Matrix Games Forums

I think the idea of having variant scenarios that encourage or force a player to attempt to play as if being directed by Hitler or Stalin would be interesting, however that might be contrived.

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944….

I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion.

Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made.

Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians?

With a per turn based VP system, Clarks decision would have been more like: Should I capture Rome now to gain more VP (= political kudos) in the short term, or should I surround the 10th army hoping for even bigger VP gains in the longer term.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Why don't you use the existing VP system, so you could do a direct comparison - the current system shows the number of VPs held each turn, so you could work out the "historical" culmulative amount of VPs for each turn, so players could keep their own spreadsheet to see how they are comparing to the historical VP levels.

Excellent suggestion! I didn't really think of using that, but that would work very well!Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Klydon




I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion.

Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made.

Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians?

With a per turn based VP system, Clarks decision would have been more like: Should I capture Rome now to gain more VP (= political kudos) in the short term, or should I surround the 10th army hoping for even bigger VP gains in the longer term.

Maybe it is more fun for some players in that way. Not me, I only hope that it is made as an option (if it is ever made). I cannot understand the rationale of player A being in a worse position (less hexes, less soldiers) than player B (both playing the Axis), but having more victory points because until the year before he was in a better position....Or the Soviet Union making an unstoppable advance towards Berlin in February 1945 and being defeated because the Germans held Kiev until May 1944.

Nor can I understand the historicity of claiming a victory by anything different from the final result of the war.

Historically the war in the east ended in May 1945 with a crushing soviet victory, having conquered all of eastern Germany, including Berlin, and seeing Hitler die. Stating the obvious here, we all know that. But if we apply historical hindsight alone to the games' victory conditions, we forget that this outcome was not cast in stone in June '41, when the conflict began.

The final outcome only came into its own because of the decisions and actions both sides took, and the temporary/shortterm/longterm objectives they pursued during these years.

In the game though both sides now know the final victory conditions at the start and can engineer and min/max their strategy to achieve these from turn one. My concern is, that this might lead to a less interesting game play in the campaign, bacause (for most of the game) neither side would feel it was necessary to take any particular risks in order to achieve any particular objectives. Both sides could and probably would focus on force preservation, opportunistic attacks in sectors with significant temporary superiority followed by adjustment of optimised front lines.

I'm not sure if there is a 'golden bullet' to solve this situation (probably not).

Ok, you say, forget about special political incentives: just keep the points as they are, highlighting “important” cities, but in small pieces instead of a big cake at the end. I do not see why this would add historical flavour to the game, because in real wars it is the final result what tends to matter. Imagine, after the hard fought battle at Omaha Beach, that the American soldiers were informed that they have lost the war, because Germany has held Paris during 4 years already…

Well, victory in war a politcal matter which is concern only with the end results. BUT Glory is something more important. That why Blackbeard fought its last battle. I think that even if he get destroyed to the last man, ha had enough VP to call it a win on the History Glory index compare to its opponnent (who remind him). Same for Achille, he goes to war for Glory, so he earn VP for fighting the war (heroically with lots of oustanding success of course...) not for winning it.

So for Germany taking Leningrad before november or a bit after was not that important in the grand scheme, but it was for the General in charge of the assault. If it has succeeded he would have obtain Marshall status and great fame.

That is why with a historical start, I fthink given one time point in december relative to historical German objectives would be nice. It would make the game less I prepare for the onslaught and more I go for a bit of the win. This is in line with the historical set-up (I want free set-up whitout making a scenario) and give flavour.

I would prefer one time, rather than occupation turn. This is more in line with the tempo of the war that was first : Try to reach Barbarossa objectives, then try to do as best as you can to win an attrition war.

The system could and should be more fine tune, may be with same thing for Russian.

Bottom line, yes, Axis could win a Glory victory if they succeed in Barbarossa and the soviet is too slow to reach Berlin early even though, ultimatly the Axis power will be crushed.

Actually, what I think would work excellent to enforce a player to follow a more historical playstyle is to introduce sizeable VP locations that needs to be taken within a certain date and held for X turns.

For instance, Take Moscow before 1. dec 41 and mantain control of it for 5 turns and you gain a huge VP sum. Failure to take it in time or hold it, will result in 0 VP's

Going many years back, the good east front board wargames employed variable objectives. I recall one where each side would select a difficult objective for that year's campaigns, and the game would be determined by whether you could succeed while also preventing your opponent from doing so too. If both failed, new objectives for the next year would be determined and the game continued. If you could figure out your oppoents' objective early on you could often prevent him from succeeding, so the game often played very normally with both sides trying to defend and take all possible objectives. No matter how badly you would do in one year, you always knew you could theoretically win the next year.
 
In another game Hitler and Stalin Directives were periodically issued. I liked this system the best because it often interfered with my carefully prepared plans. Such a system would be fairly easy to add to WITE as an option. For example, at the beginning of every month there would be a XX% chance of a directive being issued, such as "take Moscow in two months," "defend Kiev for two more turns," "take Stalingrad this month," or "don't surrender more than 30 hexes this month (i.e., no retreat)." Success would produce lots of VP while defeat surrenders VP based on the magnitude of the failure, and the objective would be unknown to your opponent (except for the grand pool of possible objectives). The directives could be scripted, and the pool of possibilities altered as the game situation changes, so it wouldn't be that difficult to add as an option.
 
In WITE/AE I advocated a similar system, because otherwise there's never any reason for either side to try something like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo (or a theoretical Japanese CV raid on Sydney/New Zealand). Those events, like some decisions on the eastern front (e.g., the Aug 20 order to encircle Kiev from the north), were major command decisions of a political nature that affected the war significantly. To eliminate all such high-level directives makes any wargame fairly unrealistic from a military command (OKW or STAVKA) perspective. It is my impression that each player operates as the military commander in this wargame, not as the political dictator, and so we should have to obey their (CPU) dictates or suffer the consequences. 

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

wargame,

The key word.

It's a game. Not a simulation.

I don't see why some want to "obey" CPU dictates, and yet want to run the war.

You can't claim that lack of such CPU interference is not realistic while at the same time having the ability to put every unit from regiment to army hq where you want them.

And just what consequence should you suffer? The only one that makes any sense since you're running all the peices is that if you don't do what CPU Hitler/Stalin says, then you get removed. Which means you lose.

Another smart way to implement CPU dictactes would be not to hinge loss or victory on them, but let them give you bonuses or penalties... something that would really want you to follow them, but allowing you to ignore them.

F.instance , complying with a certain dicate could give you:
 - a bonus 5 morale for XX turns. Failure would result in a -5 penalty for XX turns. General national morale is boosted by big success displayed all over press.
 - some new reinforcements/withdrawal of units, hitler decides to push further on the initial success
 - Improved supply or armament for XX turns, hitler decides to push further on the initial success
 - The removal of an important leader from the game. Failure to meet dicate means some high up leader pays for the failure it with imprisionment/execution.

That would realistically allow a player to go against the dictacte without actually loosing the game, just suffering some negative consequence for a while.

Political interference could also be used as a balancing tool.
If you are having way too much success, the political leadership can decide to withdraw units to commit to operations elsewhere "since you are so close to victory you don't need that many and we can commit them open up other operations"
Or viceversa, if you are having a hard time holding the invaders, additional previously unavailable reserves can be received as focus shifts to this front at the expense of others.

That would make it a much more interesting situation. And it also holds some historical accuracy, in that troops where shifted back & forth between fronts according to where they were the most needed.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

wargame,

The key word.

It's a game. Not a simulation.

I don't see why some want to "obey" CPU dictates, and yet want to run the war.

You can't claim that lack of such CPU interference is not realistic while at the same time having the ability to put every unit from regiment to army hq where you want them.

And just what consequence should you suffer? The only one that makes any sense since you're running all the peices is that if you don't do what CPU Hitler/Stalin says, then you get removed. Which means you lose.

Good point.

In Germany there wasn't anyone with the power to deploy the divisions of all Army Groups and the Luftwaffe assets.

Except that angry guy making the directives...

Although not exactly in the same role, the most aproximate reference to what the player is supposed to be is Stalin and Hitler. Who else had the power to dismiss Zhukov and Halder?

I would understand the concept of external ad-hoc directives if the game is "Battle of Moscow", or "Bagration", or "Korsun Pocket"...or "The Battle of the Bulge", etc...but in "War in the East 1941-1945"....?

This is a fascinating discussion, but it seems like it would be more fruitful if the underlying question were more specific.

The way I see it, the proposed VP changes (to the extent that they punish the Russians for failure to hold particular objectives) are only relevant if the Comrade Robinsky strategy gives the Russian player an insurmountable advantage, i.e. they are basically guaranteed a major or decisive victory no matter what the German does. In that case, it would seem logical that the VP structure would need to be tweaked. If it does not, however, and the Russian suffers genuine disadvantages in the game as it stands from Robinskying, I think we are discussing solutions to a non-existent problem. I do not see the point in reducing a player's flexibility as long as it does not grossly imbalance the game.

As an analogy, imagine that the best US strategy in WitP was to withdraw all forces to the West Coast and hole up until early 1944, whereupon the US could launch an unstoppable juggernaut that would steamroll across the Pacific and end the war in a decisive victory by Winter 1944 no matter what the Japanese did. One could argue for changing the victory conditions in that case, because most people would agree that (a) the game would be no fun, and (b) such a withdrawal would have been politically unacceptable in the US at the time and thus could not have happened, even if it were the "best" military strategy.

To sum up, I think one needs to balance fun, flexibility and realism.

For soviet may be there is no point. But for the German this make the start of the game more fun. Otherwise German player think that going for Barbarossa objective is point less. Part of the propose change, will make the 1st year a real go for the German for big point before going to defensive.

If these Vp's were implemented, i really hope this would be an optional rule.
I wish to decide for myself what objectives are important for me to take or hold. i do not wish to see anything that hampers my flexability in this regard.
Also for those that argue that certain cities are worth more VP's due too political considerations, i would just say this seems to open a can of worms that would bring no end of arguing over which cites they should be and how much should they be worth.
Personally i just don't think this is a good idea.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak


My guess is that if Joel dropped by this thread, we would see a similar response as in the weather thread. I am not an expert on the editor, but I don't think there is much flexibility in the current VP model.

Which leads me to the conclusion it isn't going to happen.

I have decided to use the "beers while doing my turn" Victory Point system.  If I do not want to raise my points, no beers.  1-3 beers gives me VP x 1.5, 4-8 beers doubles the points.  If I switch to whiskey I have already lost.
 
I believe in combining play with fun.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have decided to use the "beers while doing my turn" Victory Point system.  If I do not want to raise my points, no beers.  1-3 beers gives me VP x 1.5, 4-8 beers doubles the points.  If I switch to whiskey I have already lost.

I believe in combining play with fun.

Dang. I can't drink.

Have to come up with something else......

I am putting together a table of the capture turns for all the VP cities in the game, as given by the current VP system. Then I will compute the historical VP level per turn and post it here, so those interested can just bring up the VP screen in the game and compare their progress to the historical VP value. This will obviously take some time. If anyone knows of a convenient website with capture dates for cities on the eastern front that would be helpful.

Edit: Spelling error