Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[LiquidSky]

There already is an incentive to attack. Just because some people choose not to, or don't have to because the allies are not pursuing vps by strat bombing doesn't mean that the Germans should stay defensive.

In my last game, I attacked a Beachhead in Italy with my mechanized forces...not because I thought I could push them back to the sea, but because I would inflict 3000-6000 casualties on them in a turn. Which would equate to around -10 to -17 vps in casualty points.

I did that two turns in a row...and probably would have continued it for a couple more turns before having to refit my panzers. I would do the same at Normandy or anywhere else the allies wish to land. Especially in areas where they don't project massive amounts of airpower.

I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.

I also see a danger of people trying to eliminate any source of vps for the Germans. This is a two player game...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total. Otherwise the game will just end when the allies reach their magic number. You don't necessarily need a balance, but the more out of whack it is, the easier it will be for the allies.

[KWG]

[I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.

Is that not how most people play, except with FOW on? VPs seem to be the main motivator for actions.

In my campaign against Pelton my main goal is to destroy German Forces. I was careful not to take the invasion VP hits and I bombed the targets that were high priority.
Now Ive thrown VPs to the wind and am doing what I think will cause the elimination of German resistance on the field of battle, that will result in German units being forced to surrender.

...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total.

True. They get VPs for what the Allies fail to do as in ; Invasion time limits and for vweapons and subs due to the damage they would cause if not destroyed by the Allies.

Yet the Allies get no VPs for German ground losses. and Germans get the same Allied losses VPs whether attacking or defending.

Some way to account for "All Types of Destruction to Enemy" and "Territory Held" for both sides.

[LiquidSky]

It seems to me that most people aren't even aware of what the vps are. I've seen people get surprised by the NO BEACHEAD penalty for example. I think people would rather play by pushing counters around without any thought to whether it hurts or helps vps.


No...I think most people play emotionally and not logically with vps in mind which makes them easy to beat.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


It seems to me that most people aren't even aware of what the vps are. I've seen people get surprised by the NO BEACHEAD penalty for example. I think people would rather play by pushing counters around without any thought to whether it hurts or helps vps.


No...I think most people play emotionally and not logically with vps in mind which makes them easy to beat.

Maybe so, Iam probably just taking into account power players and what gets posted about more and Ive only played 1 person. And VPs need to be in the background of the process.

"...play emotionally and not logically with vps "

To play emotionally and logically but without a concern for VPs.

[whoofe]

ORIGINAL: KWG

[I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.

Is that not how most people play, except with FOW on? VPs seem to be the main motivator for actions.

In my campaign against Pelton my main goal is to destroy German Forces. I was careful not to take the invasion VP hits and I bombed the targets that were high priority.
Now Ive thrown VPs to the wind and am doing what I think will cause the elimination of German resistance on the field of battle, that will result in German units being forced to surrender.

...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total.

True. They get VPs for what the Allies fail to do as in ; Invasion time limits and for vweapons and subs due to the damage they would cause if not destroyed by the Allies.

Yet the Allies get no VPs for German ground losses. and Germans get the same Allied losses VPs whether attacking or defending.

Some way to account for "All Types of Destruction to Enemy" and "Territory Held" for both sides.

i suppose its possible you could forgo short term VPs by taking casualties while weakening the german army enough that you can stroll to Berlin early and regain the VPs in the long run.

[KWG]

i suppose its possible you could forgo short term VPs by taking casualties while weakening the german army enough that you can stroll to Berlin early and regain the VPs in the long run.

[:)]Exactly! Even If the VPs are at -1000 in the Germans favor yet they are destroyed as a fighting force and the nation is under foreign occupation.... how high is too much of a cost to achieve that? I will do all the maintain as low as possible causalities.

example
Is it not better to suffer higher losses in a short time span than to suffer even more over a longer span.

[LiquidSky]

You guys are basically arguing that it is okay to lose more vps now so you can get less later.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



You guys are basically arguing that it is okay to lose more vps now so you can get less later.

HAAAAAAA!!! thats what the enemy never expects! [:)]

[Seminole]

In my mind the foremost 'victory' determinant is how much of Europe the Allies can liberate.

Where I would want to start tweaking is in the value placed on city control points.
I'd like to see some games actually played to the end to see how these values play out, but in working Harry's example it seems the trade off between capturing German cities and the losses required to do so make them unappealing, and that shouldn't be the case.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


There already is an incentive to attack. Just because some people choose not to, or don't have to because the allies are not pursuing vps by strat bombing doesn't mean that the Germans should stay defensive.

In my last game, I attacked a Beachhead in Italy with my mechanized forces...not because I thought I could push them back to the sea, but because I would inflict 3000-6000 casualties on them in a turn. Which would equate to around -10 to -17 vps in casualty points.

I did that two turns in a row...and probably would have continued it for a couple more turns before having to refit my panzers. I would do the same at Normandy or anywhere else the allies wish to land. Especially in areas where they don't project massive amounts of airpower.

Assuming the units on the beachhead were non-American 3000 to 6000 casualties is only 4.5 to 9 VPs per turn. But maybe you were talking about the points you earned for 2 turns of attacks. In any event I get your point. But I am not suggesting getting rid of the casualty VPs altogether. I am suggesting it be scaled back in 44 and again in 45. I also have a problem with the game rewarding a player in VPs for doing something that historically was neither a military or political objective. Historically the Germans did not attack Allied beachheads for the purpose of inflicting casualties, their purpose was to drive them back into the sea. Near the end of the War one of Eisenhowsers expressed objectives was to kill Germans rather than capture territory, yet the Allies get no VPs for German casualties.

I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.

Well then I think you may be getting your wish in the game between Carlkay and QBall. As I understand it Carlkay is a master with Strategic Bombing and he is now turtling to gain as many VPs as possible. The only problem I suppose is that QBall probably has not been attacking to try and rack up as many casualty VPs as he can. Maybe this will change as their game moves into 45.

I also see a danger of people trying to eliminate any source of vps for the Germans. This is a two player game...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total. Otherwise the game will just end when the allies reach their magic number. You don't necessarily need a balance, but the more out of whack it is, the easier it will be for the allies.

I am not suggesting "eliminating" Allied casualties as a source of VPs for the Germans. I am suggesting reducing the VPs the Germans get for this and replacing it with VPs for holding certain strategic cities. Well actually of course the Germans don't get VPs for anything, but rather the Allies get negative VPs.

As an aside I think the current VP system of the game favours the Allies to win the game; at least with competent players on both sides. In both games against QBall he will end the game holding more geography than the Germans did historically. Yet in both games he has no chance of winning even a minor victory and is at risk of losing both games. In my game I think he probably could and should have counter attacked more often then he has so far; but I don't think it would have made any significant difference. On the other hand it is my opinion that it is too tough for the Allies to win the war (ie by conquering as much territory as they did historically). So if VPs were solely awarded based on cities captured vis a vis historical than the Germans would win most games.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



You guys are basically arguing that it is okay to lose more vps now so you can get less later.

To be fair I think what they are arguing is that it is ok to lose more VPs now to get even more later by way of an early capture of Berlin. But you are right because what they don't realize yet is that there is no way they are going to capture Berlin before the end of April 45.

Having said that I do begin to believe that the use of Strategic Bombers in a tactical role after July 44 (when the divisor changes) is a good way to win the game. True you will gain less SB VPs, but I think you may make up for this by reducing your casualty losses. If from July 44 to the end of the game you could average 6 SB VPs per turn (which I personally think is tough, especially in 45) and instead by using your SBs exclusively in a tactical role you only average 1 SB VP per turn, then you only need to reduce casualties by 5000 American or 3300 Others per turn to break even. From what I have seen I believe you will save even more casualties per turn. I mentioned to QBall a while ago in our game that he seemed to be taking more casualties and me less in recent turns. I told him I thought this was maybe due to his morale going down while mine went up. But now I think it is because this happened right about the time I started using my SBs to bomb his units. Not only will you be reducing your own casualties you will be inflicting extra casualties on the Germans, which means you should advance quicker on the ground, which means you should earn more VPs for capturing cities earlier.

[RedLancer]

I'm enjoying this debate and thank you for all your views.

Can I suggest that you work together and strive for some consensus.

[LiquidSky]

After July '44 I reduce the afv/vehicle production to zero. No trucks means little movement. Killing afvs at the source is a lot easier then killing them in units.

While I'm at it, I also reduce manpower to around half....again...getting them at the source is easier then getting them in the units. And I get vps for doing it.

I will also reduce the airplane factories to around half as well...makes the whole bombing campaign easier in the long run.

Finally..I will also hit the HI, but that's only because I have over 4k strat bombers, so I might as well collect vps.

I see the merit in taking the strat bombers off for a turn every once in a while to bomb units...since the damage in the factories wont repair quickly. But to concentrate hitting them? No....I kill more at the source with strat bombers. Let the tactical bombers/fighter bombers attrit the units...I only have like 10000 of them.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



After July '44 I reduce the afv/vehicle production to zero. No trucks means little movement. Killing afvs at the source is a lot easier then killing them in units.

While I'm at it, I also reduce manpower to around half....again...getting them at the source is easier then getting them in the units. And I get vps for doing it.

I will also reduce the airplane factories to around half as well...makes the whole bombing campaign easier in the long run.

Finally..I will also hit the HI, but that's only because I have over 4k strat bombers, so I might as well collect vps.

I see the merit in taking the strat bombers off for a turn every once in a while to bomb units...since the damage in the factories wont repair quickly. But to concentrate hitting them? No....I kill more at the source with strat bombers. Let the tactical bombers/fighter bombers attrit the units...I only have like 10000 of them.

Well as I said I am not particularly good at Strategic bombing. I'm not sure how you manage to simultaneously bomb the AFV, Vehicle, Manpower, Aircraft and HI factories but I congratulate and admire you for it. I can only assume that you are not also bombing the oil and fuel factories (which I think take the longest to repair) so that accordingly you are not maxing your SB VPs.

But even if I was able to destroy and keep destroyed 50% of all German manpower factories that is in 1944 only 50% X 1642 X 3 = 2463 manpower per turn and in 1945 only 841 manpower per turn (well actually less as the Russians capture cities). I can kill far more than that each turn with just Bomber Command. And I am killing/disrupting them where I want them killed. When you bomb factories you don't know where those manpower points were going. In any event, as I said the primary purpose of SBs bombing units is to reduce my casualties, not to inflict casualties. That is just a bonus. By using SBs tactically I am not only killing 1000s of Germans every turn I am also disrupting 1000s more. The end result is much fewer casualties when I ground attack those same units. You may be right about 1944 (I don't think you are but further testing is required), but by 1945 I can say with certainty that it makes far more sense under the current VP system to use SBs tactically.

As for Tac bombers, I personally find that the TAC bombers don't do near as much damage as the SBs (especially Bomber Command). Of course I do use them, but I use the SBs for the crucial attacks. As for the FBs I personally find they are more useful (since the rocket nerf) performing interdiction.

[whoofe]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana



I'm not sure how you manage to simultaneously bomb the AFV, Vehicle, Manpower, Aircraft and HI factories but I congratulate and admire you for it. I can only assume that you are not also bombing the oil and fuel factories (which I think take the longest to repair) so that accordingly you are not maxing your SB VPs.

If the factories are in the same cities sometimes a bombing mission damages multiple sites. I run purely manpower missions with Bomber Command and often hit other types unplanned

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: whoofe

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana



I'm not sure how you manage to simultaneously bomb the AFV, Vehicle, Manpower, Aircraft and HI factories but I congratulate and admire you for it. I can only assume that you are not also bombing the oil and fuel factories (which I think take the longest to repair) so that accordingly you are not maxing your SB VPs.

If the factories are in the same cities sometimes a bombing mission damages multiple sites. I run purely manpower missions with Bomber Command and often hit other types unplanned

Good point, as I have now said several times the Strategic bombing part of the game is not my strong point. All I know is that it would be diffcult for me to achieve and sustain these results.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


It seems to me that most people aren't even aware of what the vps are. I've seen people get surprised by the NO BEACHEAD penalty for example. I think people would rather play by pushing counters around without any thought to whether it hurts or helps vps.


No...I think most people play emotionally and not logically with vps in mind which makes them easy to beat.

As someone who plays mainly from a feel perspective - It's good to hear that people play emotionally, it means a connection with the content of the game. Its not good that its easy to beat them at it.

Why is there a disconnect from how people feel the game should be played/won and the VPs awarded for what is accomplished?

[loki100]

I'm just finishing reading an excellent book on the strategic airwar in Europe. Started it as I was trying to understand what actually happened rather than relying on a few inherited prejudices. In terms of the bombing of Germany, that is clear the US had basically the right idea - hit fuel, hit transport links and wreck the Luftwaffe. While Harris was mad and wrong - the Bomber Command focus on hitting the German working class was badly flawed in lots of ways. But its clear that Harris was also completely out of control - even when ordered to support 8 Air he ignored the instructions.

So I think the VP system around the air war is really very clever design. Do what works - and I've had good results off a campaign aimed at fuel, trucks and rail stations - or do what the game (ie Harris) more or less forces you to - hit population and a few big industrial targets.

[Ralzakark]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'm just finishing reading an excellent book on the strategic airwar in Europe.

Which book Loki100?

[KWG]

Should German cities and urban hexes be worth more VPs than the others?

Rewards the Allies to keep advancing and gives the Germans a greater incentive to protect the Fatherland.

Do the Germans get a morale boost, or any kind of mod, when fighting on German soil?