vp total. Don't care.

quite right. The game builds in, via the VP mechanism, the diversion of resources to other areas. You either generate the VPs to divert or lose the VPs (ie the Battle of the Atlantic is costing both sides in 1943). Now the really interesting trade off is can you as the allies do more damage by accepting greater losses in the Atlantic (ie by bombing other strategic targets in Germany).

The game doesn't stop you following that strategy, it merely then deducts VPs (=resources) to reflect the greater losses outside the game engine.

for what it worth, I think bombing out the rail net really hurts the Axis, both much less strategic movement and less productive capacity. But there may be other choke points too, or, even better, they may shift as the game develops. My instinct in 1943 is that vehicles don't matter too much as land combat is limited, but that *might* cripple the German army in 1944 ... or not

[Steelers708]

Well in real life the Allies didn't do the things they did e.g bombing U-boat factories, because there were VP's at stake so surely the simple answer for people who don't like being constrained and like to explore the what if's is simple:

A) Have a check box similar to the EF Box where you decide to play with VP on or off.

B) Have duplicate scenarios where there are no VP's.

I'm sure that playing as either side that at the end of the scenario, be it long or short, that the player would have a good idea of how he did compared to real life, and, whether the Allies would still have won the war as they did in real life by conquering Germany. This would also add to the replayability as instead of thinking, 'oh! Hitting the Luftwaffe hard and earlier didn't work, I'm going to try again only this time go after the AFV factories instead'.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The Mk XXI was a throwaway remark, and not exactly key to the debate. But just out of curiosity, why did the Germans go to all the trouble of dispersing production and making it in sections? I suppose they felt it would be more fun,and stretch their manufacturing engineers, or provide an employment scheme for surplus Quality Assurance staff?[8|]

I do not accept that bombing did not affect the production rate. In exactly the same way the bombing campaign generally was not a failure merely because German production rose during it. The question is 'what would it have done without the bombing?'

I'm sure bombing did a degree of damage to UBoat production but it was not the driving force IMHO . Alot of the targets were things associated with the campaign like the Focke Wulf plant making Condor's Optic factories or in Harris's case flattening a city because its beside water therefore part of the uboat construction program.

The bottleneck, apart from skilled Labour in Uboat production was said to be the dry docks and slips they were actually built on ie they occupied it through their build, Speer believed if he prefabricated the boats inland then they would be in the dry docks or on the slips for the mininum amount of time and would not interfere with the production of VII's especially if he was using inland production facilities with no connection to shipbuilding

To give an example what UBoat production took up, the Germans were greatly restricted in developing oil pipelines because the demand for UBoats took up practically all the output of firms making pumps.

One also has to question Speers motives he was a control freak out for power and a self publiscist.


As for bombing in general in 1943, Speer planned the war economy around a large increase in monthly steel production, the Battle of the Ruhr put paid to that causing armaments increases to flat line until March 44.

But anyway back to Victory points

[LiquidSky]

In my game with Pelton, I decided before the game started that I would try to 'minimize' vps. In other words, rather then fight hard to eliminate all negative's, I would just try and balance the vp budget. If the turn started and I had 0 vp's from the previous turn, I was happy.

As the game goes on, I get more and more positive vp's for cities, and bombing easier targets, which allows me to ignore the vp losing stuff, like bombing U-boats. When the U-boat factories reach full, and my score is in the negative teens, I will launch one strike to bring it back down to a manageable level.

This is the early game strategy.

After I invade, I start to get more negative points, which I hope is countered with more city points, and more lucrative bombing targets (as escorts get closer, allowing me to range farther) I also get more and more bombers so I can fly more and more missions. Now I try and achieve a more positive balance..like one or two vps a turn.

By the last third of the game, I hope that with good play, I can end up in a position to take German cities. Which provides the double whammy of bombing points and city points with their fall. And hopefully they reach a breaking point where I can get maybe 10-20 points a turn.

In other words, I am not trying to win the game in 1943. Even though the game designers have done away with the VP carrot at the end, and put in a more gradual system, the system is not linear, and is weighted towards the end game. So I don't mind 'losing' vp's in the early game if I can counter it with 'gaining' them in the end game.

And it keeps the German player focused. After all, he is the one getting a pounding, so it is good for him to see 'negative' points. It makes him think he is winning.

[NotOneStepBack]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



In my game with Pelton, I decided before the game started that I would try to 'minimize' vps. In other words, rather then fight hard to eliminate all negative's, I would just try and balance the vp budget. If the turn started and I had 0 vp's from the previous turn, I was happy.

As the game goes on, I get more and more positive vp's for cities, and bombing easier targets, which allows me to ignore the vp losing stuff, like bombing U-boats. When the U-boat factories reach full, and my score is in the negative teens, I will launch one strike to bring it back down to a manageable level.

This is the early game strategy.

After I invade, I start to get more negative points, which I hope is countered with more city points, and more lucrative bombing targets (as escorts get closer, allowing me to range farther) I also get more and more bombers so I can fly more and more missions. Now I try and achieve a more positive balance..like one or two vps a turn.

By the last third of the game, I hope that with good play, I can end up in a position to take German cities. Which provides the double whammy of bombing points and city points with their fall. And hopefully they reach a breaking point where I can get maybe 10-20 points a turn.

In other words, I am not trying to win the game in 1943. Even though the game designers have done away with the VP carrot at the end, and put in a more gradual system, the system is not linear, and is weighted towards the end game. So I don't mind 'losing' vp's in the early game if I can counter it with 'gaining' them in the end game.

And it keeps the German player focused. After all, he is the one getting a pounding, so it is good for him to see 'negative' points. It makes him think he is winning.

I agree with you besides one point, in '45 the city vp modifier drops vps on cities heavily, and there are only so many turns to rack up positive vps. I think the city vps should go back to higher levels.

[HMSWarspite]

Did the devs/testers ever try and determine the VP profile from RL (vs time). It might be illuminating. The city capture would be easy, and the casualties so, but the bombing, and especially the garrison VP would be harder (also the EF, because that is more subjective- did the Sovs win a given operation due to low CV or a low probabilty success?)

[HMSWarspite]

On the subject of forced responses, I currently am playing a WA game vs AI, and have been trying radical Med options. I took Sicily with 8A, and Sardinia with 7US. Then I have hit Corsica. 5US hit the mainland north or Rome in early Oct. I have thus avoided the slog up Italy, and jumped Cassino etc. The flip side is the French defences seem really solid (from recce), and I think I have suffered from not sucking troops south. Thus I see that alternatives are very possible, and the all have their pluses and minuses. Because I was trying alternatives I have not really been playing the VPs or the air war... I have just been ticking over. However I still have +9 VP on turn 25, and 193 bombing VP. I have -134 UB VP (worse than I go for usually). I dont really understand what the whole 'constrained' thing is about. It is not hard to trade points one for the other. If I had been playing my 'best' air game, I would expect maybe about the same Bombing or more, and 25 or 30 less negative UB. I find it is not hard to keep UB to just above 4 per turn average (3 a lot of turns and the odd spike). Thus I could be on +30 or 40 points on this strategy.

Compared with a 'normal' strategy (Salerno etc) I would expect to be about +200 or more by now, so I think I have a valid understanding of the strenghts and weaknesses of a radically different Med game, within the VP system. I have much stronger units (5US and 8A all had 2 months more rest than usual), but have lost 'status' for lack of visible progress. You pays your money and takes your pick. Will I be able to recover a 170 VP difference give my extra strength? Don't know. Largely depends on how the AI responds to 5US. They have just withdrawn from southern It, so I am about to get a load of VP, but if they block me in all winter without weakening France too much, maybe not.

However if you want play a 'no VP' game, and just say 'WA to Berlin before say April 45 is WA win, else a GE win', do your thing. The WA get a huge advantage not having to worry about UB/VW though

Oh, and I am by no means an expert so I would guess my scores are only mediocre.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

On the subject of forced responses, I currently am playing a WA game vs AI, and have been trying radical Med options. I took Sicily with 8A, and Sardinia with 7US. Then I have hit Corsica. 5US hit the mainland north or Rome in early Oct. I have thus avoided the slog up Italy, and jumped Cassino etc. The flip side is the French defences seem really solid (from recce), and I think I have suffered from not sucking troops south. Thus I see that alternatives are very possible, and the all have their pluses and minuses. Because I was trying alternatives I have not really been playing the VPs or the air war... I have just been ticking over. However I still have +9 VP on turn 25, and 193 bombing VP. I have -134 UB VP (worse than I go for usually). I dont really understand what the whole 'constrained' thing is about. It is not hard to trade points one for the other. If I had been playing my 'best' air game, I would expect maybe about the same Bombing or more, and 25 or 30 less negative UB. I find it is not hard to keep UB to just above 4 per turn average (3 a lot of turns and the odd spike). Thus I could be on +30 or 40 points on this strategy.

Compared with a 'normal' strategy (Salerno etc) I would expect to be about +200 or more by now, so I think I have a valid understanding of the strenghts and weaknesses of a radically different Med game, within the VP system. I have much stronger units (5US and 8A all had 2 months more rest than usual), but have lost 'status' for lack of visible progress. You pays your money and takes your pick. Will I be able to recover a 170 VP difference give my extra strength? Don't know. Largely depends on how the AI responds to 5US. They have just withdrawn from southern It, so I am about to get a load of VP, but if they block me in all winter without weakening France too much, maybe not.

However if you want play a 'no VP' game, and just say 'WA to Berlin before say April 45 is WA win, else a GE win', do your thing. The WA get a huge advantage not having to worry about UB/VW though

Oh, and I am by no means an expert so I would guess my scores are only mediocre.

Congratulations? [;)]

Now if you had done that against a human opponent you would have:

a) Lost the entire 5th US Corps and a couple of hundred VPs in casualties.
b) Still not be on mainland Italy.
c) Lost enough troopships to be restricted by it for the rest of the game.
d) Based on the above I would argue that you don´t have a "valid understanding of the strenghts and weaknesses of a radically different Med game, within the VP system" [;)]

I can also assure you that you experiences from the air war are not valid against a human. Out of curiosity: What difficulty are you playing on?

[HMSWarspite]

Yes, sorry I did mean to say that based on m experience I wouldn't play this option against a human. However the first step to playing a human in a certain style is to investigate mechanics... I am on challenging.

The main issues with why I probably wouldn't do this vs humans are that the sea zone control that far north is marginal, and it allows uncontested French defence build up for 4 months.

I don't know whether you mistyped: I have not landed 5US Corps, I have landed 5th US ARMY, with 3 strong corps and more incoming (a 5 Amphib invasion, 3 Armd Divs and infantry besides, all SU'd to the eyeballs - not significantly smaller than RL Neptune). I know how to do an invasion and they would not easily be wiped out. There are no undamaged railyards south of Milan/Venice and north of Rome. I do not think a human could easily wipe me out, but neither would I break out (due to the marginal sea lanes and hence supply). But this aside your argument strikes me as a VP balance one not one of strategic options.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Yes, sorry I did mean to say that based on m experience I wouldn't play this option against a human. However the first step to playing a human in a certain style is to investigate mechanics... I am on challenging.

The main issues with why I probably wouldn't do this vs humans are that the sea zone control that far north is marginal, and it allows uncontested French defence build up for 4 months.

I don't know whether you mistyped: I have not landed 5US Corps, I have landed 5th US ARMY, with 3 strong corps and more incoming (a 5 Amphib invasion, 3 Armd Divs and infantry besides, all SU'd to the eyeballs - not significantly smaller than RL Neptune). I know how to do an invasion and they would not easily be wiped out. There are no undamaged railyards south of Milan/Venice and north of Rome. I do not think a human could easily wipe me out, but neither would I break out (due to the marginal sea lanes and hence supply). But this aside your argument strikes me as a VP balance one not one of strategic options.

Ah, it was I who mistyped. Sorry about that [:)] Yes you would most likely have lost the entire 5th US army with all the IDs, SUs and all the armor along with it. Unless you pulled out in time that is.

It do have a bearing on VP balance and the VP system. If it wasn´t for the band-aid solution of slapping a massive penalty on avoiding Italy (No beachhead VP penalty) no one would go there. No one. This is due to the faulty design of the VP system. A good design would see people go there willingly as its clearly the developers intentions that people should go to Italy...

Playing WitW I have to focus everything I do on one thing only: Do as little combat as I can possible get away with. NotOneStepBack described this perfectly in post #31. One can argue all about historical this and that but in the end its a poor design for a computer game.

[HMSWarspite]

But if you you read what I wrote, I think you give the German a free go at setting up the defence of France, and handicap yourself to the point you might as well surrender if you don't engage in Italy. In my 'engage late' option, the 5US has air cover from Corsica and the invasion is no more likely to go back in to the sea than a Northern French one. Even if you don't conquer Italy, I think you need to tie up troops.

I think our disagreement centres on the VP loss for casualties, rather than anything else. You think that combat loss is too high so you cannot win and must avoid combat. My position is that is a game balance issue (and I have no opinion on which way the VPs need to go any by how much). The system of what you gain or lose VPs for is (IMHO) not intrinsically broken

[Numdydar]

Jumping in here for a min.

Imho, the reason the VPs are the way they are designed is to reduce the hindsight we have and at the same time provide some freedom of choice is how the game is played. Also, having negative VPs 'tricks' the brain into seeing these negative points as 'pain' so unconsciously we are hardwired to try and avoid that. Also people will generally chose to avoid pain versus selecting pleasure (positive VPs) when given a choice. So by having negative VPs versus positive helps reinforce this behavior.

In a positive VP game, people are much more willing to go in the 'red' for a significant period of time. For example in Beyond Earth you have Health as a major factor in the game. Positive health is good, negative health is bad. But in a typical game people are willing to go very deep in the negative on a regular basis for extended times in order to do the things they want to do. If health started off negative, this behavior would not occur as player would try their best to get their health positive before they did things that caused their health to go negative further. It is just the way our brains work.

However, mathematically there is absolutely no difference between a negative VP system and a positive one. So from a logical point of view it should make no difference. But from the way the human brain works it is a huge difference. So in WitW, you have to constantly overrule your subconscious to continue to do things that will not stop the negative slide in VPs as soon as possible. So players will tend to try and do things to accomplish that goal with everything else being equal. This makes the game design rather brilliant whether on purpose or not [:)]

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

But if you you read what I wrote, I think you give the German a free go at setting up the defence of France, and handicap yourself to the point you might as well surrender if you don't engage in Italy. In my 'engage late' option, the 5US has air cover from Corsica and the invasion is no more likely to go back in to the sea than a Northern French one. Even if you don't conquer Italy, I think you need to tie up troops.

I think our disagreement centres on the VP loss for casualties, rather than anything else. You think that combat loss is too high so you cannot win and must avoid combat. My position is that is a game balance issue (and I have no opinion on which way the VPs need to go any by how much). The system of what you gain or lose VPs for is (IMHO) not intrinsically broken

Its actually more likely to go back to the sea because you have less planes in the theater to do naval interdiction. But you are probably right that that is rather a strategic discussion then a VP one. [:)]

I honestly have no clue if the combat losses are too harsh or not. They should be reasonably well balanced or the BETA tests have not been thorough enough.

What I´m opposed to is the very idea of having a penalty on the attacking side for attacking. You are forcing someone to do something and at the same time punishing them for doing it. In the game you are even penalized for successfully doing what you are supposed to do. Its just a bad idea on so many levels I´m just...dumbstruck no one put a stop to it the first time it was tried or suggested.

EDIT: Should clarify here that I´m talking in "game sense" terms. Not historically.

[HMSWarspite]

Ah, I think I have the difference; the WA are not being penalised for attacking. They are being penalised for attacking unwisely or clumsily. If you take advantage of the considerable advantages the WA have(numbers locally, air power etc), you balance the cost vs the gain.

The WA will get in to Germany, its just a question of how fast, and what it costs. Any game that allows Russian style play by the WA is not a game of Western Europe in my book... I think it was you (or if not, someone) who suggested using manpower limits to penalise clumsy/expensive play. Attacking and turning the army into a ghost is just not realistic. I know you primarily want a game, as do I (I am not a masochist, and will lose interest in a game where one side has no hope). However I want a game set in Western Europe 1943-5, not Eastern Front in France.

if the Russian army is a sledgehammer (big thumps but not a lot of finesse), and the German army is a longsword (good general purpose, although a bit chipped and rusty by late 1943!), the WA armies would be a rapier, or even rapier/dagger combination - lethal if used precisely, but so not good when the brawl descends to a slugging match...

[marion61]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Ah, I think I have the difference; the WA are not being penalised for attacking. They are being penalised for attacking unwisely or clumsily. If you take advantage of the considerable advantages the WA have(numbers locally, air power etc), you balance the cost vs the gain.

I don't feel like I ever attacked clumsily nor unwisely. I don't mind the negative vp's on casualties, because it keeps people from attacking just that way. Honestly, a great deal of my casualties came from his crap units attacking me, because most attacks would net him a vp. That has nothing to do with how the WA play. My opinion, the vp for casualties should be higher than 600/1000. Little ****attacks can do that easily to get a vp each assault. Also losing up to -27vps because a troop ship got sunk in a WA controlled sea zone I don't care for either. It happens too often. But, the vp system does need more results, because one complete server game doesn't make decidable results yet. In another server game the Russians are kicking bootie for once, and it's mid april '44. I think he pulled too many high cv armored div. out and the Russians gained several hexes. I know it needs a little tweak, we all do, but I want to see how my other games go, and everyone elses goes before we ask for a major revision of the vp system.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Ah, I think I have the difference; the WA are not being penalised for attacking. They are being penalised for attacking unwisely or clumsily. If you take advantage of the considerable advantages the WA have(numbers locally, air power etc), you balance the cost vs the gain.

The WA will get in to Germany, its just a question of how fast, and what it costs. Any game that allows Russian style play by the WA is not a game of Western Europe in my book... I think it was you (or if not, someone) who suggested using manpower limits to penalise clumsy/expensive play. Attacking and turning the army into a ghost is just not realistic. I know you primarily want a game, as do I (I am not a masochist, and will lose interest in a game where one side has no hope). However I want a game set in Western Europe 1943-5, not Eastern Front in France.

if the Russian army is a sledgehammer (big thumps but not a lot of finesse), and the German army is a longsword (good general purpose, although a bit chipped and rusty by late 1943!), the WA armies would be a rapier, or even rapier/dagger combination - lethal if used precisely, but so not good when the brawl descends to a slugging match...

Hah, well lets agree to disagree shall we? [:)]

Even if you do everything optimally you will still take losses. Its absolutely unavoidable. Some things are even out of your control like the thousands of drowned sailors every time you move some troops at sea.

I absolutely agree that the WA can get to Germany. But I´m very doubtful they can get there and still win the game. In this game there is a difference with winning the war and winning the game. I think the WA can win the war quiet easily. But not the game. Its possible to do the other way around though. Win the game but not the war. You do that by doing as little war as possible. Quite odd isn´t it? [:)]

IMO and all that. [:)]