Does WITW Favor the Germans?

[Seminole]

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.

I'm an INTJ personality type.
I'm aware this concern exists for some people, but it isn't how I see the world (through feelings), so it doesn't bother me.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I'm saying they have to much capacity to begin with if a player can sit around with Panzer divisions on trains turn after turn without affecting supply. . That's before you start bombing so it has absolutely nothing to do with "my methods". in fact it's a sad testament that the German player has any free Panzer Division at all.

[Flaviusx]

Seminole, this may vary somewhat by personality type, but it's long been understood that human beings generally perceive losses to a greater extent than gains, and tend to be risk averse. This basic rule of human nature has implications for game design. (And many other things besides.)

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: 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

Very informative piece, I have had great success with Interdiction the numbers anyway ( What effect this had I Don't know re Meklore and feedback) But getting those numbers put an untold strain on my airforce (italian scenario) So you have to play within yourself with aircraft as opposed to the main scenario. It's fun you cannot take for granted a single loss.. The bottom line is anything that directly attacks a unit will suffer disproportionately high losses whether close support or the unit ground attack directive. So I Stand by my "it does moe damage to yourself" it's just in the Italian scenario you notice it. I notice people hold back their FB's for the big push in the AAR's so they sub consciously notice it as well

[whoofe]

ORIGINAL: 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

^
I agree with Q-ball. VP system is not the disaster some are making it out to be. it can be improved/tweaked, but it could be the strategy that people are using that's incorrect.

i am in my first full campaign vs AI, I was making mistakes early on and couldn't understand why my VPs were so bad, but ppl on this forum set me straight as to what I was incorrectly assuming, and since then, while I have still some improving to do, I am gaining VPs each turn

[Seminole]

Seminole, this may vary somewhat by personality type, but it's long been understood that human beings generally perceive losses to a greater extent than gains, and tend to be risk averse. This basic rule of human nature has implications for game design. (And many other things besides.)

Understand.
I couldn't find it quickly, but I seem to recall one game theory test that found subjects more willing to do something to 'tear down' their opponent than do something positive for themselves even with a higher chance of success at the latter.

How people respond in these situations is part of the game.
The cold and calculating are going to see the world (in)differently. [8D]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Seminole


I'm an INTJ personality type.
I'm aware this concern exists for some people, but it isn't how I see the world (through feelings), so it doesn't bother me.

Some of my best friends are NTs, but heaven help the incompetents in the world that run into them. [:)] I'm an ISTJ and my wife is an ENFP (opposites attract) who used to give these tests as part of her job (we even had her do it at SSI for the entire staff, now that was fun).

Now back to the discussion. The VP system is an admitted shortcut in that we don't want to balance the impact of U-boat losses on the war, and increased partisan activity cannot account for other political factors, not to mention many unknowns that the Germans were facing regarding Allied amphibious capabilities.

As for scoring -80 garrison points in the first 45 turns, is that really so much given the complete system? Now my guess is that when not playing with the East Front box off, that the Germans will be a little stronger in men and CV in the West then when playing with it on. I think this is what I used to see in my tests. So it's possible that a small adjustment might be desirable when playing with the EF off, but this goes to the idea of tweaking/balancing the VPs and does not mean the system needs to be thrown out.

[marion61]

That's why it only take one awe ****, to wipe out 20 attaboys![:D] I couldn't get my personality type. The test said there weren't enough letters in the alphabet to describe me!

[decourcy2]

One INFJ was surveyed and they 100% feel that there should be no negative garrison points. And maybe a bonus for capturing Rome. Political reasons.

[NotOneStepBack]

I am an ENTJ.

http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ENTJ.html

[GrumpyMel]

My thoughts....

1) VP system - Really the only way, I'm going to be able to enjoy WitW (multi-player or single-player) is by completely ignoring it and judge how well I did by where the game ends. The VP system sort of takes the player out of the role of Commander and into the role of an operations officer executing the computers directives. That may be somewhat a historically accurate representation of what Eisenhower faced, but I bought WitW to play a game...not to work for a computer.

2) Game Balance - The Axis player has perfect knowledge of the Allied OOB and naval capabilities. The Allied player doesn't have perfect knowledge of the Axis OOB since it will vary depending upon what the Axis player pulls away from the East Front. This is a HUGE advantage for the Axis player and the inverse of what the situation was historically. This advantage should not be underestimated...and I think right now it is.

3) Game Balance - The Axis player far too easly can respond to invasions in great strength. I think this is a problem which is particularly egregious when playing against the A.I. on normal and easy levels. For an invasion to be successful it must be able to gain some initiative to establish a foothold. The Axis capability to respond makes this very difficult and requires the Allied player to throw everything they have at an invasion to try to make it successful which in turn means there is no uncertainty in the Axis players mind that they need worry about a serious invasion anywhere else... thus they are free to throw the kitchen sink against the current one. I think part of the problem here is that interdiction should really be doing more to slow Axis tactical and strategic movement then it is...and not just doing some damage.

4) Game Balance - I've mentioned this before but it is far too easy to form strong defensive fortifications far too quickly and to maintain those fortifications in the face of active combat/contact with the enemy and sustained air and artillery bombardment. This naturally would tend to favor the Axis. Another problem in this regard is that the Allied players only method of softening fortifications is direct frontal assault. Since the player doesn't have any nuanced control over the level of attack (e.g. Massive prepatory air/artillery bombardment with probing attacks to see if fortification has been reduced and reinforce attack if they have vs "over the top boys, no one comes back alive") this also leads to a sustained VP loss for the Allies due to casualties.

5) Game Play/Game Balance - Allied transport ship losses are completely out of whack and this translates to VP loss that the Allies really can't do anything about. The worst part of this system is that there is actually no feedback for the player about where/how this loss occurred and what they can do about countering it. You might as well take out this system and create one where the Allied player randomly loses VP's each turn.

There is other stuff but those are the ones that seem most relevant to the thread.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer although a couple of weeks after I made that post...[:D]

I don´t expect the VP system to be redone. At least not for this game. But my suggestions are the way it should have been done from the beginning. Doing it "my way" from the beginning wouldn´t have been very much more time consuming then the current system which had to be built up from scratch.

As you say "my system" wouldn´t mathematically have been much different from the current one. But from a game perspective they are miles apart. The system I suggested are in line with what 99% of the games on the market use. For a good reason.

I guess we can argue this back and forth forever. You believe I´m wrong and I´m convinced I´m right. I don´t make the game but you do. I guess we will know in a couple of months. [:)] My prediction is that this game will quickly fade into oblivion in a couple of months and the next game will do significantly worse then this one in terms of sales.

If I´m wrong I´ll buy you a beer and write a 100 word text on how stupid I am. Deal? [:)]

Sorry for keeping it short. Writing on the phone which is a PITA.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
As for scoring -80 garrison points in the first 45 turns, is that really so much given the complete system? Now my guess is that when not playing with the East Front box off, that the Germans will be a little stronger in men and CV in the West then when playing with it on. I think this is what I used to see in my tests. So it's possible that a small adjustment might be desirable when playing with the EF off, but this goes to the idea of tweaking/balancing the VPs and does not mean the system needs to be thrown out.

Well, thank you for answering not a single one of the questions I asked. I guess the lack of answer is answer enough... [:)]

If you don´t think having 26,2% of your total positive VPs negated by garrison VPs to be much I don´t know what is? EF box is off btw...

[whoofe]

ORIGINAL: meklore61

That's why it only take one awe ****, to wipe out 20 attaboys![:D] I couldn't get my personality type. The test said there weren't enough letters in the alphabet to describe me!

ROFL!

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

You believe I´m wrong and I´m convinced I´m right.

There I do disagree. One of my favourite observations is the story of the lost tourist who stops and asks for directions from a local farmer (insert comedic country/city as appropriate) the answer he gets is 'Well to begin with you don't start from here.'

It's not a question of right and wrong but what is feasible and worthwhile. You want the VPs changed and the basis of your arguments for doing so are well made. Should changes be made then you enter the realm of whether the changes are possible, worthwhile or in the long run better. There are a big handful of changes I'd like made to the game too but I've learned to accept the judgement of Joel - there is a spectrum that runs from broken to improvement to works fine but irks - noting that the provision of evidence and sound argument is well received and can sway the argument.

Finally you know that question of what superhero you'd choose to be - I've always said Hindsight Man.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

My thoughts....

1) VP system - Really the only way, I'm going to be able to enjoy WitW (multi-player or single-player) is by completely ignoring it and judge how well I did by where the game ends. The VP system sort of takes the player out of the role of Commander and into the role of an operations officer executing the computers directives. That may be somewhat a historically accurate representation of what Eisenhower faced, but I bought WitW to play a game...not to work for a computer.

Disagree here, part of the VP system is a reflection of serious drains on the Allies resources that are not directly simulated. So you either do that as the game does, limit the OOB or some other abstraction. I can live with the VP penalties around U-boats/V-Weapons, it doesn't force me to do anything, just penalises me for removing assets from their historical priority.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

2) Game Balance - The Axis player has perfect knowledge of the Allied OOB and naval capabilities. The Allied player doesn't have perfect knowledge of the Axis OOB since it will vary depending upon what the Axis player pulls away from the East Front. This is a HUGE advantage for the Axis player and the inverse of what the situation was historically. This advantage should not be underestimated...and I think right now it is.

It is a pity that the Axis player knows exactly how many TFs there are but we are stuck with a realistic OOB and hindsight. Same problem in WiTE where all sorts of convoluted opening turns have been constructed on 100% knowledge of the location of every Soviet unit. What an Axis player doesn't know is how you intend to use them ...

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

3) Game Balance - The Axis player far too easly can respond to invasions in great strength. I think this is a problem which is particularly egregious when playing against the A.I. on normal and easy levels. For an invasion to be successful it must be able to gain some initiative to establish a foothold. The Axis capability to respond makes this very difficult and requires the Allied player to throw everything they have at an invasion to try to make it successful which in turn means there is no uncertainty in the Axis players mind that they need worry about a serious invasion anywhere else... thus they are free to throw the kitchen sink against the current one. I think part of the problem here is that interdiction should really be doing more to slow Axis tactical and strategic movement then it is...and not just doing some damage.

Too simplistic an analysis, you have tools, use them. Bomb out the rail net, use recon, hit the Luftwaffe on its bases - you can generate a 1-1 loss ratio this way, the Allies can stand that, in the longer run Germany can't. Really stack up your interdiction values. Create 3 high stacks on the beaches. Its not easy but its not undoable either.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

4) Game Balance - I've mentioned this before but it is far too easy to form strong defensive fortifications far too quickly and to maintain those fortifications in the face of active combat/contact with the enemy and sustained air and artillery bombardment. This naturally would tend to favor the Axis. Another problem in this regard is that the Allied players only method of softening fortifications is direct frontal assault. Since the player doesn't have any nuanced control over the level of attack (e.g. Massive prepatory air/artillery bombardment with probing attacks to see if fortification has been reduced and reinforce attack if they have vs "over the top boys, no one comes back alive") this also leads to a sustained VP loss for the Allies due to casualties.

Recon and interdiction will help avoid senseless attacks, hitting his supply lines will weaken them over time. I do agree that the current FZ-spam that some axis players do is unrealistic, but I think the fortification problem is something you can solve, its not necessarily unrealistic

[marion61]

Every time my troops kill a FZ they cheer for the -4 admin points it cost, and have celebrations. Build away![8D] Smaller celebrations for FZ not on the Italian coast tho.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
As for scoring -80 garrison points in the first 45 turns, is that really so much given the complete system? Now my guess is that when not playing with the East Front box off, that the Germans will be a little stronger in men and CV in the West then when playing with it on. I think this is what I used to see in my tests. So it's possible that a small adjustment might be desirable when playing with the EF off, but this goes to the idea of tweaking/balancing the VPs and does not mean the system needs to be thrown out.

Well, thank you for answering not a single one of the questions I asked. I guess the lack of answer is answer enough... [:)]

If you don´t think having 26,2% of your total positive VPs negated by garrison VPs to be much I don´t know what is? EF box is off btw...

Sorry, I typoed. I meant to say when playing with it off, the German CVs will probably be larger and will be able to generate more negative garrison VPs. I picked up the -80 points while skimming the thread and was focused on a few other issues. I'll go back and look at your specific questions.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: 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?

No plans at the moment.

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

Haven't thought about it. The plan would be to have some kind of points based system to get away from what we had with WitE, but we haven't thought about specifics. Much of what is in this system is specific to the situation in the west in 43-45.


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?

No plans to change the system for WitW. When a naval module is added, hard to say what would change. I'm not trying to be evasive, it's just a lot of this doesn't get thought about until it needed, and I'm not the most important person to speak to this as Gary and Pavel will be making any new system.


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?

I can't really speak to this fully since it's Gary's design. However, I think he put aircraft and AFV factories in a different category than the other more strategic targets. Also, the impact of bombing them are immediately seen in the game, more so than with the other targets.


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.

Not during this 43-45 time frame. I understand that there are elements in this game that are "outside the game", but I guess I just don't see them the same way you do. It doesn't bother me that as the Allied player I have to bomb certain places and take certain actions or suffer a penalty, and that these items won't help me win the war. It doesn't bother me that as the German player I have to spread garrisons over Europe or suffer a penalty, even though I might not want to do that. Those are part of the design. Yes, you are not at the absolute top of the food chain. It's not that I don't understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. I'm really sorry that you are not enjoying the game, and that the victory conditions are what's causing that lack of enjoyment. You can't program in the impact of the U-boat war, but you could create and calculate your own victory conditions if you don't like the ones we have. There's lot that gets written on the forum and I can't read all of it, but I try to keep up as best I can. In the meantime, I've noticed Red Lancer has posted a number of replies to various posts and as a member of the dev team he's usually got a good handle on our thinking (or at least a good understanding of some of the limitations that we deal with).



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?

I expect expansions will be lower priced, items considered full stand alone products will be priced as such. Right now we are working on an expansion with Tunisia and additional WitW scenarios. WitE 2.0 is expected to be a full product priced accordingly. I can't yet speak toward any other products as it depends on what they turn out to be.

[Usili]

My thoughts is though in consideration of the manpower, it does make sense somewhat considering the limited amount of personnel the United States Army was allowed to allocate during the war, which was split for both Europe and the Pacific, along with having to compete with the Navy, Army Air Force, and industry. The Army by late May of 1943 had been given the limit of 7.3 million personnel allowed, which would total a planned ninety divisions for the US Army. The divisions themselves were initially in November planned for forty-three in Europe, seven in North Africa, twenty-two in the Pacific, and eighteen for the continental reserve. "A report of the Operations Division's Strategy Section in late December 1943 substantiated this estimate that 90 divisions would be enough to win the war, although it allocated 58 divisions for Europe and North Africa, 25 for the Pacific, and kept only 7 in the reserve."

Even with that, the constant issues of manpower did plague the US Army throughout the rest of the war from 1943 to 1945. So in my mind, it does make sense considering the troop losses would affect the counts later on. Losses should though depending upon it, possibly affect your own divisions being trained since you would need to pull the manpower from those divisions being trained, which was the common place of replacements by detaching men in training camps from divisions being trained and then sending them to new divisions. I am just saying this based off a historical perspective for the US Army, so it does make sense at least for the VP constraint. However, I have yet to play MP for this game, and just playing against the AI a bit to learn in terms of how the fighting might take place directly there.

I could see on the flipside though another factor at least for German players, and that is the Luftwaffe. Starting in lets say, September of 1943, X% of the Luftwaffe fighter/fighter-bomber units should be forced to stay inside Germany to protect it against the Allied bombers. Depending upon how much percentage is missing, it in turn starts giving a negative amount of points present to the German player. Possibly as well though, it could maybe "boost" (if thats possible?) the bombing amounts or damage to the German HI, Manpower, Oil, Fuel, and Synthetic Fuel, or just directly boost the Strategic Bombing Points. It seems fair to me at least that the Germans should also be affected by their own garrison requirements to defend the "Fatherland" during the war.

At least to me, I could see Railyards, Aircraft Factories, and Vehicle Factories also being added to the Strategic Bombing Points list of possible targets. The Combined Bomber Offensive which outlined Oil/Fuel/Synthetic Fuel and U-Boats to be targeted should also include the targeting of Aircraft Factories from the start as well, with Railyards and Vehicle Factories being brought in at a later date to model the target of logistics against the Germans in preparation for an invasion of mainland Europe.

This is the source for the information regarding the US Army Divisions: history. army .mil/books/70-7_15.htm

(I don't have ten posts yet, so I had to sort of figure a way around not being able to post to links. If that is breaking a rule then, my apologies, but I wanted to provide the source for the first bit of info on the US Army and its limitation involving manpower.)

(I also have no idea why it says "in reply to Joel Billings"... So ignore that please.)