Shearing the Sheep! - JocMeister(WA) vs. Meklore61(Ax)

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I always look at AARs to judge the potential for wargames, and I am saddened to see so very little activity here.[:(] I think I made the right decision to hold off on buying the game...I haven't rule it out, but I am quite content to wait until next Thanksgiving for a sale hopefully.

Meanwhile, I will live vicariously thru Joc. Thanks![&o]

Sadly you are right. This game is already dying. There are some games going but most who is playing are BETA testers and they are mostly playing among themselves. So activity may actually be lower then it looks since the few people playing have multiple games going on and they are all playing each other.

I don´t think the game sold very well to begin with and it didn´t receive the stellar welcoming it needed to generate more sales. With the extremely high price tag many probably held off buying to see how the game was received. And with the many design related problems that quickly surfaced it killed any chances WitW had.

As a comparison there are 18 people currently looking for a WitE opponents. There is 1(!) guy looking for a WitW game and that poor fellow have been looking for 2-3 weeks now without finding a game.

Meklore is trying his very best to get me to like WitW but its not happening I´m afraid. The game simply isn´t good or fun enough for me to enjoy. After this game I´ll either go back to AE (unlikely) or try my hands on a WitE MP game.

I said it already a month ago that this game would be dead in 6 months. I may get right sooner then I thought!

[JocMeister]

______________________________________________________________________________

[font="Verdana"]Turn 15.[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

Nothing to report except more poor design showing its ugly head.

[Baelfiin]

somebody oops on garrisons?

[Seminole]

somebody oops on garrisons?

TOE changes can bite you. This can be really be tough in a garrison city that has a FZ you can't disband. Coupled with the Sec detachment requirement it's easy to have a city defended by a unit that is suddenly too weak, and you can't stack anymore on it, or get a panzer unit there soon enough.

Only way to avoid it is to keep something very strong like an FJ or Panzer unit in those cities and keep a good margin on your zone requirements.

I prefer the VP system for handling garrison requirements over just having units 'frozen' until some predefined trigger.
At least this way the player gets to make some decisions on trade offs, and can rebalance garrison forces in light of other needs.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

somebody oops on garrisons?

Yeah, TOE upgrades and a unit withdrawal messed it up for Meklore. He has already lost 28 VPs earlier because a unit had something .75 in CV. Very clumsy design.

[Baelfiin]

I agree.

I dont think Fort units count for garrison either

[Seminole]

I dont think Fort units count for garrison either

Correct, they don't. The existence of the FZ in a city that can't be disbanded forces the use of an elite or panzer unit to ensure garrison requirements.

Yeah, TOE upgrades and a unit withdrawal messed it up for Meklore. He has already lost 28 VPs earlier because a unit had something .75 in CV. Very clumsy design.

Why no credit to Meklore for clumsy execution?
Why use a unit pegged for withdrawal for garrison?

You get bitten by something like this once or twice learning how it works in the game, and then it shouldn't happen again unless you're taking the deliberate step of riding on the knife's edge of those requirements. If he lost points because of <1 CV perhaps riding the knife's edge is what got him cut.
There is a Sec Div (325th?), so you could stack it with an Infantry Div in a garrison city with a FZ you can't disband and still meet the requirement if you'd rather not devote a panzer unit to that area. Figuring out some of these things takes experience.

Do you have a way you'd prefer historical garrison requirements to be met, or the ignoring of them handled?
Would it be better to have all the occupied territories behave in a way similar to Italy after surrender wherein if there are no nearby units entire areas just liberate themselves (and thereby destroy any factories, rail, depots, etc.)?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I dont think Fort units count for garrison either

Correct, they don't. The existence of the FZ in a city that can't be disbanded forces the use of an elite or panzer unit to ensure garrison requirements.

Yeah, TOE upgrades and a unit withdrawal messed it up for Meklore. He has already lost 28 VPs earlier because a unit had something .75 in CV. Very clumsy design.

Why no credit to Meklore for clumsy execution?
Why use a unit pegged for withdrawal for garrison?

You get bitten by something like this once or twice learning how it works in the game, and then it shouldn't happen again unless you're taking the deliberate step of riding on the knife's edge of those requirements. If he lost points because of <1 CV perhaps riding the knife's edge is what got him cut.
There is a Sec Div (325th?), so you could stack it with an Infantry Div in a garrison city with a FZ you can't disband and still meet the requirement if you'd rather not devote a panzer unit to that area. Figuring out some of these things takes experience.

Do you have a way you'd prefer historical garrison requirements to be met, or the ignoring of them handled?
Would it be better to have all the occupied territories behave in a way similar to Italy after surrender wherein if there are no nearby units entire areas just liberate themselves (and thereby destroy any factories, rail, depots, etc.)?

What I mean by clumsy is the instant and massive penalty. Same as the "no beachhead" penalty. Its clumsy and shows the lack of fine tuning and finesse in WitW. If you have to go by the above two penalties a sliding scale would have been a far, far better solution.

Example: No beachhead Penalty. -1000 VPs. Instantly. 10 hexes or -1000 VP. [X(] Decides the game. They could just as well have slapped a "game over" sign for the WAs. It doesn´t take anything into consideration. It gives the player no "way out". A proper game doesn´t do that to two players who have invested months into a game. Its just amateurish game design.

Better solutions:
-Base it on numbers of hexes.
-Have a sliding scale staring with -X VPs and then increasing for each turn the 10 hexes arn´t met.
-Have a -X VP penalty each month the 10 hexes arn´t met.
-Or simply don´t have the penalties be so massively over exaggerated that even the most minute mistake can cost you the game. -0.25 CV = 28 VPs. Really? [8|] 9 hexes instead of 10. -1000 VPs. Really? [8|] Some TOE changes = -138 VPs. Really? [8|]

Just apply the same concept to garrison penalties.

There you have 3 suggestions that are all better then the current system. Give me a couple of hours and I can probably come up with 30 more.

[Seminole]

Example: No beachhead Penalty. -1000 VPs. Instantly. 10 hexes or -1000 VP. Decides the game.

Historically, by July 1 the WA had ~20 hexes of territory in Normandy, and this is before the Op. Cobra breakout.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think the size of this penalty is in some respects akin to a 'Sudden Death' victory condition. If the Germans have truly bottled the WA into less than half the space they had taken historically he gets a bonus of VP.
The point of this is to get both sides committed to fighting.

It doesn´t take anything into consideration. It gives the player no "way out".

What it is taking into consideration is player achievement compared to historical achievement.
The 'way out' is to do at least half as well as the WA by that point, or see the German player rewarded for exceeding historical benchmarks.

Is this bar really too high for the Allies that it breaks the game in some respect? I'm dubious.
Unless the Allied player is unaware of the rule and sitting on his hands, it shouldn't even come up.

Or simply don´t have the penalties be so massively over exaggerated that even the most minute mistake can cost you the game. -0.25 CV = 28 VPs. Really?

In the future Meklore will weigh whatever advantage he perceived acquiring by stripping his garrison areas against the risk of riding the edge of those requirements. Is 28 points massive in the scope of the game? Seems like that penalty would disappear with a few weeks being over garrison requirements.

Some TOE changes = -138 VPs. Really?

I think this only happens if the German player was trying to ride right at the 100% minimum of garrison requirements. The German player has to weight the reward and risk of stripping these areas.

[Q-Ball]

I actually think the garrison requirements are manageable, except for the city of Bordeaux. I would like to see a fix for Bordeaux, because the problem there is you need a 9-CV unit or greater to meet the requirement (Because the Sec unit and Fort take the other two slots).

[NotOneStepBack]

So what if you decide to land later than history? You can't make up ground to win? Say you invade closer to Berlin. Does it matter because you don't need Berlin anyway? I'm not convinced the 1000 VP penalty is a good thing either. Why not just grab your 10 hexes and sit on a win?

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I actually think the garrison requirements are manageable, except for the city of Bordeaux. I would like to see a fix for Bordeaux, because the problem there is you need a 9-CV unit or greater to meet the requirement (Because the Sec unit and Fort take the other two slots).

Yep this is the biggest one. Plus I would like the Security unit to start there instead of 3 or 4 hexes away.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

So what if you decide to land later than history? You can't make up ground to win? Say you invade closer to Berlin. Does it matter because you don't need Berlin anyway? I'm not convinced the 1000 VP penalty is a good thing either. Why not just grab your 10 hexes and sit on a win?

Being a WITPAE addict, I've seen many an Allied Player come back from the jaws of an occupation of India, Australia & much of the Pacific. The WITPAE game doesnt make you occupy Guadalcanal by X Date or attack Midway by Y date. In WITW, should you have a setback on Sicily or in Italy which then delays a NW Europe invasion the game tells you you have lost. No matter if you have just pocketed all of the Wermacht in Italy and only bare garrison forces remain in NW Europe.

[JocMeister]

Semi, you still miss my point. I don´t think I can explain it any better though. [:)] I´m currently talking about HOW the penalty is applied. Its a very poor design for a game. I still loath the penalty in its self but its not what I´m questioning here. You don´t (for good reason) apply penalties like that because its creates anger, frustration and resentment with the players. Its poor design for a game because it makes people not wanting to play the game.

You can argue your point but from a gameplay perspective both the penalties and they way they are applied are extremely poorly implemented. I´m not going to start ranting about the actual penalty again but agree 100% with NOSB and JeffK.

[Seminole]

You don´t (for good reason) apply penalties like that because its creates anger, frustration and resentment with the players.

What does it create for the player it is rewarding?
This strikes me as more of a glass half full/half empty perception issue. Not saying that doesn't make it an issue for the glass half empty crowd, but that honestly doesn't enter my estimation of the value or utility of the rule in question.
If the campaign had one VP total for each player, instead of the 'tug of war' over a single VP total, would that change this perceptually for you? If Germany was 'rewarded' 1000 points for containing the Allies a certain amount by a certain date, and there was no 'penalty' to the Allied player (aside from seeing Germany get points they could have prevented with more able play), do you still get angry, frustrated and filled with resentment?

It's only in seeing games play out that we can see how these rules fit into the balance of points. People seem more interested in guessing the outcomes than getting to the outcomes.

I ask again, is 10 hexes by July 1 really that hard a bar to reach? It's intended to put pressure on the WA player to not sit on his hands, and to induce and reward the German player for stuffing the Allied player instead of hiding beyond the Seigfried Wall.

To those who seek to secure 10 hexes and then sit on their hands. Go ahead, let's see how that works out, although I have to wonder why people interested in doing that bought this game in the first place...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Semi, you still miss my point. I don´t think I can explain it any better though. [:)] I´m currently talking about HOW the penalty is applied. Its a very poor design for a game. I still loath the penalty in its self but its not what I´m questioning here. You don´t (for good reason) apply penalties like that because its creates anger, frustration and resentment with the players. Its poor design for a game because it makes people not wanting to play the game.

You can argue your point but from a gameplay perspective both the penalties and they way they are applied are extremely poorly implemented. I´m not going to start ranting about the actual penalty again but agree 100% with NOSB and JeffK.

I realise this is fundamentally a matter of perception, but I'm basically content with the VP design approach. I'm not saying everything is properly calibrated and there are so few games being reported to the end that its hard to come to a judgement.

My understanding is that from the perspective of the Western Allies this was basically a political war, or more strictly one in which wider political dynamics had a profound impact on military decision making. I realise that all wars have this aspect but it seemed to be more critical. The Soviets in the end had a very simple context, - survive and crush German fascism. Their war became more political as they moved outside the USSR borders, but that was because military success generated political opportunities.

For the Allies, their military options were set within a political environment. The pressure for a Second Front was first pressure from Stalin for divergence of German troops and then later political pressure to stop Soviet Communism being imposed across most of mainland Europe. The British were casualty averse. There was a very limited manpower pool (remember that a number of those conscripted were actually deployed into factories and mines) and a real fear of anything like WW1 slaughter (shared by many officers who had held relatively junior rank in 1914-18 and seen the losses for themselves). The V-1/2 was political, neither weapon was going to destroy the UK's industrial base but both did threaten civilian morale.

So what I'm sort of saying is that some way the game needs to reflect all this. As the German or Soviet player in WiTE winning is the only justification you need, for the Allies how you win matters (and this may hamper optimum military planning)?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

You don´t (for good reason) apply penalties like that because its creates anger, frustration and resentment with the players.

What does it create for the player it is rewarding?
This strikes me as more of a glass half full/half empty perception issue. Not saying that doesn't make it an issue for the glass half empty crowd, but that honestly doesn't enter my estimation of the value or utility of the rule in question.
If the campaign had one VP total for each player, instead of the 'tug of war' over a single VP total, would that change this perceptually for you? If Germany was 'rewarded' 1000 points for containing the Allies a certain amount by a certain date, and there was no 'penalty' to the Allied player (aside from seeing Germany get points they could have prevented with more able play), do you still get angry, frustrated and filled with resentment?

It's only in seeing games play out that we can see how these rules fit into the balance of points. People seem more interested in guessing the outcomes than getting to the outcomes.

I ask again, is 10 hexes by July 1 really that hard a bar to reach? It's intended to put pressure on the WA player to not sit on his hands, and to induce and reward the German player for stuffing the Allied player instead of hiding beyond the Seigfried Wall.

To those who seek to secure 10 hexes and then sit on their hands. Go ahead, let's see how that works out, although I have to wonder why people interested in doing that bought this game in the first place...

Again I think you miss my point. I would be just as unhappy with a 1000 VP German reward just as I am with the German Garrison penalty. Don´t put in a game deciding penalty like that. For any side.

And yes, getting 10 hexes before July the 1st is actually very hard to do. Weather limits you to when you can land and by the time you can actually land in good weather you will only have 3-4 turns to grab 10 hexes. Which against a competent German player is very, very, very hard... Against Pelton I actually landed 1-2 weeks before the historical landing. I landed as soon as I got clear weather. But I was later hit with 2 weeks of rain in late June which ruined any chance of getting the last two hexes needed. So a game undone for two persons by 2 weeks of bad weather and 2 hexes. That is just stupid and poor game design.

Same thing with Garrisons. A single slip of the finger (accidently moving a unit or whatever) can cost you as much as 3 months of Allied bombings. Its silly. Clumsy and silly.

I respect your opinion but I think you are missing the big picture here just as the developers are. I´m not talking about VP balance here at all. Its a GAME. Its supposed to be fun and rewarding to play and not an exercise in frustration and battling rules that and are clumsy and harshly implemented. This has been my point pretty much from day 1 and it still is.

If I´m completely wrong and the devs got everything right why is the game already fading from interest? But I guess we reached kind of a dead end with our discussion. Clearly we are in different camps. [:)]

As I said to Red Lancer I´ll be more then happy if I´m wrong and this game will be a great success with a active and long lived community. But I still bet I´m not and after summer only very few people will still be playing. I think we will see some smaller modules added shortly that will be very expensive without adding much to the game. They will sell extremely poorly and the devs will quickly be back to WitE 2.0 and never get back to the Western Front.

I´ll buy you a beer if I´m wrong. [:)]

[Helpless]

If I´m completely wrong and the devs got everything right why is the game already fading from interest?

You seem to keep burring it in each of your posts. So far amount of new MP games on server is not getting down, dev forum activity is even higher when it was after WITE release. Yes, it has not "THE THREAD" activity of WITP, but it doesn't prove anything. Everyone and everything will die at the end.

I'd say game would be badly broken if you wouldn't loose to best beta testers. Unfortunately it can't be used as a conclusion base alone. I'm not the one who designed VP system, but I'm desperately trying to find something really constructive out of that and so far it is covered by thick layer of emotions. Tweaking and changing VP system is not a big deal from programming point of view, but it takes long time to balance it out so all changes should be properly weighted. Currently I provided a set of tools to set air campaign VPs, which is quite different from what it is now. Also we allow to change victory levels in campaign. Adding abilities to tweak other parts is also possible and it was done in WITE after release.

I was playing a lot UV and WITP, bought AE when it came out and it appeared completely unplayable for me. I'm not blaming devs, I think it is matter of my taste and current capabilities, which is always good to remember before going into bold statements and conclusions.

[NotOneStepBack]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Seminole

You don´t (for good reason) apply penalties like that because its creates anger, frustration and resentment with the players.

What does it create for the player it is rewarding?
This strikes me as more of a glass half full/half empty perception issue. Not saying that doesn't make it an issue for the glass half empty crowd, but that honestly doesn't enter my estimation of the value or utility of the rule in question.
If the campaign had one VP total for each player, instead of the 'tug of war' over a single VP total, would that change this perceptually for you? If Germany was 'rewarded' 1000 points for containing the Allies a certain amount by a certain date, and there was no 'penalty' to the Allied player (aside from seeing Germany get points they could have prevented with more able play), do you still get angry, frustrated and filled with resentment?

It's only in seeing games play out that we can see how these rules fit into the balance of points. People seem more interested in guessing the outcomes than getting to the outcomes.

I ask again, is 10 hexes by July 1 really that hard a bar to reach? It's intended to put pressure on the WA player to not sit on his hands, and to induce and reward the German player for stuffing the Allied player instead of hiding beyond the Seigfried Wall.

To those who seek to secure 10 hexes and then sit on their hands. Go ahead, let's see how that works out, although I have to wonder why people interested in doing that bought this game in the first place...

Again I think you miss my point. I would be just as unhappy with a 1000 VP German reward just as I am with the German Garrison penalty. Don´t put in a game deciding penalty like that. For any side.

And yes, getting 10 hexes before July the 1st is actually very hard to do. Weather limits you to when you can land and by the time you can actually land in good weather you will only have 3-4 turns to grab 10 hexes. Which against a competent German player is very, very, very hard... Against Pelton I actually landed 1-2 weeks before the historical landing. I landed as soon as I got clear weather. But I was later hit with 2 weeks of rain in late June which ruined any chance of getting the last two hexes needed. So a game undone for two persons by 2 weeks of bad weather and 2 hexes. That is just stupid and poor game design.

Same thing with Garrisons. A single slip of the finger (accidently moving a unit or whatever) can cost you as much as 3 months of Allied bombings. Its silly. Clumsy and silly.

I respect your opinion but I think you are missing the big picture here just as the developers are. I´m not talking about VP balance here at all. Its a GAME. Its supposed to be fun and rewarding to play and not an exercise in frustration and battling rules that and are clumsy and harshly implemented. This has been my point pretty much from day 1 and it still is.

If I´m completely wrong and the devs got everything right why is the game already fading from interest? But I guess we reached kind of a dead end with our discussion. Clearly we are in different camps. [:)]

As I said to Red Lancer I´ll be more then happy if I´m wrong and this game will be a great success with a active and long lived community. But I still bet I´m not and after summer only very few people will still be playing. I think we will see some smaller modules added shortly that will be very expensive without adding much to the game. They will sell extremely poorly and the devs will quickly be back to WitE 2.0 and never get back to the Western Front.

I´ll buy you a beer if I´m wrong. [:)]

This is what gets me the most. I had 450 VPs in the black on Meklore and I decided to invade early in order to secure my 10 hexes. It was stupid and I should've waited until Spring, but I figured I was well ahead in the game and I had a fully prepped invasion force at 90 prep points, fully rested air force and clear skies for a few turns.

It ended up in disaster and I can't try a new invasion before the 1000 vp penalty, so I have resigned the game in disgust. Was it my own stupid fault? Yes. But we didn't finish the game because it doesn't make sense to put another month into it when it's decided by July 1 '44. Nor does it make sense that a TOE change in that game gave me over 150 VPs due to garrisons.

Axis players are also getting smarter as are Allied players. I figured out how to get bombing Vps in '43 to set up 44. Axis players have figured out how to keep strike forces on rails to combat any invasion. We are in an arms race of gimmicky tactics now to beat each other.

I am getting more frustrated with the campaign and have switched over to scenario play for the time.

[Seminole]

This is what gets me the most. I had 450 VPs in the black on Meklore and I decided to invade early in order to secure my 10 hexes. It was stupid and I should've waited until Spring, but I figured I was well ahead in the game and I had a fully prepped invasion force at 90 prep points, fully rested air force and clear skies for a few turns.
It ended up in disaster and I can't try a new invasion before the 1000 vp penalty, so I have resigned the game in disgust.

So if you think you can't get a decisive victory the game is no longer worth playing?
That's unfortunate, particularly for your opponents...

I would be interesting if you'd play the game out and see how big a difference the 1000 point reward makes over the course of a full game. The VP spread between an Axis decisive victory and an Allied decisive victory is 4000 points.

Was it my own stupid fault? Yes. But we didn't finish the game because it doesn't make sense to put another month into it when it's decided by July 1 '44.

You didn't finish the game because you didn't like your prospects anymore. We have no idea how you would fared in the campaign overall because you chose to not find out.

Nor does it make sense that a TOE change in that game gave me over 150 VPs due to garrisons.

I've covered this, and I think too big a deal is made of it. That is avoidable by the Axis player so long as he doesn't try to keep his garrison commitments at razor thin levels. I agree it can blindside you the first time you play, but there is no excuse for experiencing it again unless willfully entertaining the risk for the perceived reward.

Axis players are also getting smarter as are Allied players. I figured out how to get bombing Vps in '43 to set up 44. Axis players have figured out how to keep strike forces on rails to combat any invasion. We are in an arms race of gimmicky tactics now to beat each other.

I don't think figuring out the air war is 'gimmicky'. We only find out how balanced the VP system is when people figure out how to play. There will still be decisions made balancing the attacks against SBP targets and other targets that lend themselves to aiding the ground war. There's not going to be just One Way To Play the air war.
If the Axis player wants to leave his panzers on flat cars they don't contribute at all to garrison values, so the higher response time has a real world trade off of no active defense from those units, no digging by those units, and no extra garrison points by those units (with the added risk of losing VP if you mismanage garrisons in their absence).
Furthermore, it's not WitE where the Russians could put an entire Front on rails and send it from the Artic Circle to Stalingrad in a week. The cumulative movement costs, and the SMP costs of unloading, can be compounded by Allied player actions as well. I know from my own experience countering Bomazz's latest Italian invasion that I could get my panzers farther across clear terrain by driving than I could by rail because of the unloading costs, and that was just due to small railyards, not railyard or railway bombing. Panzers on rails provide some response advantage, but not without costs, and not without any ability for the Allies to increase those costs and reduce its efficacy.

I am getting more frustrated with the campaign and have switched over to scenario play for the time.

People rage quit those too. [;)]
But they are fun!