Matrix Games Forums

Let's all be honest here, (and before I am accused of being an Axis fanboy), that the Victory Point conditions have been created by the Kremlin. I think a proper re-valuation by the dev team on the victory conditions would go a long way towards keeping the game fresh and competitive throughout the entire campaign.

Here's a proposal, and I'm just throwing this out there to get some debate going, but I think that there needs to be some outright important cities that Axis has to take in order to secure victory. As is this stands now with the araments situation, Leningrad and Moscow are almost after-thoughts when it comes to over-all strategy, yet these are extremely high-profile targets politically. I highly doubt that OKH would not have these cities on the radar...at least in '41.

What do you guys think? What about some sudden death, decisive victory conditions, such as if Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, etc are controlled by Axis in '41, it's game over. Such as:

'41: Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, Stalino -- Decisive Victory

'42: Same as above, and Stalingrad

'43-'45 is up for debate, just throwing out some ideas.

Yes the VP system is just plain stupid and needs an over-all, but the devs have bigger fish to fry at this point. It is plain as day light that about no thought went into the current VP system.

I thk a system based off what they alrdy have set-up in smaller games would be nice.

If you hold city x you get y vp pts per turn ect ect.

Pelton

Sudden death conditions would be good. Even as an option. I think next game I will include sudden death conditions as a house rule. Not sure what yet though.

I would like a per-turn approach. As it is, a German victory is pretty much impossible.

Game is playable regardless.

Many of us played WITP-AE for years, and a Japanese auto-victory in that one is very rare. You have to basically take all of Australia, and sink the US Fleet. I took most of India once, and never came close.

under the current 1.05 patch, I think the 42 victory condition would be too easy for the Axis.

'41: Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, Stalino -- Decisive Victory

'42: Same as above, and Stalingrad

I agree, but at the end of winter. This means that the Russians have lost the key cities AND the Red Army is too weak to recover them in a winter counteroffensive.

This will be much much better than historically the Germans did. To the soviets, it´s much easier to conquer Berlin before the end of 44 that to the Germans to reach these victory conditions.

Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, Stalino decisive or sudden death in 41? This would somehow split the community. Majority - see polls - IIRC plays vs the AI and those objectives on normal/challenging are too easy within reach even befor mud.

Those 41 sudden death conditions are quite possible to achieve even in PBEM. The only one of them which is seriously challenging is Moscow, and Moscow is by no means out of reach. The rest are taken quite regularly and easily in PBEM games. (Something needs to be done to make Leningrad a harder nut to crack, imo.)

I don't think those are very realistic conditions, either. The Soviets would certainly have fought on even losing all those.

I don't think those are very realistic conditions, either. The Soviets would certainly have fought on even losing all those.

May be. Barbarossa was a mistake, Germans have very little (or none) probabilities of a decisive victory (in real world).

But we´re talking about balance a game. IMHO, a game can be balanced in two ways:
-Changing the historical combat values (i.e., adding more tanks, doing the tanks faster or stronger...)
-Or adjusting the victory conditions. I prefer this one.

If the Germans never acheive in the game a total victory, and the Soviets do it, then is necesary to do some adjustements in total victory conditions.

But I agree with you, only to conquer these cities is too easy, a total victory should be more challenging. So that´s why I propose the second conditions: hold them at the end of winter. That means that was not soviet winter counteroffensive.

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

Let's all be honest here, (and before I am accused of being an Axis fanboy), that the Victory Point conditions have been created by the Kremlin. I think a proper re-valuation by the dev team on the victory conditions would go a long way towards keeping the game fresh and competitive throughout the entire campaign.

Here's a proposal, and I'm just throwing this out there to get some debate going, but I think that there needs to be some outright important cities that Axis has to take in order to secure victory. As is this stands now with the araments situation, Leningrad and Moscow are almost after-thoughts when it comes to over-all strategy, yet these are extremely high-profile targets politically. I highly doubt that OKH would not have these cities on the radar...at least in '41.

What do you guys think? What about some sudden death, decisive victory conditions, such as if Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, etc are controlled by Axis in '41, it's game over. Such as:

'41: Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk, Kharkov, Stalino -- Decisive Victory

'42: Same as above, and Stalingrad

'43-'45 is up for debate, just throwing out some ideas.

And if the above isn't met, the Axis lose.

Since Flaviusx mentioned that the aforementioned objectives are not unrealistic even in PBEM games, to me the question arises: is a decisive german victory in WitE in 1941 something that would be realistic in any eastern front simulation? Zillions of posts have argued with that and whith what ifs (eg earlier Typhoon etc). With the current settings, all these large cities don't have enough VPs, mainly because WitE doesn't take into account one factor: the psychological or political impact of territorial losses. This would require some sort of "morale" for the whole of a country and VP business could become a nightmare..

I think that is an excellent idea, and losing a major city should have a significant impact on national morale levels. It would give both sides a huge incentive to hold / keep cities. Losing 10 national morale or more for losing Moscow would cripple the Soviets with already low morale, nearly ensuring victory for Axis.

Hi guys,

Pelton is certainly on the ball with respect this issue. Both about the solution (a VP system similar to that of scenarios) and about the devs having bigger fishes to fry.

I think this is a really important question - I really do, just do not take it too much to heart - so I've taken the data I've been collecting from my game with Q-Ball and composing a spreadsheet - how not - implementing a scoring function similar to that of scenarios. You should find it attached to this post.

I understand scenario VP system to be broken down into two different types: VPs awarded each turn by holding certain Victory Locations and VPs awarded because losses of men, artillery and afv's the opposing side incurs.

GC Max VP is 332, and the game only reports VP's for the Axis. So one can get the VP's awarded to victory locations just by subtracting from 332 whatever the Axis amount is. Those are the "current" VP's hoarded by the Evil Axis forces. By looking on the scenarios I see that a quite general rule
w.r.t. awarding VP's each turn is to get the # of VP's awarded at the end of the game, and divide them by ten. Each turn, this 10% is accumulated into the player's pot.

VP losses are conceptually more straightforward but require some manual work, by transcribing losses. VP's are awarded as follows:

1 VP for each 5,000 guys dead, pow or disabled
1 VP for each 500 artillery pieces counted as permanent loss
1 VP for each 50 AFV lost

If you take a look at the spreadsheet you'll see that this rough scoring function is describing eerily well how our game has been evolving.

Everything in the spreadsheet is configurable, including the VP loss and location multipliers.

Opinions are welcomed (and expected).

Whoops! Just found a bug there, check the revised version instead.

Nice job.

Someone like you be a person to put on a project like that for 2/3 for this game.

I agree with Flaviusx on the citys. Leningrad/Moscow/Tula/Stalino/Rostov is a little to easy. Only against the good russian players are they out of reach.

I like the VP per turn sytem, because once it is hammered out you basicly know by 43 if you have a snowballs chance in hell of winning or lossing.

At some point in the game you know you have reached XXXXXX VP and the other guy can't by the math get enough pts to win.

So in games you have the other person over matched you both know early on they cant win.

To much thinking for me to figure out a good sytem.

Pelton