Does WITW Favor the Germans?

[Belphegor]

Interesting discussion, I'm going to stay on the theory side a bit. The question, for example, about massing the Luftwaffe shouldn't necessarily be should they from a recreation of historical events point of view, (could the Germans have done it, and would they, and should we let it happen in a game ... is the game historical or historical when it starts but allows exploration of other options) but to my mind whether massing that many bombers in one area should tax the logistics system more than it does? Perhaps the Allies could have done it, but could Germany have done it?

ie. are we asking for the correct component to be fixed?

And if they could then great; please focus on the my point that we must fix the disease not the symptom. Stay out of the weeds.

[marion61]

I know this may not help the discussion, and I'm in no way a great player, but out of all the invasions I've attempted in mp, only one failed, and it failed because it was a diversion on top of a mistake that was compounded by myself. It's all about the preparation and not tipping your hand early. Use your air force to make them think your invading somewhere else. The Allies have a huge advantage of where to invade and the axis can't be everywhere. If you prep your air the turn your invasion goes off, you won't see many units get near your beaches unless you invade against heavy defenses. I've done that too, and with the proper air, the axis cannot take naval from you. Naval is about distance, not numbers. Don't invade so far from air cover that the axis only need one plane for every 3 or 4 or yours. It's about sorties, and the shorter distance you fly the more you get. I read aar's and the thing I see the most is allies advancing to where the axis are strong. Go around that crap, you can't afford to lose the vp's fighting crap you can isolate. If he builds in Cassino, invade near Piombino, or above Rome. Totally negates his line there. Set more than one naval ad when your invading. I use Coastal, 15th, and Tactical.

Axis units are tough, and one for one they will kick most allied units around, but that's a fair representation. The VP's could use a tweaking, but I don't see anything that's biased about them. They were probably put in place to push the player into certain actions, which it does. But let's leave the vp question out for now. The allies have a huge learning curve, granted, but not insurmountable. They have to process a huge amount of info each turn, but that's just the nature of the game. Honestly the axis side is a little monotonous because a turn takes 20min maybe, while an allied turn can be 3 hours long when in an invasion.

Honestly I'd much rather play the allies than the axis. More to do, and even with the EF box on, I'm ashore on Calais against massive defenses. It's not undoable, but you have to prepare.

Ask NOSB what I did to his airfields before I invaded him north of Rome. He recovered, but had little air opposition. THAT'S RECON! There's no reason you can't shoot up his airbases in Italy before you invade, while taking out ports and railyards. Keeps the riffraff out of the air over your beaches. The air game is so versatile.

[LiquidSky]

Most of the time, I don't even bother flying Naval Interdiction missions. I just let the coastal airforce sit on AUTO and I end up with 9's down to 7's over much of the North Sea, or all around Sicily and up the coast of Italy. The Axis can't match it. All he can do is hope to match it so that the waters end up contested. Even then: So what. He is attriting his bombers to kill some cargo ships. The troop ships you can protect (mostly) by moving them in hops.

Also....Naval Interdiction = Naval Recon. That is very important in that it helps you intercept his bombers. Put Spitfires in the invasion airfields. Don't bother putting them on Superiority...let them do their magic. They will protect your sealanes for you.

Use your para divisions to land adjacent to your invasion hexes (inland). They provide useful interdiction, and will give you some space to move inland with your units. Also any invasion against a defended hex will lose an odd-shift for every unit you can get adjacent to it.

Keep concentrated in the early stages of your invasion...don't rush around and spread out taking territory....the Germans are coming, and they will smack you around. They won't be able to smack 3 fresh divisions sitting in a hex with lots of support. It took the allies weeks to break out of most (all?) invasions.

As Meky said above...if the Germans mass their bombers in one area...give them a taste of the 8th. If you lose 1000 bombers to destroy 1000 of his, you will have won an astounding victory.

[Smirfy]

I enjoy your guys understanding of the game but naval interdiction is simply broke. Dunno how one JU88 is magically superior to a Squadron of Beaufighters or an entire Allied Fleet thats meant to have the FAA onboard or Malta! Moving your units in short hops because the mechanic is borked is getting tedious. My lucks out I just lose ships. It just takes the piss out of the rest of the game. I can forgive the nonsense German General stats because something has to simulate the National Socialist fanaticism that the Generals displayed for instance in Normandy and elsewhere knowing if they got into mobile warfare they were screwed. But I cant forgive the Axis are able to pole vault every logistical and orginizational problem they faced.

[Seminole]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Is this 1.00.21?

That was prodution: .11

I have just tried the same thing with the public beta .21 and the center value is cut to 4-5 range instead of 9.

[marion61]

It's not they are superior bombers, cause they're not, it's because of the ordinance they can carry. 450mm Torpedoes and mines most axis bombers can carry. Allied bombers carry mostly just bombs and not mines and torpedoes. A plane laying mines can deny ships an area until it's cleared, and most times I see allied aar's where their planes are traveling twice as far to reach a naval ad. Axis bombers just don't have to travel as far is why it is so easy to get naval control. Allies have to cover all the beaches, and the axis just have to isolate hexes, or just a few at a time, wipe those out, rinse and repeat. Load your wellington's and stirling's and other planes that will carry mines. That's the best counter, and use AS, because it works. I shoot down more bomber's coming to the area than in it. I know where he has to fly from, so put the AS out 6-10 hexes and let him fly thru it each turn. Those naval patrols will wither away.

[Fallschirmjager]

The game seems balanced in terms of unit and device stats. Many of the old flame wars from the WitP days don't happen here. I generally feel like I am playing with real Allied capabilities and real German capabilities.

The biggest failing of this game is that the VP system is utterly broken. I have seen Joel say that a VP rework is not in the cards. That worries me. As is, I am having loads of fun with the game, but most of that is due to the fact that I am crap at the game. In a few months I will want to have a serious go with the game and then the frustration will mount.

The developers already have my money so I guess it does not matter. But in the past they have responded well to adjusting the game post launch. But the comments about the VP system are worrisome.
The system is completely and utterly broken.
The game severely punishes you for every move you make. Invade, lose points. Bomb war industry instead of useless U-Boats or V-Weapons, lose points. Move units by sea, lose points. Make an airborne invasion, lose points.

The development team either has pride in their design and will not admit that it does not work, or the design is to the point where it cannot change.

This game is rather good. But as of now, it has no long term potential due to the current set up.
As the Allied player, I am terrified to do anything in game since it ultimately ends up costing me loads of VPs.

The game design locks you into a series of an automated decision process which by you must abide. If you ignore it, you lose loads of VPs. If you follow it, you still lose a lot of VPs due to units losses.

The bombing campaign right now is almost a joke. You have to spend entire months bombing U-Boats and V-Weapons while ignoring actual war industry.`

I feel like the game thinks it has a great set of objectives that it tries to simulate while ignoring the actual overall Allied objective, and that is winning the war.

As someone said in one of their AARs. There is a lack of immerision in what the game makes you do and it's tangible results.
Bombing U-Boat factories does not help naval interdiction. The war in the Atlantic is not even simulated. Freight flows in on a set table no matter what.
V-Weapons don't actually damage London or Antwerp.
Neither U-Boats or V-Weapons seem like they are tied into the Axis industiral network at all.

12 O'Clock High and Bombing the Reich had such a fantastic approach to the air war. When I bombed something I had a good sense of why I was bombing it and it's impact on the war.
Largely the same development team did both games so it is hard to understand how they forgot so much of what made that game great.


It sounds like I am being super harsh. Despite all that I said, I love this game. More than I thought I would. It gets so much right. Unfortunately one important aspect does not work at all, and that is the system in which the winner is determined.

Right now I see myself having fun against the AI for a while longer since with the AI I can simply ignore the entire VP system and look at the end of the war results and map and determine how I did.

But I don't see myself ever playing a PBEM game. The game is stepped in punishments for actually taking offensive action.
If it was not for the no beach head penalty. You could actually pull out a draw simply by bombing alone and spending every turn bombing U-Boats or V-Weapons.
That fact alone should be an indication that there is a broken system at work.

[Joel Billings]

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

[Q-Ball]

Good feedback here, and I will say that we have to be careful to distinguish between game balance, and VP balance. Game Balance = Forces are fighting about right in historical context and player skill level, without crazy exploits. VP Balance = the scorekeeping is on target.

I personally think the Game Balance is not very far off; I think more data is needed, but I don't see it as being egregious either way, particularly if by HR or otherwise Allies have to stick to Med in 1943. I do see the early N. Europe as problematic.

VP Balance I think is a little more off, and for this we really need to play lots of games out. In the meantime, I am not that worried about the score in the games I am playing; I am trying to play to score points, but in the end not measuring the result strictly that way, if that makes sense.....

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

I don't have many suggestions since my play time is still low. But I do have some nebulous ideas forming.

First, I like the idea of losing men meaning something.
But I think the VP hit is rather severe. I think a better system was something that was in WitP
You gained points by destroying the enemy and they gained points by destroying you.

That seems to make sense. If you plan out an invasion and an attack well, you are going to lose men, but you are going to destroy the enemy.
I understand the decision behind the design. Human lives meant a lot to the western allies and huge losses did not sit well politically.
But for all the talk about the allied armies being a rapier instead of a hammer. They turned out to be a pretty dull rapier and ended up being a hammer. The winter of 43 in Italy, Normandy, the Bulge, Breaking into the West Wall, Tunisia.
All of the big operations turned into wars of mass attrition and the Allies took huge losses.

I also understand having a component built into the scoring system of the Allies wanting to take territory. But that was always a secondary goal.
Capturing Naples, Rome, Lyon, Paris and Berlin were always attractive prestige and political targets. But by December of 1944 SHEAF and Allied high command realized that taking Berlin was not their goal.
The overall allied strategy was to destroy the Axis to the point where they could no longer make effective war. And they did that they destroying their field armies, their ability to put new soldiers into the field and their ability to arm those soldiers.


Third, I completely understand the decision behind forced bombing of U-Boats and V-Weapons. This was a political reality. But it is not working in game terms.
I will have to do some more thinking on this matter. But the negative VP system simply does not work.
Perhaps something else could be done. Perhaps for not hitting V-Weapons, British and Commonwealth units begin to suffer morale and fatigue penalties since the home front is suffering?
Or perhaps political tension increases and their is an increasing penalty and a turn delay placed on when British and CW troops arrive?
Right now I have to spend so much of my resources with constant bombing that I cannot bomb other aspects of the Axis war machine at anywhere near approaching a historical rate.

And for U-Boats, if you do not bomb them. Then this plays a role in naval interdiction and the battle of the Atlantic is not as decisive as in real life and the flow of supply from America suffers penalties.

These are just some ideas to throw out there, I will have to give it some more thought.

The problem is that while there were political pressure, we have the ability of hindsight and the bombing campaign against U-Boats and V-Weapons was not very effective.
Bombing the factories themselves was not very effective since they began so widely dispersed and dozens of small factories assembled the components. Bombing V-Weapon sites themselves had almost no effect at all.
Bombing U-Boats pens has almost no effect due to how well protected they were and the imprecision of weapons of the day.

The U-Boat war was not won due to bombing. It was won due to technology in escorting, sonar, radar, depth charges and air patrols.
The V-Weapon war was won when the Allies cleared the Channel coast and took away the launch sites by occupation.

This is hard to model in the game.

Again, I feel like I am being overly critical. But I just want this game to succeed and 90% of it does. It just needs a few redesigns and some tweaks.


I have nothing to say about garrison rules because I have yet to actually come up against them. I will try and play a game as the Axis in the next few weeks and see exactly how that aspect works.

Without any knowledge, it seems like instead of having VP penalties for not garrisoning properly that the Partisan penalties should be cranked up.
If you strip areas of garrison troops, then partisans should flare up and have a field day destroying railroads, airfields (and their planes), factories etc
In HOI III, if as a Axis you did not keep troops in your rear areas, partisan troops could actually get to the point where they could actually take over territory and do damage.

In WitP if as as the Japanese or British you do not garrison properly then you lose VPs due to damage.

I think everything in the game should revolve around the Axis trying to maintain it's ability to make war and the Allies attempt to destroy their ability to make war.

Maybe I am just too much a part of the school of Napoleon [:D]

[NotOneStepBack]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

I don't have many suggestions since my play time is still low. But I do have some nebulous ideas forming.

First, I like the idea of losing men meaning something.
But I think the VP hit is rather severe. I think a better system was something that was in WitP
You gained points by destroying the enemy and they gained points by destroying you.

That seems to make sense. If you plan out an invasion and an attack well, you are going to lose men, but you are going to destroy the enemy.
I understand the decision behind the design. Human lives meant a lot to the western allies and huge losses did not sit well politically.
But for all the talk about the allied armies being a rapier instead of a hammer. They turned out to be a pretty dull rapier and ended up being a hammer. The winter of 43 in Italy, Normandy, the Bulge, Breaking into the West Wall, Tunisia.
All of the big operations turned into wars of mass attrition and the Allies took huge losses.

I also understand having a component built into the scoring system of the Allies wanting to take territory. But that was always a secondary goal.
Capturing Naples, Rome, Lyon, Paris and Berlin were always attractive prestige and political targets. But by December of 1944 SHEAF and Allied high command realized that taking Berlin was not their goal.
The overall allied strategy was to destroy the Axis to the point where they could no longer make effective war. And they did that they destroying their field armies, their ability to put new soldiers into the field and their ability to arm those soldiers.


Third, I completely understand the decision behind forced bombing of U-Boats and V-Weapons. This was a political reality. But it is not working in game terms.
I will have to do some more thinking on this matter. But the negative VP system simply does not work.
Perhaps something else could be done. Perhaps for not hitting V-Weapons, British and Commonwealth units begin to suffer morale and fatigue penalties since the home front is suffering?
Or perhaps political tension increases and their is an increasing penalty and a turn delay placed on when British and CW troops arrive?
Right now I have to spend so much of my resources with constant bombing that I cannot bomb other aspects of the Axis war machine at anywhere near approaching a historical rate.

And for U-Boats, if you do not bomb them. Then this plays a role in naval interdiction and the battle of the Atlantic is not as decisive as in real life and the flow of supply from America suffers penalties.

These are just some ideas to throw out there, I will have to give it some more thought.

The problem is that while there were political pressure, we have the ability of hindsight and the bombing campaign against U-Boats and V-Weapons was not very effective.
Bombing the factories themselves was not very effective since they began so widely dispersed and dozens of small factories assembled the components. Bombing V-Weapon sites themselves had almost no effect at all.
Bombing U-Boats pens has almost no effect due to how well protected they were and the imprecision of weapons of the day.

The U-Boat war was not won due to bombing. It was won due to technology in escorting, sonar, radar, depth charges and air patrols.
The V-Weapon war was won when the Allies cleared the Channel coast and took away the launch sites by occupation.

This is hard to model in the game.

Again, I feel like I am being overly critical. But I just want this game to succeed and 90% of it does. It just needs a few redesigns and some tweaks.


I have nothing to say about garrison rules because I have yet to actually come up against them. I will try and play a game as the Axis in the next few weeks and see exactly how that aspect works.

Without any knowledge, it seems like instead of having VP penalties for not garrisoning properly that the Partisan penalties should be cranked up.
If you strip areas of garrison troops, then partisans should flare up and have a field day destroying railroads, airfields (and their planes), factories etc
In HOI III, if as a Axis you did not keep troops in your rear areas, partisan troops could actually get to the point where they could actually take over territory and do damage.

In WitP if as as the Japanese or British you do not garrison properly then you lose VPs due to damage.

I think everything in the game should revolve around the Axis trying to maintain it's ability to make war and the Allies attempt to destroy their ability to make war.

Maybe I am just too much a part of the school of Napoleon [:D]

You are correct in your analysis, but I will go a bit further. Having negative Vps because you do not bomb u boats or vweapons hurts the Allied player in many ways, and overall, the game.

You have to divert resources to these targets else you are penalized. I care about winning the war, so I deliberately will minimize my bombers fleets to hit these targets. The downside is the Axis know that you are going to bomb these targets so it is relatively easy to defend them by stationing fighters. This leads to boring gameplay.

Another aspect is that bombing VPs are only awarded for certain German targets such as oil, fuel, manpower, etc. What if I want to bomb bf-109 factories, or vehicles factories? This is a logical choice to bomb, but I'm award no Vps by doing so. A good design would encourage different routes to victory. Has anyone realistically targeted the king tiger factories? I think not, but in real life this may have been considered. But I'm locked into bombing certain targets in order to not lose VPs, and I'm locked into bombing certain targets to gain VPs. It feels like the bombing campaign is done for me.

Since I'm diverting resources in order to stop the stem of negative VPs, this hurts my ground war operations because they have less air support. If I were simply awarded VPs for damage, I wouldn't mind shifting my directives for certain ground offensives.

[sven6345789]

question regarding V-Weapons.
Why not give the germans some VPs for "strategic bombing", that is V-Weapon-Attacks, if the Allies do not bomb V-Weapon-sites? I have no idea how many VPs sound reasonable but that would certainly give the Allies a reason to bomb.

Regarding Submarines you could increase Attrition of troop transports and cargo ships if the Allies do not bomb submarines targets.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Well I just destroyed 9 tanks on Unit attack and lost 51 fighter bombers to flak, like I said you do more damage to *yourself* than the enemy.

Smirfy, I fear you are not understanding the game mechanics here.

There are 4 ways to reduce a strong unit to a weak unit using the game engine:

a) kill so much that there is nothing left;
b) disrupt so much that what is left cannot fight effectively;
c) reduce supply/ammunition so much that what is left cannot fight effectively;
d) raise the level of fatigue so far that ... well you can fill in the sentence yourself

Now doing (a) in the WiTE/WiTW game engine is a long term project and not really what you are aiming for. b-d in combinations are the way to go (& remember that disruption can in turn lead to fatigue).

The key impact of both direct air power and artillery in the game is disruption so that when you attack the enemy cannot respond effectively. Its not how many tanks you kill, its the impact on the unit's organisation. Killing tanks from the air, when they are in cover, is hard, making tanks take cover is the goal.

I think the 'unit' ground attack mission is costly as you are directly taking on the flak in the unit under attack (so sounds right). I think on balance 'interdiction' is a better mission for setting things up and stopping enemy movements, but there are times when you need to deal with an immediate problem. With 'interdiction' your air losses are lower (your pilots have more choice etc) so its a neat trade off ... if you have time and have set things up correctly then you can achieve your goals with minimum losses, but there are times when you need to trade losses for immediate returns

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

Hi Joel.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider "very large amounts of points"? I´ve lost -80 VPs to garrisons on T45. That alone is taking away 50% of my positive bombing VPs....Server game vs. Pelton.

I have some questions that I think have some bearing on this thread.

a) Since there are no plans to try and rectify the VP system are there any plans to make a GC with alternative VP conditions?

b) Is this the VP system we will see in the followup game (Africa, France, WitE 2?)

c) Are there any plans to do something about the current interdiction system? Besides tweaking it. Will we see a completely new system with with the arrival of the naval module?

d) Are there any plans to have a proper industry system where you can actually damage Germany by destroying things on map rather then just bomb for VPs. (Current system Germany won´t run out of anything than possibly Manpower) What is the rationale by not awarding VPs for Aircraft factories and AFVs?

e) Same question as d) Will anything be done to have U-boats and V-Weapons actually have an impact on the war? Right now the entire VP system exists outside of the game. Most things you do in regards to VPs have little to no impact on the war itself. This is a big problem when it comes to immersion.

I think you and the rest of the team are taking the criticism that has surfaced too lightly. You have charged a tremendous amount of money for this game. I own 15+ Matrix games and I have always felt it was well worth the higher price. But this is the first time I´m not only disappointed but I actually regret my purchase. If it wasn´t for the air system (which is excellent) I would be absolutely outraged I had payed almost 100 Euro for WitW. This game the foundation on which the future games in the series will build. If people doesn´t feel confident in this product you have a problem.

So at least try and take the criticism a little more serious then what you have done so far. Try and be a little more open to the community what is being done in regards to the criticism that is regularly being vented. Let people know you are listening (if you indeed are). Right now I get more information from Beta testers in my AAR then what I get from "official channels" here on the forum.

And with that said:

f) Will the buyers of WitW have to pay full price for the coming expansions? Will the expansions be full priced games?

[Q-Ball]

I am actually going to come down on the side of being OK with the VP system as a whole. While I appreciate the concerns around VWEps and Uboats and negative VPs, I think the design is fine. It's meant to show political pressures, and the fact that you have to divert resources to a target you don't want to hit sounds like the real war to me....happened all the time.

I also think the VPs for Allied casualties makes sense; Allied commanders were expected to keep a lid on losses, and that reflects that imperative

Now, while I think the essential structure is fine, I do agree that some tweaking is necessary. I suspect the WA needs more VP help, and things like awarding VPs for killing Germans is a way to do that. I would like to see more final game results, but right now it seems like it's difficult for the Allies to win the war. There are some strange incentives built in, we need to keep playing and work those out.

I would say that for now, as I play, I would focus on game balance, and leave VPs for sometime later.

I would argue on WITP-AE, the VP system is still not really perfect, and that's after 10 years on that engine....so this could take awhile

[Seminole]

The German railway network was a basketcase in game they have too much capacity.

It's up to the Allied player to turn it into a basketcase.
The means are there, but I think WA players need more time to understand how best to apply their tools.

I'm able to do things I see people say are 'broken', which makes me think it isn't the game so much that is broken, but their methods.

I'm gathering the info to try and better detail how I'm using WA airpower, but want my games to get a little farther along so I can more freely divulge what I'm up to.

[Seminole]

You are correct in your analysis, but I will go a bit further. Having negative Vps because you do not bomb u boats or vweapons hurts the Allied player in many ways, and overall, the game.
You have to divert resources to these targets else you are penalized.

They're trying to make a wargame in a very specific context. They want to give you the entirety of the WA Air Force, but don't want to see people engaging in 'gamey' warfare by using that entire Air Force against other targets earlier than was more or less the actual case.
As folks get a better handle on using recon and directive creation they'll realize there is room to rotate the 'political' targets with the strategic/tactical targets.

Since I'm diverting resources in order to stop the stem of negative VPs, this hurts my ground war operations because they have less air support.

This was to some degree the case military leadership faced in the war this game seeks to represent, wasn't it?
These things make more sense to me when I keep them in context.

If I were simply awarded VPs for damage, I wouldn't mind shifting my directives for certain ground offensives.

Mathematically, I don't see the distinction.
To put it another way. I could look at a checkbook register where the credit entries were entered negatively, the debit entries entered positively, and still understand the resulting balance remains the same.
But I understand it bugs some folks.
The scenarios have a different VP system, but maybe the campaign game could be adjusted to make it appear the u-boat construction points are being awarded to the German player (instead of subtracted from the Allied player) and address some of this angst.

The only other 'solution' I'd see to that particular problem is to just abstract more of that part of the war and keep the involved air groups off map until the proper time. I prefer more of a sandbox with house rules.

At the end of the day I'm not playing this game for a hi score in the VP system. I'm trying to mystify, mislead, and surprise. My satisfaction comes from doing something that hopefully stuns my opponent. It's also the reason why, aside from having to 'fudge' some game mechanics to make the AI more competent, I don't have as much fun playing an algorithm.

[ParaB]

I think the VP system is actually working rather well. Is it really so bad for some of you guys to "earn negative VPs"? I have a hard time understanding that. What would be different if the German player would get VPs for undamaged U-boat and V-weapons? Or if the German player would get VPs for causing casualties instead?

So far I've exclusively played as WA and never had the impression that the VP system was broken. Maybe in need for some fine-tuning, but the overall idea that VPs represent strategic directives set by the political leaders IMO is a realistic feature of WitW.

[Flaviusx]

Mathematically there is indeed no distinction, but the issue here has always been a psychological one. Which is ultimately a question of aesthetics -- and that matters in game design. This is a work of art, after all.

The negative VP system works (or can work with adjustments,) but it is ugly. Presentation matters here, no less so than in, say, the UI.

[RedLancer]

@JocMeister

I'm not quite sure how 'tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible' can be construed as 'no plans to try and rectify the VP system'. Joel's post is quite clear - things can be changed if you provide data. We are listening and the ball is in 'your' court - provide the data to prove your point and we can amend if appropriate. I appreciate that you have a fundamental dislike of negative VPs but the system is the way it is and wasn't created on a whim. Feedback is taken seriously but if I have learned something in my time as test co-ord - talk is really cheap and you have to think to the finish with every suggestion.

For the sake of argument let's examine the four key proposals you have made:

-Get rid of the negative VPs from combat all together.
The suggestion is that you limit Allied resources instead. Firstly if balancing were easy (and it's not) then I would support this more. If you have a spare month then try writing an accurate historic scenario from scratch. El hefe and I are the only scenario designers at the moment who start from a blank canvas (I then work with rjs28023 to balance things out). Including WitE the number of scenario designers willing to publish their work I can count on my fingers - probably for good reason. There are so many variables that it is not easy - OB, TOE%, fatigue, morale, experience, production, modifiers, logistics....I could go on. Secondly it is my understanding that as the war reached its conclusion in Europe production was switched to the Pacific - how do you replicate this in game? Arguably you could remove the negative VPs factor completely but is that equitable on the Axis? Why shouldn't the Allies be penalised for excessive losses? Can we change the modifier for Casualty numbers per VP - reasonably easily - but how much is correct? Should there be instead a number of hurdles - under x casualties by turn y then no penalty. There is a huge difference between I don't like it and it could be improved by...and the evidence is....

-Remove the penalties for not invading in the "right place".
At the moment this penalises a time factor and very broad area. If you removed this and enhanced the already existing City Control Point (CCP) system that awards the capture of specific locations then are you not giving the Axis player even more of a steer as to where the Allies would focus their effort? As the CCP has a date linked divisor, time is still a factor. I know from testing short scenarios that VP fixation leads you to hold specific locations at all costs knowing that the game will be over in a turn. It drives behaviour both ahistorically and historically. Balancing VPs even in a small scenario is horrendously difficult as there are many variables. With only a maximum of 20 VP locations and the loss modifier I have to do this in a spreadsheet and it takes hours to ensure that with one set of VP values a draw is a draw and a victory a victory. There are about 690 locations that are Cities or bigger on the map so probably about 200 that meet the CCP rules.

-Remove negative VPs for U-Boats and V-Weapons. Instead give a bonus for hitting them over hitting oil/fuel/hi/man. This gives a better sense of freedom for the WAs and gets rid of the unnatural force concentration that is currently happening around Hamburg.
I fail to see how that changes anything beyond a positive or negative number. As people have highlighted V-Wpns and U-Boats are abstract - their presence in game is to 'distract' the player from other targets and prevent people using that capability elsewhere. The other production elements are not abstract and hitting them does have an effect. I asked on the forum about how people would structure the VPs for an air only campaign and those willing to provide constructive feedback were much less than I hoped. Perhaps there is a way of combining the two? A threshold of SBPs which is required to trigger additional VPs for U-Boat and V-Wpn? Remember all these points are to stop the player routinely using the strategic bombers as tactical air support.

-Start the VP scale at 0. No negative VPs. Put a scoring scale on it. Say 0-XXX= Axis major victory and so on. The actual numbers will of course have to be calculated.
As has been explained this autopopulates from the disabled pool.

If Pelton is 'gaining' that many VPs for meeting his garrison requirement then perhaps you are not pressuring him enough and allowing him to hold way more in reserve than is normal.

Helpless has already stated that there is a task to make VPs changeable in the Editor for Campaign Games.

For completeness I don't comment on future development and price is an issue for Matrix.