Pictures for Baelfiin!

[marion61]

Your damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It's a catch 22![8D]

[NotOneStepBack]

You did break the LW for a few months. Once I had new planes being produced, I switched them all out and gave them all new pilots. I did this about once every few months. This kept the numbers flying, even though they were terrible pilots. I figured anything was better than nothing, and if they really sucked? Eh, send 'em east.

I'm a bit of a min/max'er player that likes to optimize his strategy to suit the game, but I don't think I did anything too "gamey". You just can't beat math.

[marion61]

Don't take me wrong brother, you've played a very good game. My biggest mistake was not keeping better track of troop ships, which caused my France invasion to putter out for two months, and then I compounded my problem by attempting another invasion to create a diversion, that didn't work, and sucked up more ships. I could have done a lot better if I'd watched those troop ships better. I could only move two infantry divisions or one armored division a turn for about two months (moving a hq was every few turns). Some turns I would fly an infantry division over without su's, so some turns I got three divisions, but the build up was too slow and he had plenty of time to make several defense lines. My initial invasion cut the peninsula off in about 3 turns, and I had Brest and the other ports working within 7-10 turns of my landing. Just not enough units getting over to break out for awhile. All the time I had gained in Italy evaporated.

[NotOneStepBack]

VP Solution: No VP loss for allies. VP gains for allies inflicting german casualties. This puts the german in a situation where he has to lose a city which will cost vps, or lose men, which will cost vps. Change bombing vps so that uboat and vweapons only can add points and are optional. Change the vp scale then to reflect these changes.

No negative VPs at all, besides maybe the no beachhead one, but limit it so VP's cannot go less than zero.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

VP Solution: No VP loss for allies. VP gains for allies inflicting german casualties. This puts the german in a situation where he has to lose a city which will cost vps, or lose men, which will cost vps. Change bombing vps so that uboat and vweapons only can add points and are optional. Change the vp scale then to reflect these changes.

No negative VPs at all, besides maybe the no beachhead one, but limit it so VP's cannot go less than zero.

That is a shty idea and kinda lazy, which will make the game BORING

Adding positive VP's for WA's for KIA germans is a good idea out of the lazy ideas.

Think big picture and not all one sided.

I completely agree the current VP system is off, but not as bad as people think.

I would drop 1/2 troopship losses--- then add in 3000 German = 1 vp.

increase 15-20% bombing VP's

[Baelfiin]

Every time I read the title to this thread im like uh no please not that kind of picture [:D]

[Nico165b165]

Don't forget there's a political meaning behind the VP system.

As a player, you're not only trying to win battles on the ground. You're trying to bring an end to WW2 in Europe.

In july 1943, we already know axis can't win the war by taking ground and being stronger than their opponent. They can only win the war by rending it too costly for the allies. So, Germany's goal is to survive as long as possible. It's obvious that if Berlin is lost, Germany (or at least its current political regime) has failed to survive -> there's your reason to end the game. But Berlin is not enough. You need to control more cities to survive -> there's your reason for cities VP. To reach that goal, what did Germany do ? Throw every human being that could hold a weapon on the field. From 14 to 60 years in the volksturm in 1945. Manpower only was a factor in a strict physical sense : whene there's nobody more to send, you can't send anybody. But for nazi's Germany, manpower was no political problem. They kept on going like this till the end, propaganda and state police doing their job to avoid popular revolts -> there's your reason for no axis losses VP.

On the opposite, WA being democracies, they can't keep high losses for a long time without dissent. We're talking military losses -> the reason for WA losses VP, but also civilian casualties, transport casualties... -> reasons for uboats and v-weapons VP. And people at home wnat to see this end as fast as possible, so you still need to be quick on the ground.

I find the overall picture of the VP system a good simulation of what the political objectives are.

I don't know if it's balanced or not. My guess would be it is not (yet), simply because if it was already perfectly balanced it would be pure luck. It's impossible to get the balance right without enough data, and data only comes from playing.

On the psychological side, I already said once (about the air tuto VP system) that I find the VP system much more influenced by "computer guy thinking" than by "game designer thinking". This whole 0 is a draw - negative is one side winning - positive is the other side winning feels like an internal test for a program. It makes it very easy to see and measure the effects of what you do without having to remember how much is a victory, but I agree it is very unusual from a gaming perspective.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Nico165

Don't forget there's a political meaning behind the VP system.

As a player, you're not only trying to win battles on the ground. You're trying to bring an end to WW2 in Europe.

In july 1943, we already know axis can't win the war by taking ground and being stronger than their opponent. They can only win the war by rending it too costly for the allies. So, Germany's goal is to survive as long as possible. It's obvious that if Berlin is lost, Germany (or at least its current political regime) has failed to survive -> there's your reason to end the game. But Berlin is not enough. You need to control more cities to survive -> there's your reason for cities VP. To reach that goal, what did Germany do ? Throw every human being that could hold a weapon on the field. From 14 to 60 years in the volksturm in 1945. Manpower only was a factor in a strict physical sense : whene there's nobody more to send, you can't send anybody. But for nazi's Germany, manpower was no political problem. They kept on going like this till the end, propaganda and state police doing their job to avoid popular revolts -> there's your reason for no axis losses VP.

On the opposite, WA being democracies, they can't keep high losses for a long time without dissent. We're talking military losses -> the reason for WA losses VP, but also civilian casualties, transport casualties... -> reasons for uboats and v-weapons VP. And people at home wnat to see this end as fast as possible, so you still need to be quick on the ground.

I find the overall picture of the VP system a good simulation of what the political objectives are.

I don't know if it's balanced or not. My guess would be it is not (yet), simply because if it was already perfectly balanced it would be pure luck. It's impossible to get the balance right without enough data, and data only comes from playing.

On the psychological side, I already said once (about the air tuto VP system) that I find the VP system much more influenced by "computer guy thinking" than by "game designer thinking". This whole 0 is a draw - negative is one side winning - positive is the other side winning feels like an internal test for a program. It makes it very easy to see and measure the effects of what you do without having to remember how much is a victory, but I agree it is very unusual from a gaming perspective.

Good stuff.

I only play EF Box not checked because it be way to easy to win under the current rule set with the EFB checked, not really even fun.

I only play Germany and the game is not "balanced" under the current VP system.

But from my exp with WitE 1 small "tweak" can move the neddle way to much.

2by3 basicly has it right over all, but WA need some love to even things out more.

Once they do that then I play with the EF box checked and we can move the neddle some more.

This is why I played 5 WitE games at once you get a true feel for the game and with WitW I can play 7-10 at once if I can find people.

The great thing is WitW's over all model is dead on and simply needs some balancing.


Unlike WitE, which the model was never right until 1.08

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Nico165

Don't forget there's a political meaning behind the VP system.

As a player, you're not only trying to win battles on the ground. You're trying to bring an end to WW2 in Europe.

In july 1943, we already know axis can't win the war by taking ground and being stronger than their opponent. They can only win the war by rending it too costly for the allies. So, Germany's goal is to survive as long as possible. It's obvious that if Berlin is lost, Germany (or at least its current political regime) has failed to survive -> there's your reason to end the game. But Berlin is not enough. You need to control more cities to survive -> there's your reason for cities VP. To reach that goal, what did Germany do ? Throw every human being that could hold a weapon on the field. From 14 to 60 years in the volksturm in 1945. Manpower only was a factor in a strict physical sense : whene there's nobody more to send, you can't send anybody. But for nazi's Germany, manpower was no political problem. They kept on going like this till the end, propaganda and state police doing their job to avoid popular revolts -> there's your reason for no axis losses VP.

On the opposite, WA being democracies, they can't keep high losses for a long time without dissent. We're talking military losses -> the reason for WA losses VP, but also civilian casualties, transport casualties... -> reasons for uboats and v-weapons VP. And people at home wnat to see this end as fast as possible, so you still need to be quick on the ground.

I find the overall picture of the VP system a good simulation of what the political objectives are.

I don't know if it's balanced or not. My guess would be it is not (yet), simply because if it was already perfectly balanced it would be pure luck. It's impossible to get the balance right without enough data, and data only comes from playing.

On the psychological side, I already said once (about the air tuto VP system) that I find the VP system much more influenced by "computer guy thinking" than by "game designer thinking". This whole 0 is a draw - negative is one side winning - positive is the other side winning feels like an internal test for a program. It makes it very easy to see and measure the effects of what you do without having to remember how much is a victory, but I agree it is very unusual from a gaming perspective.

Nico that was really well said.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Nico165
On the psychological side, I already said once (about the air tuto VP system) that I find the VP system much more influenced by "computer guy thinking" than by "game designer thinking". This whole 0 is a draw - negative is one side winning - positive is the other side winning feels like an internal test for a program. It makes it very easy to see and measure the effects of what you do without having to remember how much is a victory, but I agree it is very unusual from a gaming perspective.

I don´t think anyone questions why the system is in place? Its very easy to to see and understand the current VP system. It does all the things its supposed to and everything...but its not a good one for a game. I´ve already mentioned a couple of points in my AAR so I´m not going to repeat them again.

But given this probably the foundation of the "War in Europe" VP system I think they are better off getting a good solid platform from the start. Rather that then having to redesign the entire system later on.

I´m not a math guy but it shouldn´t be that hard to redo the system without VP penalties and get the numbers reasonable close to the baseline they have used for the current system? Add in VPs for German troop and plane losses and its done.

[marion61]

I must have given you the wrong impression Baelfiin, I'm not that kinda guy [;)]! I'd have to know you much better before you got any of "those" pictures!

[marion61]

Your right it will take a minor tweak. I just want to make sure it at least gets another look when all the data needed is in. I don't want any negative comments I make taken in any other light than being constructive. I've invested a great deal of time into this game and although I get frustrated, it in no way means I'm close to throwing in the towel.

My biggest concern is that new players will find the going so rough as the WA player, they become frustrated, and leave the game. It may only need a little tweak, and I remember the wite days too, where small tweaks made huge differences. I'm not a developer, but from reading the forums and my own experience with games it's very frustrating and I'd hate to see new players give up before then. Discussing this makes us know that 2x3, and Matrix care about our opinions and insights about this game, if they would weigh in on this [;)]. If it turns out I was wrong, then that's fine. It's an awesome game, and although I don't know all the particulars, I hope my comments are taken the way they are meant. I would really like to read an official post from a dev, and their thoughts about this.[8D] It might just be me, but I have not seen any official response to this in the several post made about this, and I'm wondering why.

Just remember these are my opinions, backed up by my own observations. I'm not a dev, nor am I a mathematician, so I may not understand all the mechanics, and this is my way of understanding, so don't judge my comments too hard.

Pelton this wasn't directed towards you, I hit the reply button by accident.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: meklore61

I must have given you the wrong impression Baelfiin, I'm not that kinda guy [;)]! I'd have to know you much better before you got any of "those" pictures!

This leads me to believe that there may yet be a sliver of hope. . .

[marion61]

LOL!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

ORIGINAL: Nico165

Don't forget there's a political meaning behind the VP system.

As a player, you're not only trying to win battles on the ground. You're trying to bring an end to WW2 in Europe.

In july 1943, we already know axis can't win the war by taking ground and being stronger than their opponent. They can only win the war by rending it too costly for the allies. So, Germany's goal is to survive as long as possible. It's obvious that if Berlin is lost, Germany (or at least its current political regime) has failed to survive -> there's your reason to end the game. But Berlin is not enough. You need to control more cities to survive -> there's your reason for cities VP. To reach that goal, what did Germany do ? Throw every human being that could hold a weapon on the field. From 14 to 60 years in the volksturm in 1945. Manpower only was a factor in a strict physical sense : whene there's nobody more to send, you can't send anybody. But for nazi's Germany, manpower was no political problem. They kept on going like this till the end, propaganda and state police doing their job to avoid popular revolts -> there's your reason for no axis losses VP.

On the opposite, WA being democracies, they can't keep high losses for a long time without dissent. We're talking military losses -> the reason for WA losses VP, but also civilian casualties, transport casualties... -> reasons for uboats and v-weapons VP. And people at home wnat to see this end as fast as possible, so you still need to be quick on the ground.

I find the overall picture of the VP system a good simulation of what the political objectives are.

I don't know if it's balanced or not. My guess would be it is not (yet), simply because if it was already perfectly balanced it would be pure luck. It's impossible to get the balance right without enough data, and data only comes from playing.

On the psychological side, I already said once (about the air tuto VP system) that I find the VP system much more influenced by "computer guy thinking" than by "game designer thinking". This whole 0 is a draw - negative is one side winning - positive is the other side winning feels like an internal test for a program. It makes it very easy to see and measure the effects of what you do without having to remember how much is a victory, but I agree it is very unusual from a gaming perspective.

Nico that was really well said.

Might be well said, but I dont think its right. Maybe getting the balance right was part of the playtesters role, or was it ever played to the end?? Dont tell me this $100 game hasnt been fully tested, to the end.

I am also looking into some of the strength and ratings allocated to Axis units, some freshly rebuilt Divisions have 70+ experience wheras Allied units just finishing a succesful NWAfrican campaign get 60 exp. In addition some (not all) Panzer Divs seem to have full Tank Parks, very odd in the same timeline as Kursk etc. Problem is my Kriegstagebusch (really bad spelling) is from May-June 43!

[Baelfiin]

Jeff I am not sure how to respond.
It sounds to me that you don't believe the game was tested?

[Nico165b165]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Might be well said, but I dont think its right. Maybe getting the balance right was part of the playtesters role, or was it ever played to the end?? Dont tell me this $100 game hasnt been fully tested, to the end.

I think you misunderstand how testing goes.

What it is not : test the engine, then test the scenarios, then test VP balance, then release the game.

What it is : an iterative process. Have a first version of the engine. A basic test scenario. See if it runs. Correct the biggest mistakes. Make a second version of the engine. Then a third, a fourth... In the same time, make and refine more scenarios. Then, test and update the engine and the scenarios together. Some tests will show a problem in the engine -> fix it. Some tests will show problem in the units database -> upgrade it. But every change in the engine has consequences on the scenarios, and every new scenario/change in the database may show some problem with the engine. So it's always a work in progress. You never have a definitive, 100% right version, but every update comes closer.

In this process, VP balance always comes last, because every change in the engine or the scenarios can change what needs to be done to balance the VP conditions. It's the most difficult part of every test. Every change in the game may influence the result.

Now, in a ideal world, you would spend a few weeks or months only testing VP conditions after extensive testing of the engine and scenarios. But there are two problems with that :

1) 2by3 is a private company. They need money to go on living and making games. The right question they have to answer is not "Is the game perfect, so we can release it", but "is the game good enough to release it and begin earning money with it, while still working on it to make it better".

2) VP balance means ending enough games to have enough statistical data. There are only so many beta testers, there are many more customers now. It's a lot easier to get data about VP balance now than during beta testing. Especially for a game where you need so many hours to complete a campaign, and where there are so many different ways a player could play during a campaign.

My take on this game is that I payed 100$ for a wonderful engine, some very good scenarios, lots of enjoyment right from the start and years of support, including more effort on the VP balance. When I compare this to other games from the past, I can't complain about the release version and the testers have already made a great job.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I am also looking into some of the strength and ratings allocated to Axis units, some freshly rebuilt Divisions have 70+ experience wheras Allied units just finishing a succesful NWAfrican campaign get 60 exp. In addition some (not all) Panzer Divs seem to have full Tank Parks, very odd in the same timeline as Kursk etc. Problem is my Kriegstagebusch (really bad spelling) is from May-June 43!

If you have precise infos (which divisions, when, some historical data...), I'm sure the devs will be interested and open to correct any obvious mistake (or explain why they chose to do so). We have an opportunity to help as a community here, take your chance !

[Q-Ball]

This is a good discussion, and I agree with the premise that WA needs some help. I also agree that with an engine this complex, tweaks are more appropriate in short-term than major changes.

Here is my 2 pfennigs on some issues:

EF BOX: I really like the premise behind the EF Box, but I am afraid this will have to be turned off for games for some time while the balance is worked out. The Germans can move, say, 200 AV off the East, which is only 6-7% of the combat value but enough to make a huge difference in the West. It's just too tempting and too easy to drain the East at the expense of the West. And I don't really see a big impact to transferring alot more units than historical to the West. I would recommend games turn this off for the time being.

TROOP TRANSPORTS: I agree losses need to be reduced here for WA, or replacements increased alot. Shipping should be a "concern", but the Western Allies were not seriously going to run out of ships the way some players are.

VPs: Nico is dead-on with the WA political costs of casualties, and the absent political concerns for Germany. But the WAs need VP help. How to provide it? I would look at either lowering the VP loss for casualties, or raising the VP wins for cities. I am not sure about adding more to STRAT bombing, that may make STRAT bombing too important an aspect of the game.

NIGHT BOMBING: So far, it doesn't seem very effective. If it did become more effective, this could help the Allies in the VPs. Not precision night bombing, but MANPOWER should suffer more damage

[Baelfiin]

Night bombing was tuned down at the start in .03 or something was it not?

[marion61]

Out of this entire vp discussion, this is all I wanted to know. I'm not a game designer or programmer, but now that I understand the process better, I can live with that. If we need results, I'll try and play faster and get more! I just wanted to understand why it didn't seem like a priority at all, and your explanation provided illumination! Thank you.