Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


The rationale for vps in any game is to reward proper behaviour. Specifically for Strategic Bombing you gain points for bombing targets that politically were pursued. It also 'rewards' the german player for protecting those targets. (by reduced vp's gained).

I agree; but I think that we as the players of the Game are allowed to challenge the Designers as to why a particular behaviour is rewarded and not another; or at least why one particular behaviour is rewarded more than another. In this case I can see the rationale for awarding strategic bombing VPs. I do not see the rationale for awarding 15 to 20 VPs per turn for strategic bombing in 43, 6 to 10 VPs in 44 and only 3 to 5 VPs per turn in 45. historically the political and military incentive to bomb these Cities did not lessen. I can see why there should be a modest change in the SB Divisor as the Allied SB capacity increases, but not to the point where you are earning 5X the VPs in 43 that you can earn in 45.

As well I do not think the game provides enough of a reward for capturing or holding key Cities. This is especially true near games end when it just not make sense to spend casualties to capture a City for only a couple turns worth of VPs.

There is a trap that needs to be avoided. In the past I have seen people whine and bitch about the vp system, who didn't actually know what that system was when they started playing. Apparently they thought they were supposed to be rewarded just because.

So when you look at a single game you have to ask...did both sides play for victory? Or were they just playing?

Did the Germans do everything they could to prevent the bombing? Did they spend their precious admin points on beefing up the flak defences? Did they use the Luftwaffe on defence or did they throw it away in the Med?

Did they attack the beach head at 1:1....for the purposes of gaining casualty points or did they just sit and defend? The Germans get rewarded for playing like..well...Germans. You have to really know how to gain vps.

Speaking for myself I made sure I understood the VP System before the game started. And up until late summer 44 I played primarily to maximize my VPs. I say primarily because this is my first game so I tried a few things that I thought were risky (invading West of Rome for example) just to see if they would work. However, I also bombed almost exclusively to gain VPs (Fuel, Oil and HI). It certainly appeared to me that QBall did everything he could to prevent the bombing. The Flak was moved and effective. He certainly did not squander the Luftwaffe in the Mediterranean or Italy. So you may agree or disagree with the strategies QBall and I used to attain Victory, but to answer your question, Yes both sides played for victory.

I disagree that the game should reward the German Player for attacking beachheads at 1:1 (or anywhere else for that matter) just to cause casualties. Causing Allied Casualties solely for the purpose of causing those casualties was never a German Political or military objective. Accordingly, attacking the Beachhead to create casualties is not playing like a German. Attacking a beachhead to throw the Allies back into the sea is playing like a German. But once the Germans realized this was not possible such attacks stopped and they dug in (Salerno, Anzio, Normandy). Nor do I think this was the intent of the Designers. I think their intent was to reward the Allied Player for limiting his attacks to ones which are likely to succeed with minimal casualties, because of the political concerns of Public unrest. Again I am not asking for this to be eliminated just reduced.

Getting back to my game against QBall; I realized in late summer 44 (after I had captured France and Belgium and had 350 or so VPs) that if I wanted to maximize my VPs I would have to stop attacking. By this time I knew there was no way I was going to capture Berlin and, in my opinion, the VPs I would lose trying to capture more cities would be greater than the VPs I would gain from holding them until the games end. I therefore had a decision to make, either keep attacking because it was, in my opinion, the right thing to do, or stop and take the Victory. i decided to keep attacking. So I guess I chose to "Role Play" the Allies rather than play for the Win.

So my questions for you (and everyone else) are:

1. Do you agree that I would have maximized my VPs by stopping and, if not, why not? and

2. If you agree with 1 above do you believe that if I had stopped this would be "rewarding proper behaviour?"

[carlkay58]

Harry -

The Strategic Bombing Divisor is lower in 43 because the historic Allied bombing campaign was shredded in 43 and very little damage was actually done to German industry during that time. Why is the game so different from history? Because the Allied players have learned from history and are concentrating (helped by the VP awards) on effective targeting that did not come into play until 44. The Harris targeting of Manpower as the primary target was the major target of the 8th USAAF in 43 also. That meant targeting the larges German cities and the Allied aircraft were shot down in droves. There were several historic stoppages of strategic bombing in fall of 43 due to a lack of airframes and morale. Manpower regenerates faster than any other industry. Most Allies target Fuel and Oil. These are the hardest industries for the Axis to repair and thus give a longer payback period - more bang for the buck - than hitting the large cities for the Manpower. These industries are also in smaller towns and cities which do not have the flak or airbases in the immediate areas for easier Axis air defenses. Whether the VP divisor should be changed for Strategic Bombing in any year is part of what this discussion is focusing on.

To answer your questions:

1. If you are just concentrating on VP maximization then you should not perform an attack which has little or no payback. However, there is a point in some games where the Axis forces are on the ropes and ready to collapse. If you can force a major Axis collapse (I have rarely seen this happen against human opponents - usually only against the AI and even then not that often) then you have a free reign to advance throughout Germany and rack up a lot of City VPs very quickly. This usually occurs once the Axis manpower starts to hit the 2M mark. It seems that when the Axis hit that level then Axis units begin to collapse, surrender, and rout when attacked with some strength. This actually did happen historically in early 45 but it is very difficult to do in the game. I cannot reach this point that often - probably only about one out of three or four games against the AI. I have never approached that against a human player.

2. I agree that this is not 'rewarding proper behavior'. Which is part of this discussion - and it is an important discussion to have at this point in the game's development cycle. There is sufficient expertise, examples, and different approaches documented now which gives the people at Matrix enough data to figure out where and what should be changed. One of my personal opinions is that the Axis Victory Conditions should be higher VP levels than they are currently with the current VP awards. I just don't see the Axis able to hit a Major Victory in this game with those VP levels but I have seen several games where I consider that the Axis has achieved a Major Victory but the VPs are only -800 or so.

[Seminole]

As well I do not think the game provides enough of a reward for capturing or holding key Cities. This is especially true near games end when it just not make sense to spend casualties to capture a City for only a couple turns worth of VPs.

Based just on my calcs for capture of Cologne in your game and the potential for investing the Ruhr Industrial complex in the same time frame, I'm inclined to agree.
I just expected it to be worth more, but capturing cities in '45 doesn't seem very valuable from a VP perspective.

Maybe a difference of value for cities East and West of the Elbe? Or should the divisor increases just not be as harsh overall?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Harry -

The Strategic Bombing Divisor is lower in 43 because the historic Allied bombing campaign was shredded in 43 and very little damage was actually done to German industry during that time. Why is the game so different from history? Because the Allied players have learned from history and are concentrating (helped by the VP awards) on effective targeting that did not come into play until 44. The Harris targeting of Manpower as the primary target was the major target of the 8th USAAF in 43 also. That meant targeting the larges German cities and the Allied aircraft were shot down in droves. There were several historic stoppages of strategic bombing in fall of 43 due to a lack of airframes and morale. Manpower regenerates faster than any other industry. Most Allies target Fuel and Oil. These are the hardest industries for the Axis to repair and thus give a longer payback period - more bang for the buck - than hitting the large cities for the Manpower. These industries are also in smaller towns and cities which do not have the flak or airbases in the immediate areas for easier Axis air defenses. Whether the VP divisor should be changed for Strategic Bombing in any year is part of what this discussion is focusing on.

If what you are saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) then I would say the game does a poor job of mimicking history. In my game against QBall and, I think, most AARs, the primary target of BC is the Ruhr with the primary targets being HI and Manpower. The Ruhr usually gets all the German NFs and heaviest flak concentrations; but BC seems to take few casualties and seldom has to rest air groups. Meanwhile it wracks up quite a lot of VPs for the Allies. True I think most players send 8th AF against other targets. But my experience is that I have to rest 8th far more often than BC.

To answer your questions:

1. If you are just concentrating on VP maximization then you should not perform an attack which has little or no payback. However, there is a point in some games where the Axis forces are on the ropes and ready to collapse. If you can force a major Axis collapse (I have rarely seen this happen against human opponents - usually only against the AI and even then not that often) then you have a free reign to advance throughout Germany and rack up a lot of City VPs very quickly. This usually occurs once the Axis manpower starts to hit the 2M mark. It seems that when the Axis hit that level then Axis units begin to collapse, surrender, and rout when attacked with some strength. This actually did happen historically in early 45 but it is very difficult to do in the game. I cannot reach this point that often - probably only about one out of three or four games against the AI. I have never approached that against a human player.

2. I agree that this is not 'rewarding proper behavior'. Which is part of this discussion - and it is an important discussion to have at this point in the game's development cycle. There is sufficient expertise, examples, and different approaches documented now which gives the people at Matrix enough data to figure out where and what should be changed. One of my personal opinions is that the Axis Victory Conditions should be higher VP levels than they are currently with the current VP awards. I just don't see the Axis able to hit a Major Victory in this game with those VP levels but I have seen several games where I consider that the Axis has achieved a Major Victory but the VPs are only -800 or so.

I agree with everything you say above. In my game against QBall he did a good job of preserving the Wehrmacht and it still had strength of about 2.5 million by the end of summer. This swelled to over 2.8 million with all the Fall/Winter reinforcements. The SS has now withdrawn but it is too late to earn any significant VPs.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

As well I do not think the game provides enough of a reward for capturing or holding key Cities. This is especially true near games end when it just not make sense to spend casualties to capture a City for only a couple turns worth of VPs.

Based just on my calcs for capture of Cologne in your game and the potential for investing the Ruhr Industrial complex in the same time frame, I'm inclined to agree.
I just expected it to be worth more, but capturing cities in '45 doesn't seem very valuable from a VP perspective.

Maybe a difference of value for cities East and West of the Elbe? Or should the divisor increases just not be as harsh overall?

By changing the divisor all you are going to do is change the time when the Allied player, if he is trying to max VPs, will turtle. If the divisor was lower it might have been worth my while to continue attacking and capturing cities (Metz and Cologne for example) until November or perhaps even February. But in my current game even if I was to get 10 VPs per turn for capturing the entire Ruhr it would no longer be worth my while to do so. In my opinion the only way to fix this is to award negative VPs at end game for not capturing certain strategic cities.

[Dobey455]

So why not remove the divisor altogether?

Instead of awarding points for holding cities turn-by-turn, award a set number of points for holding the city at the end of the game.

Add some basic checks - ie the city must be held by a non-isolated unit that can trace supply, etc and make the major cities inside Germany worth the most (ie decisive) so that the allied player has to keep pushing to get there.

This would:

a) Make City VP's worth the casualties in 1945

b) Encourage the axis to attempt late war counter offensives (similar to the bulge) to regain lost VP cities

[Ralzakark]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

The Harris targeting of Manpower as the primary target was the major target of the 8th USAAF in 43 also. That meant targeting the larges German cities ...

I have never heard this before. What is your source?

The 8AF only once deliberately carried out an area bombing raid, Berlin on 3 February 1945, and even then Doolittle ensured his crews hit transportation targets as well. Other targets were attacked through cloud with low accuracy but the intention was always to bomb specific inductrial targets. See 'Bombs, Cities and Civilians' by Conrad C Crane for the huge debate over the Berlin raid. There are plenty of other sources on 8AF targets, one of the best being Robert Ehers 'Targeting the Reich'.

[HMSWarspite]

8AF may never have officially targeted cities, the aim point would always have been some precision one. However when you 'bomb on leader' at an obscured target, we are just arguing semantics.
" When visual conditions were favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried than hit German installations." From USSBS.
Harris may have had some interesting personality traits, but obfuscation was not one of them. Except when ordered to bomb oil. Or lend his bombers to the tactical effort. Or basically obey any other order he didn't like, but you know what I mean[8D]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

ORIGINAL: loki100

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

Which book Loki100?

its by Richard Overy - The Bombing War. Covers the strategic airwar in Europe from the German attacks on the UK to the US/UK attacks on Germany. Also picks up on the Soviet and German usage of non-tactical air and the impact of allied bombing on notionally allied countries.

I'm finding it fascinating - it combines a good clear narrative with excellent discussion of the impact (economic, military and on civil societies). I knew little about this aspect apart from how its presented in more general histories - it has increased my respect for the modelling of the air war (and the VP system) in WiTW.

From it, I'd concur with Warspite1's last post. Overy makes the point that there was often little difference between Bomber Command's area bombing and 8 Air's target bombing - especially when the latter was conducted in poor visibility. But he uses post-war reviews to argue (I think convincingly) that basically the Americans were on the right track (even if technology meant they only had modest progress) while Bomber Command/Harris were wrong. What had been a justifiable strategy in 1940-3 when any attack counted as a small victory became a blind alley

[Q-Ball]

Sorry for posting late in this debate, but here are the current results for my game vs. Carlkay. It is the first turn of January, 1945

Current VP total is +368, and if Carlkay chooses to sit, he should finish around +500 VPs

A couple notes on this game:
--Overall, Carlkay's strategic bombing campaign scored lots of points; he was consistently close to 20 a turn in 1943
--The airwar in general he did a really good job with, including interdiction
--ROME fell in March/April 1944. I did give it up willingly; I did so to simplify my garrison requirements ahead of the invasion of France. In retrospect, I may have stayed.
--The Allies right now are pinned on the Cotentin Peninsula, and in Brittany. I hold RENNES and ST LO as the most forward towns. I have 2 Corps along the Seine with a fortified line, so no matter what I do not expect to lose Paris.
--In Italy, the Allies are at the Gothic Line
--Carlkay has minimized casualties, with the exception of a botched invasion of Aquitaine, which is really why he is stuck. That cost 8 Allied divisions captured. Absent that, I think he would be in the mid-400s already

The issue to me is that the Germans can't score any points in this situation, other than by silly attacks.

[LiquidSky]

I would argue that no attacks by the Germans are silly. Their entire military doctrine is based on the counterattack. There is no instance in the whole war where the allies invaded, and were then not ruthlessly counterattacked by the germans. Even to the point of dangerously weakening their defence.

This behaviour is rewarded by casualty victory points and should not be considered 'silly attacks'. It is history.

[Seminole]

Overall, Carlkay's strategic bombing campaign scored lots of points; he was consistently close to 20 a turn in 1943

In retrospect, since we're trying to dissect this for overall VP considerations, how effectively did you fight the air war in '43?
Did you spend your AP on relocating flak (I've rarely done this myself).
Did you spend AP on assigning engineers to aid recovery? I do this a little, typically for uboats early on and the big Ruhr cities, because I like to have engineers help dig in fighting forward requires rail repair.

I'm just wondering if the Allies can get 20 no matter what, or if the Axis player can spend a bunch of AP early positioning engineers and flak to cut that significantly, especially early on when the Allied Air Force is smaller and the rewards for the Allies are higher.

When I'm playing people getting maybe 4 or 5 SBP because they're struggling with uboats maybe just not even that good with the air war overall, it leaves me AP to buy a lot of stuff I probably can't as players improve.


With regard to VP. EF box is definitely Pandora's box. 1 extra AP a turn isn't a whole to try and effectively manage this front. The patch to see units below 70% is nice, but just having those units in the CR would be better.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 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.

tm.asp?m=3756437&mpage=4

Are there any others?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Overall, Carlkay's strategic bombing campaign scored lots of points; he was consistently close to 20 a turn in 1943

Did you spend AP on assigning engineers to aid recovery? I do this a little, typically for uboats early on and the big Ruhr cities, because I like to have engineers help dig in fighting forward requires rail repair.

I'm just wondering if the Allies can get 20 no matter what, or if the Axis player can spend a bunch of AP early positioning engineers and flak.

As Germany I put all my engineers repairing and run AA lines as soon as possible if possible depending on Allied moves.

Players that tend to bomb for AP don't push on the ground and players that try and destroy german army/take VP points are countered another way.

Germany has limited AP, but very few if any allied players play both sides.

WitW works just like WitE as far as the attacking side goes.

Good German players put pressure on on all 3 fronts vs Russia.

I have yet to see allied players do the same.

They are all in on one tragedy or the other when playing WA vs the AI myself it seems the easiest way to win.

I always play to win=logic first , but I bitch allot.

I play WitW to win and you win by VP's now how is based on what the allied player does. You counter what he is tring to do.

Pressure in all areas is the best way to win I believe, but have yet to see anyone do it

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Overall, Carlkay's strategic bombing campaign scored lots of points; he was consistently close to 20 a turn in 1943

In retrospect, since we're trying to dissect this for overall VP considerations, how effectively did you fight the air war in '43?
Did you spend your AP on relocating flak (I've rarely done this myself).
Did you spend AP on assigning engineers to aid recovery?

I didn't spend any AP relocating flak. I did do some moves with the RR Flak, but mostly I just parked them on major fuel centers and left them there.

I did spend APs on engineers, however because Carlkay was bombing fuel quite a bit, I mostly spent them on FUEL centers. I have not run out of fuel.

Carlkay did suffer high losses; he spread the bombers out, and sent them often with little escort. They got a lot of bombing results, but did pay with losses. Current overall losses are 19,000 Axis vs. 40,000 Allied planes.

EF Box was off in this one; I prefer it OFF.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

I would argue that no attacks by the Germans are silly. Their entire military doctrine is based on the counterattack. There is no instance in the whole war where the allies invaded, and were then not ruthlessly counterattacked by the germans. Even to the point of dangerously weakening their defence.

This behaviour is rewarded by casualty victory points and should not be considered 'silly attacks'. It is history.

I don't disagree with the historical doctrine. In game turns, I've been pretty selective with counterattacks. I did wipe out an invasion, so that involved a lot of attacks. Other than that, attacks have been mostly about whacking exposed units like Brigades, and doing it with units that need to build morale.

To launch an offensive at this point, I would be attacking into level-3 forts through heavy Allied aircover. I just see it as being completely futile. I guess I could just to try?

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I would argue that no attacks by the Germans are silly. Their entire military doctrine is based on the counterattack. There is no instance in the whole war where the allies invaded, and were then not ruthlessly counterattacked by the germans. Even to the point of dangerously weakening their defence.

This behaviour is rewarded by casualty victory points and should not be considered 'silly attacks'. It is history.

I'll take you up on that argument.

You are reverse engineering the VP system and calling it history.
You're well within your rights to do so, but this neither reflects history nor the nature of the casualty VP mechanic.

From a game mechanic perspective:

There are positive and negative VP's.
Positive to encourage particular behavior, negative to discourage certain behavior.

casualty VP's are an ALLIED NEGATIVE meaning they are there to discourage the allies from certain behavior. In this case I believe that is to prevent them from behaving like the "Soviets of the West" and steam rolling foward in exchange for taking massive losses.
If it was intended to reward the German for inflicting casualties by any means then it would be awarded as a POSITIVE score to the AXIS player.

Personally I think this game mechanic is flawed in that it creates a situation in which casualties only matter to one side. Sure, the Germans have to worry about their pools, but so do the allies - other than the US, which can't fight it out alone.

From a historical perspective:

German commanders in the last years of the war were all too aware of their dwindling manpower and material reserves, and sought to minimize loss as much as possible.
I also think you are being overly generous by saying that "There is no instance in the whole war where the allies invaded, and were then not ruthlessly counterattacked by the germans."
The Germans certainly made some sort of counter attack against allied landings, but even then only continued those until they had established that the allies were firmly ashore and could not be pushed into the sea, before then switching to the defensive.


While the German army was a highly aggressive organisation, that did believe in attacking whenever there was something to by achieved by doing so, the Germans were not the Japanese. There were no German "Banzai" charges.

Wave after wave after wave of Germans engaging in futile attack after futile attack after futile attack purely to drive up the allied casualty rate is not reflective of history.

[LiquidSky]

War in the West is a two sided game. They could have tracked vps by just giving each side a total..then subtracting one from the other in the end. Instead they do that on the fly...so a negative vp doesn't have to be seen as doing something bad for one side, but for the other to be doing well.

Also....each side has to be capable of earning vps. Since I have already established that the game represents the Germans gaining vps with negative allied ones, the Germans need to have ways of doing that.

If you have only one side collecting then the game ends at some magical moment when that side reaches a fixed number. Most games, including this one, prefer to have a fixed moment in time, and a score comparison...they tend to be more fun to play.


The game is week long turns. Lets take Normandy. During the week of June 6-13....did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? Okay....June 14-21. Did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? C'mon I know you know.

Now...how about between june 21 and june 28? Did the germans launch any attacks in Normandy on the allies?

I think you will find that on every single turn until the final German counterattack (Operation Luttich), that the Germans attacked pretty much every single turn.

Now...why did they attack? They were low on manpower. They had no realistic expectation of driving the invaders back into the sea. If only we could have an ingame mechanic that could keep track of a players ability to attack with the Germans...some incentive to make them even want to.

Hmmm....can you think of anything? Something that could separate the ability of different players in different games?

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



War in the West is a two sided game. They could have tracked vps by just giving each side a total..then subtracting one from the other in the end. Instead they do that on the fly...so a negative vp doesn't have to be seen as doing something bad for one side, but for the other to be doing well.

Also....each side has to be capable of earning vps. Since I have already established that the game represents the Germans gaining vps with negative allied ones, the Germans need to have ways of doing that.

If you have only one side collecting then the game ends at some magical moment when that side reaches a fixed number. Most games, including this one, prefer to have a fixed moment in time, and a score comparison...they tend to be more fun to play.


The game is week long turns. Lets take Normandy. During the week of June 6-13....did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? Okay....June 14-21. Did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? C'mon I know you know.

Now...how about between june 21 and june 28? Did the germans launch any attacks in Normandy on the allies?

I think you will find that on every single turn until the final German counterattack (Operation Luttich), that the Germans attacked pretty much every single turn.

Now...why did they attack? They were low on manpower. They had no realistic expectation of driving the invaders back into the sea. If only we could have an ingame mechanic that could keep track of a players ability to attack with the Germans...some incentive to make them even want to.

Hmmm....can you think of anything? Something that could separate the ability of different players in different games?

We're arguing around the point - and in one way you are right, if the German player wants to launch Army Group sized offensives on enery front on every turn, then that's his prerogative.
But there should be some form of consequence for doing so.

This is how I see the current casualty VP's working:

Successful Allied attack = Allied negative casualty VP's = German VP win
Unsuccessful Allied attack = Allied negative casualty VP's = German VP win
Successful German attack = Allied negative casualty VP's = German VP win
Unsuccessful German attack = Allied negative casualty VP's = German VP win


Where's the balance there? Casualties are only ever a good thing for the German army? Really?

Sure you could argue that the negative consequence for the Axis player is that he is constrained by his pools. But so are the Allies - and I'd be willing to bet in most games the British and Canadian armies feel the pinch earlier than the Germans do.

Basically if you are going to implement a system in which the allies will be penalized (or Germans rewarded - if you prefer) every time ONE SIDE takes casualties, under any circumstance, then there needs to be some sort of counter-balance to prevent the Axis player from using "Shift + right click" as a point generation machine.

We already see tactics built around this, such as games starting with the Axis player using the Italian Army and Airforce as a giant Kamikaze squad because - "Well, you're going to loose them soon enough anyway, so you might as well get some points".

What's the alternative? I don't know, but I'd happily see SBP removed from the game in exchange for a casualty VP system that took both sides losses into account.
I'm a firm believer that an Allied player should bomb strategic targets because it produces an effect on the German war economy, not because he is chasing arbitrary VP's. How well bombing currently produces that effect on the German war economy is another topic....

[HMSWarspite]

Any system that causes the WA to turtle or even seriously consider it (as opposed to being forced to do it by complete exhaustion) needs looking at. I think the vps for cities at the end must be looked at (same as Torch). A WA Turtle is just inconceivable historically and does not make for a good game...

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

War in the West is a two sided game. They could have tracked vps by just giving each side a total..then subtracting one from the other in the end. Instead they do that on the fly...so a negative vp doesn't have to be seen as doing something bad for one side, but for the other to be doing well.

Also....each side has to be capable of earning vps. Since I have already established that the game represents the Germans gaining vps with negative allied ones, the Germans need to have ways of doing that.

If you have only one side collecting then the game ends at some magical moment when that side reaches a fixed number. Most games, including this one, prefer to have a fixed moment in time, and a score comparison...they tend to be more fun to play.

I agree with these statements. I don't agree that the game designers awarded negative VPs to the Allies (or positive VPs to the Germans if you wish) to encourage the German player to attack, but that my be neither here nor there. If someone as the German Player believes that they can inflict more causalities on the Allies by attacking then they can by digging in and defending then that is their choice.

The game is week long turns. Lets take Normandy. During the week of June 6-13....did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? Okay....June 14-21. Did the Germans launch any attacks on the allies? C'mon I know you know.

Now...how about between june 21 and june 28? Did the germans launch any attacks in Normandy on the allies?

I think you will find that on every single turn until the final German counterattack (Operation Luttich), that the Germans attacked pretty much every single turn.

I haven't checked my references, but I believe most of the counter attacks you are referring to (other than Luttich) were launched by one or two divisions and lasted no more than a day or two. Given the scale of this game I do not think these are even reflected in the game, except perhaps as attrition losses.

Now...why did they attack? They were low on manpower. They had no realistic expectation of driving the invaders back into the sea. If only we could have an ingame mechanic that could keep track of a players ability to attack with the Germans...some incentive to make them even want to.

Uh, why did they attack... how about because Hitler was a madman. Taking Luttich for example, Kluge knew the attack had no chance of success and wanted to retreat. Hitler ordered the attack, not because he wanted to inflict casualties, but because he deluded himself into believing that the Americans could be cut off and destroyed. But when I play the Germans I am Hitler (and every general as well) so I can do what I want.

But even if LiquidSky is correct with everything he says, I still don't see how it refutes my argument that in most games at a certain point (probably late summer 44 or before) the Allied Player will maximize his VPs by simply stopping and going on the defensive. In fact if the game is played as LiquidSky suggests, with the Allied Player maxing his SB VPs and the Germans aggressively counter attacking it seems to me that the Allied Player will be even more inclined to turtle. This way he can let his SBs wrack up the points while keeping his troops safer from counterattack in prepared defenses.

The only exception to this is if the Allied SB campaign has so wrecked German industry (or at least the portions Liquid Sky says should be focused on) and the German counterattacks have effectively destroyed the German army. But personally I don't ever see this happening with 2 roughly equal opponents.