Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I would consider dropping a game against any player that intentionally cheezed the garrison VPs just to harvest points, and I will never do it. Why would you want to win a game based on an exploit?

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton


...
Germany only has about 10 units that can do anything, all 15+ CV - so when allies land you have to move them to the invasion area.






Then if they leave there is no way you can get CV lvls back to "normal"

System needs a delay

Pelton

the problem here is you have been min-maxing your response to invasions (as you do very well), this response exposes that approach from a similar perspective. The reality is the Germans didn't dare strip say France of mobile reserves to deal with Italy as they didn't know the allies lacked the capacity (or will) to try a second invasion. So you've been dealing with one threat and ignoring the latent second threat. This rather gamey Allied strategy is a response in kind. Its unfortunate that you are back to screaming 'Middle Earth' in response to be being out-gamed.

As to the VPs.

I don't care about the negative concept. I can see the objection but it doesn't worry me.
I'd like to see the T1 hit on allied VPs removed (as someone says those losses are from when someone else was in command),
not least its scarcely needed for end of game balance (judging by completed games so far).

I actually like the VP system as a reflection of external issues.
I presume the U-Boat focus is a way to build in the diversion of effort (for both sides)
of the Battle of the Atlantic? V1/2 reflects the importance the allies gave to ending that threat.

I'm not that worried about the game tending to an allied loss (regardless of who holds Berlin)
if losses go too high or progress is too slow.
Given the economic ruin of the war for the UK and France,
you could make a case that by 1943 this war had long abandoned
the traditional logic of fighting for defined goals and had indeed
become about winning at any cost and worry about the consequences later.

What might be nice is a second set of victory conditions. WiTE is, as noted above, too driven in its victory conditions by player performance not context. Something along these lines in WiTW as a separate metric for 'success' might be quite useful, though of course player(s) can always come up with their own informal measures for this (as many do in WiTE).

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton


...
Germany only has about 10 units that can do anything, all 15+ CV - so when allies land you have to move them to the invasion area.






Then if they leave there is no way you can get CV lvls back to "normal"

System needs a delay

Pelton

the problem here is you have been min-maxing your response to invasions (as you do very well), this response exposes that approach from a similar perspective. The reality is the Germans didn't dare strip say France of mobile reserves to deal with Italy as they didn't know the allies lacked the capacity (or will) to try a second invasion. So you've been dealing with one threat and ignoring the latent second threat. This rather gamey Allied strategy is a response in kind. Its unfortunate that you are back to screaming 'Middle Earth' in response to be being out-gamed.

As to the VPs.

I don't care about the negative concept. I can see the objection but it doesn't worry me.
I'd like to see the T1 hit on allied VPs removed (as someone says those losses are from when someone else was in command),
not least its scarcely needed for end of game balance (judging by completed games so far).

I actually like the VP system as a reflection of external issues.
I presume the U-Boat focus is a way to build in the diversion of effort (for both sides)
of the Battle of the Atlantic? V1/2 reflects the importance the allies gave to ending that threat.

I'm not that worried about the game tending to an allied loss (regardless of who holds Berlin)
if losses go too high or progress is too slow.
Given the economic ruin of the war for the UK and France,
you could make a case that by 1943 this war had long abandoned
the traditional logic of fighting for defined goals and had indeed
become about winning at any cost and worry about the consequences later.

What might be nice is a second set of victory conditions. WiTE is, as noted above, too driven in its victory conditions by player performance not context. Something along these lines in WiTW as a separate metric for 'success' might be quite useful, though of course player(s) can always come up with their own informal measures for this (as many do in WiTE).

Dude build it anyway you want, but exploits aree exploit and tring to BS people is simply BS people.

The player base is not as stupid as you and others would like to think.

They ALWAYS exploit the rules be it WitE or WitW if the rule set is piss poor its piss poor and playes game it to Middle Earth and back.

Star Trek is not World War II?

You think the current garrison rule set is not Middle Earth? Sorry bro but people that have helped design WitW thk its stupid they just simply can't say it in dev forum or here.

Its simply not possible to wave a majgic wand and have unit move 50+ hexes.

I am very very very very happy some peeps that play WA's are 1/2 as smart as MT.Sapper, Bomazz, Hoooper, Kamil ect winning as WA's is way way to easy.

I am simply asking that WA be given some lov as VP system is off and garrison system is way to exploitable.

Now 2by3 can be like the old days of WitE and be made complete fools of by some stupid redneck retard called Pelton ( morale bug, ammo bug, armament bug ect ect yes I wat 100% right and 2by3 100%wrong) or they can be drama queens. Dude just fix the sht
and make 2 simple changes that balance the game.

Way way to much drama and not enough IQ

ORIGINAL: rosseau

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: loki100




Pelton

the problem here is you have been min-maxing your response to invasions (as you do very well), this response exposes that approach from a similar perspective. The reality is the Germans didn't dare strip say France of mobile reserves to deal with Italy as they didn't know the allies lacked the capacity (or will) to try a second invasion. So you've been dealing with one threat and ignoring the latent second threat. This rather gamey Allied strategy is a response in kind. Its unfortunate that you are back to screaming 'Middle Earth' in response to be being out-gamed.

As to the VPs.

I don't care about the negative concept. I can see the objection but it doesn't worry me.
I'd like to see the T1 hit on allied VPs removed (as someone says those losses are from when someone else was in command),
not least its scarcely needed for end of game balance (judging by completed games so far).

I actually like the VP system as a reflection of external issues.
I presume the U-Boat focus is a way to build in the diversion of effort (for both sides)
of the Battle of the Atlantic? V1/2 reflects the importance the allies gave to ending that threat.

I'm not that worried about the game tending to an allied loss (regardless of who holds Berlin)
if losses go too high or progress is too slow.
Given the economic ruin of the war for the UK and France,
you could make a case that by 1943 this war had long abandoned
the traditional logic of fighting for defined goals and had indeed
become about winning at any cost and worry about the consequences later.

What might be nice is a second set of victory conditions. WiTE is, as noted above, too driven in its victory conditions by player performance not context. Something along these lines in WiTW as a separate metric for 'success' might be quite useful, though of course player(s) can always come up with their own informal measures for this (as many do in WiTE).

Dude build it anyway you want, but exploits aree exploit and tring to BS people is simply BS people.

The player base is not as stupid as you and others would like to think.

They ALWAYS exploit the rules be it WitE or WitW if the rule set is piss poor its piss poor and playes game it to Middle Earth and back.

Star Trek is not World War II?

You think the current garrison rule set is not Middle Earth? Sorry bro but people that have helped design WitW thk its stupid they just simply can't say it in dev forum or here.

Its simply not possible to wave a majgic wand and have unit move 50+ hexes.

I am very very very very happy some peeps that play WA's are 1/2 as smart as MT.Sapper, Bomazz, Hoooper, Kamil ect winning as WA's is way way to easy.

I am simply asking that WA be given some lov as VP system is off and garrison system is way to exploitable.

Now 2by3 can be like the old days of WitE and be made complete fools of by some stupid redneck retard called Pelton ( morale bug, ammo bug, armament bug ect ect yes I wat 100% right and 2by3 100%wrong) or they can be drama queens. Dude just fix the sht
and make 2 simple changes that balance the game.

Way way to much drama and not enough IQ

I don't know who Pelton is, but we can do without the name-calling, dude.

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Ah, I think I have the difference; the WA are not being penalised for attacking. They are being penalised for attacking unwisely or clumsily. If you take advantage of the considerable advantages the WA have(numbers locally, air power etc), you balance the cost vs the gain.

The WA will get in to Germany, its just a question of how fast, and what it costs. Any game that allows Russian style play by the WA is not a game of Western Europe in my book... I think it was you (or if not, someone) who suggested using manpower limits to penalise clumsy/expensive play. Attacking and turning the army into a ghost is just not realistic. I know you primarily want a game, as do I (I am not a masochist, and will lose interest in a game where one side has no hope). However I want a game set in Western Europe 1943-5, not Eastern Front in France.

if the Russian army is a sledgehammer (big thumps but not a lot of finesse), and the German army is a longsword (good general purpose, although a bit chipped and rusty by late 1943!), the WA armies would be a rapier, or even rapier/dagger combination - lethal if used precisely, but so not good when the brawl descends to a slugging match...

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You won't lose 27 VPs for losing a troop ship. You might lost 3-4 at most, but now you should lose even less after we made it so that some of the men go back to the pool. So a troopship is probably going to cost you 1 or 2. You can minimize these over the long run by moving in areas where you have naval control, which means devoting some of your aircraft to naval patrols. The big VP hit on the first turn is due to scoring the disabled pool. It's just something built into the system and accounted for in the victory levels. I understand it's no fun to be in the negative, but for a WA player that is doing well it will eventually turn around and go positive. Of course, we need many more games to be played to conclusion to get a real handle on game balance (not just Pelton's games). By the activity on the AAR forum, it looks like we should have more results in the coming few months. The game is short enough that it can be played through and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of many games.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Ok - small change in direction - as everyone is so worked up by campaign VPs and have strong opinions can I ask how would you improve the air campaign VP system?