Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[KWG]

Seems that if the Allied player does better than say..historical results in bombing Uboots, German Production and takes some cities quicker with less casualties then having not conquered Germany is not as much of a loss to Allies therefore Allies win in VPs

And the reverse is true... You can capture Berlin but lose in VPs.... due to UBoots, un-bombed Germany production and high Allied casualties. Which could be considered as worse than historical results.

Should it be Berlin (or as much of Germany as possible) at any price?

[szmike]

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.

[LiquidSky]

I was going to try taking Berlin in one of my allied games. Hitting Italy with everything and just moving up. Half the German army will be forced to sit in Garrison in France et al. But I would be hit with the 1000 point penalty for not invading.

Still....getting into Germany and taking Berlin might be worth it in the end. It could have been a case of winning the war but losing the game.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: szmike

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.

No it shouldn't. Two points, first, with EF Box on the game can run until August 1945. There is no reason capturing Berlin in July 1945 for example should be rewarded with a major victory. None.

Second, the VP system is built to encourage a multidimensional approach. Strategic bombing, taking care in minimising losses etc. If you make Berlin auto-victory you will get cases of Allied players giving a damn about losses, strategic bombing, landings in Italy whatever all in pursuit of Berlin.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: szmike

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.

No it shouldn't. Two points, first, with EF Box on the game can run until August 1945. There is no reason capturing Berlin in July 1945 for example should be rewarded with a major victory. None.

Second, the VP system is built to encourage a multidimensional approach. Strategic bombing, taking care in minimising losses etc. If you make Berlin auto-victory you will get cases of Allied players giving a damn about losses, strategic bombing, landings in Italy whatever all in pursuit of Berlin.

Strangely that sounds like the US Army Victory Plan and land in France ASAP and drive on Berlin but the Brits were there to hobble them (and provide a level of sanity). Apart from losses, which should have their own negative effects, who gives a damn about strat bombing or landing in Italy??

"Auto Victory" for Berlin, maybe not but more points for capturing it earlier. Could be a "Feb-April" capture is AV, May gives lots of points, June onwards is less of a reward.

Of course, EF Box on makes modifications to this depending on how much is transferred above & beyond historical levels. (Take too much, Red Army gets the points for Berlin!)

[JeffroK]

Finally, different people play for different reasons, I have my style and approach, others play their games differently. I wouldnt play against many, many would NOT enjoy playing against me.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Strangely that sounds like the US Army Victory Plan and land in France ASAP and drive on Berlin but the Brits were there to hobble them (and provide a level of sanity). Apart from losses, which should have their own negative effects, who gives a damn about strat bombing or landing in Italy??

I take it that you are in favour of far lighter garrison requirements for the Germans, enabling them to use more divisions on the beaches then?

"Auto Victory" for Berlin, maybe not but more points for capturing it earlier. Could be a "Feb-April" capture is AV, May gives lots of points, June onwards is less of a reward.

Why in the world should there be any form of reward for capturing Berlin in June 1945? Even if the Soviets would have remained idle on the Oder the Allies would've taken Berlin in May. So you are basically saying the Allies should get a reward for capturing Berlin later than historically against a German force that's weaker than historically. Makes no sense.

Then, why should the Allies be the only party benefitting from a possible automatic victory? If the German sides holds onto Berlin until July (a full two months longer than historically!) why shouldn't they get the same treatment as the Allied player in the reverse case?

The game already gives a bonus for an early Berlin in form of (75 + City Points held) x #turns the game ended early. Now, we can debate about whether it should be a higher amount, but a) the devs chose a VP approach to keep both players on somewhat of a historical path b) even if you ignore that you still have to treat both sides the same. Right now your suggestions are only benefitting the Allies.

[Seminole]

But I would be hit with the 1000 point penalty for not invading.

They've already patched the game to make the beachhead penalties optional, and adjustable.

[Harrybanana]

So my game with QBall is complete. Below is the final map. In fairness to QBall he really didn't try too hard to hold a line the last few turns as he knew the game was just about over and even if I surrounded his units or broke through I would not have time to destroy many units or capture Berlin.

[Harrybanana]

The Final VPs and some other Info. We had another bug with me getting -15 Vps one turn for VWPNs when it should have only been -1. So after bug adjustment the Final VPs are 266, so a Draw.

[Harrybanana]

The VP graph for the whole game and the last 10 turns. As I think can be plainly seen I finished with far fewer VPs than I would have had if I had turtled at some point during the summer of 44. But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed. So from now on I for one will be turtling as the Allies. The only reason I continued attacking in this game was to see how far the Allies could drive and to prove a point. But since, like Liquid Sky, I generally play games to win (or at least to not lose as badly) the proper strategy is obvious. At least it should make for quicker games.

[Seminole]

He held onto more of Germany (and Italy) than 'historical', do you think the result of the game from your perspective (not simply the VP total) was a draw relative to history?

[Joel Billings]

Thanks for the info. Given that if the East Front is on, the Allies can lose a lot of points for not ending the war on time, a turtling Allied strategy might not be as effective. In this case, the Germans should be able to send a lot of troops east, and in theory delay the Soviets. This is not an option when the East Front is off as you know the war will end in early May no matter what the Allies do. I can see this being an issue, just not sure how the VPs could be adjusted to make things work out well for both EF on and EF off options.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

He held onto more of Germany (and Italy) than 'historical', do you think the result of the game from your perspective (not simply the VP total) was a draw relative to history?

Depends on how you look at it. If history is the sole judge than I guess a Minor German Victory would have been a fair result. But, IMHO, the Allies historically won this phase of the WitW so I personally think that if the Allied Player does as well as historical, or close thereto, he deserves to win a Minor Victory. Applying that to this particular game I would say that a Draw (but almost a Minor Victory) is a fair result.

But, of course, my point is that I could have easily won a Minor Victory if I had just stopped attacking at the end of summer in 44. That is the problem.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Thanks for the info. Given that if the East Front is on, the Allies can lose a lot of points for not ending the war on time, a turtling Allied strategy might not be as effective. In this case, the Germans should be able to send a lot of troops east, and in theory delay the Soviets. This is not an option when the East Front is off as you know the war will end in early May no matter what the Allies do. I can see this being an issue, just not sure how the VPs could be adjusted to make things work out well for both EF on and EF off options.

Joel, I see your point. If my suggestion of giving negative VPs to the Allies for not taking certain objectives is used, than in an EF Box ON game the German Player might be better off moving lots of units from the East Front to the West front. Then even if the War ends early with a Soviet capture of Berlin he might still win the game.

Not sure as I have a solution, other than perhaps only using the Negative VPs I am suggesting for EF Box Off games only.

[Seminole]

But, of course, my point is that I could have easily won a Minor Victory if I had just stopped attacking at the end of summer in 44. That is the problem.

I agree with you that the VP system in a no EF box games incentivizes the Allied player to turtle at some point.

But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed.

Please don't think I don't care, or that this isn't a problem, I just haven't gotten a game to that point myself.

I'm not sure what all of our options are within the existing VP system - can the Allies be penalized (or Axis rewarded, however you choose to look at it) for not capturing cities?

I'm also not sure that reducing the bombing divisor addresses the problem - you reach a point where additional casualties will outweigh additional city control points and SB points due to city capture.
If we reduce the city control points divisor you just reward the player more for what he already grabbed. I think there is agreement that the incentive needs (I mean within the context of this struggle) to be getting to the Elbe.
Exactly what tools (given the mature code base) do we have for that? I don't see the path there by just tweaking divisors.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I just want to throw in that although I understand the reasoning and desire to build in-game reasons to perform some actions now incentivized through the VP system, some items are there to offset things that can't be as easily built in. German garrisons come to mind. They weren't just there to defeat local partisans. They were there because German high command only had a limited appreciation of the amphibious capabilities of the Allies. V-weapons were almost entirely a political weapon in that the damage they did was fairly minor and not enough to impact Allied capabilities. The political need to cut down on the V-weapons far outweighed any damage that could be reflected in the game. These are just a few examples. I also agree that providing all the in-game effects could be time-consuming, and as always we have to make trade-offs with our resources.

Not trying to sidetrack this active and interesting discussion, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on this part of it.

+1

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMVHO, the VP system in WITW is an attempt to force players into recreating history. It also feels like the Army is there to attract targets for the AirForce

VP for strategic bombing of specific targets, landing in Italy & France, keeping garrison levels up, avoiding losses etc.

If more time had been put into the game there would be other ways of "encouraging" players to follow similar strategies by means
of rewards/penalties and the game may have taken another 12 mths and cost 50% more.


Bombing Uboats, Germans get a number of boats manufactured (like aircraft),If you bomb the factories they don't get built,
bomb the pens and they are less effective. Failure to do so sees increased interdiction levels in the Atlantic (subject to
Coastal Command commitment) and a decrease in "supplies" arriving in the UK.

Bombing V-Weapons, similar, destroy factories and VSites and you stop the rain of V1/2 which damage ports.

Germans dont lose VP for lack of garrisons, but dont keep up the numbers and the Resistance creates havoc with your LOC & Depots.

A good player should be avoiding losses, and have manpower limits which should bite if you are too profligate with your troops.
(Especially with troops from NZ, Sth Africa, Poland & maybe pre DDay French, very limited reinforcements)

I'd like to see a "National Morale" system, too many UBoats & V weapons and the Brits suffer a loss to morale which affects
production/reinforcements, No Luftwaffe and the same happens to Germany etc

I know these sort of changes cannot be made to WITW but it should be how things are approached, not the "hit with a stick approach" currently used.

So you know how much time was put into this game?
How do you know that?
You don't know sht about how much time was put into game or the cost.
We all have opinions, but your opinion is simply BS and wrong as you simply know nothing about what your talking about.
I was part of dev team and don't know cost/time ect ect.

I left because I have different opinions based on data, you have none.

2by3 did all the work, set up the game as they saw fit.

Its not perfect, but dam good.

The data (The facts) show that once 2by3 releases a game they support it and it improves to the point of being next to perfect - WitP/WitE.

If your going to OOOO pine start by not throwing out BS, like you know how muct time it takes to code the game or the costs.

I like to see your VP system.

What is it?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed.

Please don't think I don't care, or that this isn't a problem, I just haven't gotten a game to that point myself.

I wasn't talking about you Seminole, but rather about the silent majority who have not as yet provide their opinion on this subject one way or the other. But you may have hit the nail on the head that so few games make it to the End Game stage that many players just haven't yet seen the problem for themselves.

[LiquidSky]

I have yet to play a game that didn't involve an awful lot of luck that wasn't decided in the middle, or was made clear what the inevitable conclusion is before the end approached.

That is just a fact of gaming. You can only really eliminate it by allowing extreme luck...a game like Advanced Squad Leader. Then you play on hoping for the extreme luck to save your ass.

Is there really a strategy that always works? For example will the allies always win by invading, turtling and just strat bombing to victory without attacking? Or can the Germans prevent such a win, if they suspect that is the route they are taking? If what the Germans do is meaningless because the allies can bomb cities to win, then there is a problem. I suspect, and will find out in my game with HarryBanana, that is not the case.

I think there is a counter to every strategy in the game, but some strategies are more effective to the unwary opponent.