Territory matters!

[Simbelmude]

o

[Simbelmude]

I think we all know that very little will get implemented in this version- but this is the time for ideas for WITE 2.0 to be discussed. Guru has brought up some excellent points.

Hi everyone

I’d like to join the chorus of voices concerned about the victory conditions. I’ve had a couple of games vs the AI so far, and a couple of PBEM vs a friend.
I’d like to point out something that Guru has said, that seems essential to me regarding this issue:

Yet, contrarily to scenarios, the campaign game VC are formaulated, for the German, in negative terms (barring a K.O. victory which is unlikely): that is, defensive: lose as late as possible. That is paradoxical when we consder that the game portrays operation Barbarossa, which was an offensive undertaking if ever there was one.
So the problem is that once the German gives up the idea of a K.O victory (most likely winter 41) he must play with a completely defensive set of mind, that is delaying defeat.

Indeed, my gaming experience indicates that the only viable German strategy is playing very conservatively regarding preservation of forces … (and, actually, that applies to the Soviet too).
Apart from any considerations about how historical that is, it makes for a rather duller game…

The problem is, as Guru pointed out, that if the WiE player might win by postponing the destruction of Germany to after the historical time of her surrendering, the real Germans did not consider losing Berlin to the Red Army a victory, whether in May, in September, or anytime after. The Germans were condemned to a “win or die” scenario, postponing defeat was never an objective worth pursuing.
This explains undertaking such as Citadel, the battle of the Bulge, the Lake Balaton offensive, which burned up forces that would have been much more precious in defensive, if the objective had been to prolong the agony of the Third Reich.

Conservative play therefore means that, in spite of a meticulously researched and reproduced Order of battle, what we’re dealing with in the game has nothing to do with the real Third Reich, nothing to do with the real Wehrmacht, nothing to do with the real High Command, with their defining and constraining psychological, political, historical, geo-strategic determinations, without which there would have been no Barbarossa in the first place.

I think that Guru ‘s idea of linking national morale to a “victory progress” linked to how many landmark locations are captured, and when, is really good, and, incidentally, would give the soviet a very good reason not to give them away too easily.

To makes things short, I fully agree with Guru that offensive-minded victory conditions would greatly enhance both fun and realism.

[loki100]

I agree completely with this. There is a game logic to saying if the Red Star is over the Reichstag in August 1945 not May, the German player has 'won', but in truth that was never a real valid condition. On the other hand, in so far as the Nazis had a strategy after the summer of 1944 it was based on the hope that relations between the Soviets and the West would break down to the point where the Allies would take the rump of the Reich on as allies - so I guess there is some logic to the 'hangon to the end mindset'.

If you go for interim objectives they have to help force (but not straightjacket) the action in a way that starts to add on a logic that reflects historical choices.

So one simple set of sudden death is for the Germans to hold say Rostov-Kharkov-Orel-Moscow by the end of 1941. That may create some of the ambivalence about taking Leningrad in an urge to prioritise Moscow?

And then try to build up a set that reflect the varying strategic goals for each side as the war developed, but still allowing a player to follow their own logic in a particular campaign. So, as an eg, say the Soviets need Smolensk+Kiev by May 1942 (again needs to be carefully calibrated), esp as Smolensk featured in a lot of Stalin's more unrealistic dictates to the Fronts after the Winter Offensive commenced.

A different route would be a simple city based VP haul at particular stages?

[JeremyB]

A different route would be a simple city based VP haul at particular stages?

I guess that would be the best option, in order to allow strategic flexibility, while forcing both sides to aim at some tangible achievements. Sudden death conditions, as mentioned by Simbelmude, would also be a good idea, in order to keep the pressure.

[swkuh]

Seems that game managed victory points & conditions can be handled by agreement in head-to-head games, and of course, vs. AI. Do you need the developers to tell you you've won?

But one idea given by T.Guru is to link factors that affect game performance to the conditions achieved in the game. Thus, national and/or unit morale at some level could be linked to territory and time. There might be others to consider, such as production, technical developments, supplies, ... as might be imagined. Not saying how the linkages would be accomplished. Controversial issues, for sure.

Game is successful as programmed, but for some gaminess is a sin, for others, a challenge, and for others, historical reality, an ultimate desiderata.

BTW, there are always the 2nd Front effects to "manage."

Good luck.

[The Guru]

Seems that game managed victory points & conditions can be handled by agreement in head-to-head games, and of course, vs. AI. Do you need the developers to tell you you've won?

well, actually, yes. I mean, there could be total wipe-out scenarios that would leave no doubts as to who has won, but they are not likely to occur frequently. Most probably, a player will achieve "victory" by outperforming his historical counterpart. And that is subject to interpretation.
I'd hate to end a 50+ hours game vs an internet opponent with something like: "Well, I think I just won there. "Come on, I am the one winning!" "You must be joking, I took Leningrad!" "Maybe, but didn't I just recapture Kiev? Ha!" "Yes, but you lost 5 million casualties!!!" "Well, your whole 18th Army surrendered three turns ago!" ... etc ...

I'm not saying that gentlemen cannot always find an arrangement, but since people that play games try to win them, as a rule, victory conditions are what ultimately determines strategy. This is why I think it is essential that objective, measurable, and unambiguous victory conditions, applicable to both players, be provided before the game even starts.

[morvael]

As I stated in other threads: for me the VP should be the immediate reward for getting trashed as the Soviets in 41-42, and as the Germans in 43-45 by following historical trends and doctrines, and not min-maxing the rules. They should be there to make it interesting for the German player to keep playing from '43 to bitter end and not bailing out after first setback. Such things cannot be "handled by agreement".

[Simbelmude]

There are sudden death victory systems that work pretty well in cardboard wargames, with victory levels that have to be attained at specific times or else the game is lost.
It keeps the pressure for the attacker, it prevents the defender from conceding too much too quickly, and it makes for a more virile game, with the attacker pushing that extra city that will give him SD victory, or the defender trying to hold on to his real estate long enough to trigger his own SD victory.
And it makes for shorter games too. they actually finish, instead of being abandoned half way through as is the case for 99% of current campaigns.

[Michael T]

In total agreement Simbelmude and I have spruiked the same stuff since day one. We badly need some SD VC as an option. Would have saved myself 100's of hours of frustration and in the end total bewilderment.

[janh]

SD VC wouldn't harm I guess. I'd like the VC in GC to be following the same pattern as in the smaller scenarios, points per turn held. And if possible, allow some variance for the VC so that from campaign to campaign the center of attention might be shifted a bit. Sort of mimicking the oft illogical obsession of Hitler or Stalin with a certain place that lead to mistakes or losses that would have seen Clausewitz turn in his grave. Another point would be the effects fast progress or retreat, or prolonged struggles for a city, could have had on the national will to fight. Someone above mentioned that already. Would be nice if the end of the war would be affected some by that, say perhaps by a little shifting of the VP levels depending on the speed of the contest.

If the new logistic system with rail infrastructure, lines, depots and bridges will work as indicated by Joel, the value of territory and places, at least the purely military value, will be greatly changed. It does sound very interesting what they plan.

With territory all of you mean only cities, right? That the territory itself was merely problem for the attacker role, but could be a somewhat value currency to generate time/delay for a defender with an intact army, was a lesson already learned by Napoleon, and apparently lost to the two dictators messing up the military conduct of the war. It can be most useful, though, if you have the army to turn "ground" into sufficient slow enemy advance. You can turn the game into a numbers game if Wehrmacht is strong, i.e. loosing about 1 hex per turn, except a few mud turns for the bank, you can easily calculate how deep your drive until mid-43 ought to be. With Wehrmacht often in the 3.5M to 4.0M+ range (esp. against AI) these days, the Soviet player will really hate territory. On the contrary, as the Pelton vs Michael games hinted, even with an intact and morally-strong Army, but little territory left, things look bad as well. And if your army's back is broken, nothing matters anyway. Both depend on each other. I'd say territory in WitE is not worthless, but merely has the value based purely on military consideration (within the limits of the logistic engine). Any political value beyond pure VP is absent.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I have spruiked ... since day one.

I hesitate to try to guess what spruiking is but wonder if this is appropriate language for a forum read by the young and old; admittedly far more of the latter?[;)]

[The Guru]

SD VC wouldn't harm I guess. I'd like the VC in GC to be following the same pattern as in the smaller scenarios, points per turn held.

That is what I have been pleading for.

And if possible, allow some variance for the VC so that from campaign to campaign the center of attention might be shifted a bit.

That’s precisely what the points system allows for. You can compensate not holding X in the North by capturing Y in the south. Delay here by being ahead of schedule there. Less territorial gains by more losses inflicted, or the opposite; The points system allows for a lot of flexibility, but not absurdity, as it still requires a minimal measure of success.

With territory all of you mean only cities, right?

It’s the easiest to measure, and, as mentioned before, cities constituted a emblematic reference for propaganda.

That the territory itself was merely problem for the attacker role, but could be a somewhat value currency to generate time/delay for a defender with an intact army

Hence the « End of Turn » points for holding ground. So delaying tactics will be rewarded, as well as stubborn defense (unless it is “too” stubborn, of course, which happened a good many times too). But of course, territorial gains have to be mitigated with the military losses. That essential dilemna is at the crux of strategy, and somewhat absent from the game.

I'd say territory in WitE is not worthless, but merely has the value based purely on military consideration (within the limits of the logistic engine). Any political value beyond pure VP is absent.

Territory in itself only has value from a tactical or operational perspective. From a strategic point of view, and unless its possession means deprive the enemy of resources that affect its military strength (which is only marginally the case in WitE, (and it’s about right), it is essentially political, in the same way as war is essentially a political undertaking with military means. Victory in war can only be political. So the eclipse of that aspect in WitE is very damageable to the game as a conflict simulation.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: The Guru

SD VC wouldn't harm I guess. I'd like the VC in GC to be following the same pattern as in the smaller scenarios, points per turn held.

That is what I have been pleading for.

And if possible, allow some variance for the VC so that from campaign to campaign the center of attention might be shifted a bit.

That’s precisely what the points system allows for. You can compensate not holding X in the North by capturing Y in the south. Delay here by being ahead of schedule there. Less territorial gains by more losses inflicted, or the opposite; The points system allows for a lot of flexibility, but not absurdity, as it still requires a minimal measure of success.

The thought of a VP system, in which VP are not merely another value "for the exact same" as manpower power points, factories etc., i.e. a city like Kiev becoming in one campaign more valuable in terms of VPs than it is really worth in terms of the former hard factors, sounds quite intriguing. It would make for much more variance in the GCs.
Each city could have a base value, and a variance/randomization range assigned by GC design. That range could even depend on the date, or perhaps be hardcoded to vary due to other factors such as the distance to the front. The latter would favor holding out longer, and could lead to more risk-taking and pocketing?

If it was randomized somewhat, you could consider it a Hitler/Stalin effect, and perhaps the VP assignment would then determine what objectives players would have to go after for each GC. One could, like in AE, even have two different VPs per city, one for Axis and one for the Red Army -- one side not knowing the actual ones of the other.

That way a "victory" by VP would mean holding or taking the cities that the little that are (randomly) valued higher, i.e. satisfy the wishes of the little electronic dictator. Pretty much like some generals of both sides kept trying to follow the orders and ideas of both heads, no matter whether that meant violating (military) logic and matter of fact doing more damage to the overall effort. One could loose the war in the long run, but win by victory points? Or allow that option only if it does not lead to total defeat? On the reverse, one could ignore those VPs, and just play the game as if it were like is now, choose the terrain and time to fight and when to run wisely, and win by plainly defeating the enemy?

Sounds like that would be a very different game in the end.

[Seminole]

The fact that a German full retreat, back to starting poistions, after a mere 6 months of campaign, could be considered, within the context of the game, as a winning strategy, illustrates this.

It might have been considered a winning strategy the conductor, but I'm not sure anyone else saw it that way. Most saw it as a losing strategy, and I think they were right.
I'm not sure the game benefits if we try to alter the VC to discourage bad strategies. Results will do that just fine.

[Michael T]

Austral. slang spruik to give a speech, make a barker's spiel (of unknown origin) + -er

Wots rong wiv ya, carnt ya speek propa mate [:D]

[The Guru]

The fact that a German full retreat, back to starting poistions, after a mere 6 months of campaign, could be considered, within the context of the game, as a winning strategy, illustrates this.

It might have been considered a winning strategy the conductor, but I'm not sure anyone else saw it that way. Most saw it as a losing strategy, and I think they were right.
I'm not sure the game benefits if we try to alter the VC to discourage bad strategies. Results will do that just fine.

Well, I didn't say it was a winning strategy, I say that the simple fact that such strategy could be contemplated as a viable course of action was a bit absurd

[sillyflower]

I only speak 'Pom', I'm afraid.

I think it's Aussie slang for 'properly' but I may be wrong..............

[Michael T]

Joel has indicated he would support a community based set of SD house rules for the game.

But you will just never get any kind of consensus in a free for all type forum. We got the Alt 260 scenario in to the game through a series of Polls on this board and the fact that it did not take too much effort from the devs. But it was a very tiresome experience (as one of the drivers behind it I can attest to that) as there is always a body of thought that will not accept a change even if it is optional.

I think you are better off establishing your own set of SD house rules for each game you play. Naturally your opponent will need to agree to them. Since my experience in the Pelton game I will be doing that very thing. My current game has some SD rules for 1941. They are crude but they will evoke the kind of game in 1941 that I desire. With each new game I will enhance them.

Good house rules tend to get picked up by other games so a natural process of improvement will occur if other players are like minded and desire some SD conditions. Whether they be an improvement on mine or someone's else's if enough players desire the same thing it will evolve. And maybe they might make it to WITE 2.0

I think this is your only realistic option for SD VC.

[mmarquo]

Well-lead Soviets would have stymied the Axis much sooner, and better-lead Axis may have finished off the Soviets.

Questions: What would have happened if better lead Axis faced off against better lead Soivets?
Answer: GG's WITE.

There will never be any accounting for the historical hindsight most players bring to the game.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think you are better off establishing your own set of SD house rules for each game you play. Naturally your opponent will need to agree to them. Since my experience in the Pelton game I will be doing that very thing. My current game has some SD rules for 1941. They are crude but they will evoke the kind of game in 1941 that I desire. With each new game I will enhance them.

I think this is your only realistic option for SD VC.

Yes... I think Michael has hit the nail on the heat, and that any refinement of VC rules can only be done on a one to one or individual game basis. The simple fact is that any modification to the game VC code, would never be excepted by the two sides (Axis/Soviet) of the game.

Just as a side note; I have wargamed this campaign for over thirty-five years now, and WitE with it's wort's and all. Is still one-millions times better than playing on a tabletop with cardboard counters, and a rule book written in indecipherable Mayan text.