Matrix Games Forums

This is genius.[;)] lol

Ran outta mps!

Ground losses so far, next to nothing if you subtract those 50k disabled the game gives you on turn 1 for some stupid reason.

50k disabled the game gives you on turn 1 for some stupid reason.

Those represent the pool of already disabled troops from earlier campaigns, some of whom are converted into fresh replacements during the logistics phase.

The devs have already stated that the point 'cost' associated with establishing that pool is already factored into the point differentials for various final results (decisive, marginal, draw, etc.).

I understand, but it's seems odd to be penalized for something that I wasn't in command of. I thought this was the Western Allies not the Soviet Politburo!

We are receiving reports from AFHQ that partisans have risen and are giving the Germany ample trouble! Evel Notsee must have his hands full...


Who needs Rome??

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

We are receiving reports from AFHQ that partisans have risen and are giving the Germany ample trouble! Evel Notsee must have his hands full...
Who needs Rome??

For those that haven't played the Germans, garrisons can bite you in funny ways. I've lost points when a TOE upgrade changed the units strength and I couldn't get a strong enough unit on and off a train in one week to fix it.
I try not to ride a razors edge, but a remote place like Bordeaux with that garrison FZ present a problem on top on the security unit requirement.

Just gonna keep hitting that "I win" button.

I understand, but it's seems odd to be penalized for something that I wasn't in command of.

What's odd to me is that you describe it as a 'penalty' even after someone explains it is factored into the outcome, and thus neutral.
[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I understand, but it's seems odd to be penalized for something that I wasn't in command of.

What's odd to me is that you describe it as a 'penalty' even after someone explains it is factored into the outcome, and thus neutral.
[:'(]

I would like to know how it was tested, because the entire VP system is arbitarily made to begin with. And I was a tester. I think it is programmer-speak for "we don't want to change it"

Nice work on the bombing. My best so far (using your advice) is 13 VPs/Turn. Slowly getting there...

This is probably bad news for the game though (not what was needed) since doing it in anyway but how you are doing it would be pretty stupid. [:)] So instead of having all these factories and stuff on map they could just as well just have slapped 10 HI factories scattered across the map for the WAs to bomb. So now there is even less diversity in the bombing campaign, Perhaps they will fix it with a penalty...[;)]

How are you getting all the Garrison VPs?

He got the first points when the garrison values changed, and I was trying to fight him in the Med., that was my mistake. The 2nd time was when the TOE changes occurred. In one week I'd lost 20cv in my garrison zones, and couldn't get enough troops back up there to meet them. This was a TOE change, not a documented rule book change. I had no way to cover all the zones in time. The next damn turn I had 19cv over what I needed because of the TOE upgrades. I had absolutely no way to get back in time to meet my requirements. Garrisons are harsh, and need a grace period. I've given him over 150 points this game due to garrisons.

Garrisons are a good rule, but the penalties are harsh just trying to keep enough cv in Italy and maintain them. The penalty should be for those who pull from garrisons to fight with, not weather and TOE changes, when cv's drop. I was even prepared for the garrison change in Sept. '43, but I wasn't ready enough and I lost points in Denmark. The TOE change got me in almost every zone, and cost me 133 points.

Trying to fight a war, and keep troops where the fighting is is a tough job. A week's grace period would be nice on the garrisons.

I would like to know how it was tested, because the entire VP system is arbitarily made to begin with.

There are objective things like - 'Take Berlin', but with a point system how could it NOT be arbitrary? Any points system, from the outset, is subjective because it is rooted in subjective valuations.

So instead of having all these factories and stuff on map they could just as well just have slapped 10 HI factories scattered across the map for the WAs to bomb. So now there is even less diversity in the bombing campaign, Perhaps they will fix it with a penalty

If 'min-maxing' the VP bombing campaign is your only, or overriding, goal with the Air Force.
The blinders you bring are not actually limitations in the game, but I think you're guilty of conflating them.

This is like saying you should not use the tax code to your advantage, even though it is legal. If the rules are stupid, they will be exploited. So don't make stupid rules!

It is human nature to want to win and min / max your position.

We are not doing anything outside of the game's parameters, we are simply using the system to our advantage.

Sinc the western allies never did take berlin, how would you judge "victory"?

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Nice work on the bombing. My best so far (using your advice) is 13 VPs/Turn. Slowly getting there...

This is probably bad news for the game though (not what was needed) since doing it in anyway but how you are doing it would be pretty stupid. [:)] So instead of having all these factories and stuff on map they could just as well just have slapped 10 HI factories scattered across the map for the WAs to bomb. So now there is even less diversity in the bombing campaign, Perhaps they will fix it with a penalty...[;)]

How are you getting all the Garrison VPs?

Your bombing Vps will increase each turn as you hit new targets, since the cumulative damage stacks with the new damage you'll inflict on fresh targets.

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack
This is like saying you should not use the tax code to your advantage, even though it is legal. If the rules are stupid, they will be exploited. So don't make stupid rules!

This presumes you maximize VP by maximizing bombing VP by only paying attention to specific targets. I see Joc put limits on himself and claiming the game is placing them when I see it more a matter of his approach.

To address your analogy: I could not pay off my house faster and maximize the tax advantages of the home loan interest deduction, but that would limit other things I might do if I instead paid the house off faster. Do those 'rules' force me to pay the house off on a 30 year schedule? Only if I view 'victory' as maximizing the advantages of the home loan interest deduction over other things...

It is human nature to want to win and min / max your position.

Indeed, but human nature is subjective, and your favorite ice cream can be your favorite without being my favorite. Thereby we can both 'maximize' our enjoyment with different means.

We are not doing anything outside of the game's parameters, we are simply using the system to our advantage.

Presumably. I'm not sure that is true overall. I think a more balanced approach may lead to better results overall, but I think the focus of some on getting a particular dial to '11' prevents them from seeing that.
I perceive it as a failure to see the forest due a focus on a single tree.

Sinc the western allies never did take berlin, how would you judge "victory"?

As I said elsewhere, I'm judging my play (and enjoyment) on how I do relative to history as either side.
I haven't seen a game play through for me to judge the VP system against my own appreciation.
I'm not playing without respect for the VP system (e.g. I'm not stripping Southern France to feed Italy because I don't care about the garrison penalty), but it doesn't drive the 'fun' for me.

For me games like this are about outwitting my opponent.
Some folks find the pleasure in trying to find where they can 'break' the game and 'win' thereby.
Different strokes for different folks.

Seminole, while I understand your reasoning I´m not so sure a more "balanced approach" is going to get you far when it comes to strategic bombing. No one has done nearly half as well as NOSB when it comes to accumulating bomb VPs. So for now I for one will assume this is the best way to go.

Judging by other aspects of the game which is extremely "flat" in its design I very much doubt any thought was put into a dynamic bombing campaign with several different viable approaches. In fact I think Joel even admitted the reason they put the bombing VPs in place was to avoid having to balance the industrial side of the game? That strongly suggest the best way to approach it is indeed just to try and max the VP output. Any other possible outcome would be purely chance.

I´m in the same place as NOSB when it comes to "winning". You win by getting the most out of the game. That is the same thing as outwitting your opponent in my book. If you can only "win" one way in a game like this that is not gaming the system. Its poor game design.

You may win, but your going to pay for every hex you take.[;)]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Seminole, while I understand your reasoning I´m not so sure a more "balanced approach" is going to get you far when it comes to strategic bombing. No one has done nearly half as well as NOSB when it comes to accumulating bomb VPs. So for now I for one will assume this is the best way to go.

It is with deliberate precision I tried to explain bombing VP shouldn't be the only goal of the Air Force. I think properly used they can do a lot more than just hitting VP sites, and thereby help you get a better overall result. The strategic bombing VP are subject to diminishing returns. Should we not see how it plays out before declaring the (as yet unknown) end result lacking?

I´m in the same place as NOSB when it comes to "winning". You win by getting the most out of the game. That is the same thing as outwitting your opponent in my book. If you can only "win" one way in a game like this that is not gaming the system. Its poor game design.

My observation is that if this is the only way you can see to win maybe you're not seeing everything yet.

ORIGINAL: Seminole
It is with deliberate precision I tried to explain bombing VP shouldn't be the only goal of the Air Force. I think properly used they can do a lot more than just hitting VP sites, and thereby help you get a better overall result. The strategic bombing VP are subject to diminishing returns. Should we not see how it plays out before declaring the (as yet unknown) end result lacking?

I absolute 100% agree with you that bombing for VPs shouldn´t be the only goal for the Air force. But as far as I can tell the devs have given us no other option. I hope you are right and I´m wrong but I fear it will turn out to be the other way around. As I said everything points to the devs paying little if any attention to this (crucial IMO) area. They have designed the game to be played in a certain way (VP system is a very good indication of this) and not with multiple possible approaches to the same goal (victory). If that is the case its an absolutely mind blowing mistake when it comes to a game like this. Replayability = zero.

I also agree we are better seeing how it plays out. But speculating can be quite interesting. And we have some data at least which to me seems to point in a certain direction.

ORIGINAL: Seminole
My observation is that if this is the only way you can see to win maybe you're not seeing everything yet.

And my counter observation to that is that you may put a little too much faith in the game and my more cynical approach may turn out to be correct. [;)]