Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Your really don't need to bomb a single target in Germany as KGB has provening in our game.

Simply use all planes to bomb tacticly as you can kill 20-30k men per turn. Tanking German units and u simply roll not losing hardly any men (VPs.)

Its more then clear WA can win 2 ways.

1. bombing for VP's and doing min landing.
2. bombing for KIA, letting the planes kill 80% of the men. You can even bomb for 10-20k per turn before landing as liquidsky proved.

As will all game people push the system which is nothing designers can plan for.

It took 3-5 yrs to get WitP right, WitE is still not "right" but very close so explecting WitW to be balanced alrdy would not be the norm.

Its still to easy to exploit the system - going all in bombing using tactic 1 or 2.

There is no down side to using eather tactic - people generally copy cat so you can expect more of the same.

I just got the game so I'm not really following your point. In your AAR with KGB, you just pointed out that with his strategic bombing in France and Italy, his use of SBs in the tactical role is hurting his VP total. So how is he going to win your game by staying with that tactic?

He won't. IMHO Pelton is exaggerating somewhat the number of men killed by the heavy bombers. I have done some tests of my own and it is almost impossible to kill 20,000 to 30,000 men consistently using heavy bombers tactically. This is especially true if every front line German unit has at least 1 AA unit. In my tests anyway the Bombers had to rest every 2nd or 3rd turn due to morale loss. As well I found that terrain and weather had a big impact. The only time the Allies will gain more VPs from bombing units than they will from SB is when the divisor for SB is too high. Which again is why I am suggesting that the late 44 and 45 divisors be reduced.

Oh yeah, I do agree with Pelton that heavy bombers do cause too many kills and disruption (and medium bombers and FBs not enough). I just don't think the numbers are quite as bad as Pelton says. Now is when Pelton will post telling me to look at the data.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

One issue that I have raised before but never got discussed was: did the WA win on points in RL (as in: real life performance assessed in game)? If we can agree this, we then have one data point to compare with the game. My personal view is there are maybe 2 significant mistakes the WA made: poor Italian campaign, failed to tie down enough German troops and took too much effort to do it (minor German victory there?), and the broad front policy in Sept 44. They should have concentrated on clearing Antwerp, to set themselves up for the late autumn//winter (draw on this point ?). On the other hand the Germans made at least 2 major mistakes. Mortain and Bulge (with Bodenplatte as a minor aperitif). Both of those I would rate as major WA victory type events. There were issues with SB in 1943 but given the relative bombing strength I don't think they are too significant in terms of the ground war. Maybe oil could have been hit harder but it's hard enough to significantly affect Normandy even if done 'well'. Maybe a draw effect there. The post D Day SB was mostly good I think. Thus I would crudely give the WA VP record as. "2x major victory, 2 X draw and 1 minor defeat". I put that as minor WA victory. If the WA had not made their mistakes and Germany had still made theirs it could be better but in Balanced terms not too much scope for big swings pro allies but lots for pro German.

Now, why do I think it was a minor victory? Because Germany was conquered. Early May is the variable. Might have done it a month or 2 earlier. Could easily have been a month or 2 delayed. Would we count it as a victory if the German army was on its last legs in May 1945 as Berlin falls but the Allies are west of the Ruhr? I don't think so. So medium successful SB, but less cities gives poorer result. So we need more points for cities to discourage a turtle being see. As success.

Let's have opposing views and discuss it. Then we can decompose the result as agree on as to which elements we think are important and which less so. For instance I think the SB can be characterised (in RL) as the WA bombed for more for VPs in 1943 than for prime ground effect (transport/AFVs/Oil)...

In my opinion the Allies did win the campaign covered by WitW on points. They probably could have done at least marginally better with Strategic Bombing, but in my opinion they definitely won the Ground War. True they made some mistakes, but the mistakes made by the Germans (the ones you mentioned plus failing to reinforce Normandy quickly after the invasion) were much greater. Put another way I believe that with competent players on both sides the WA will score more SB VPs, but will score less City VPs. The latter is especially true with the current VP System where the WA Player would be smart to stop attacking in mid 44.

[Harrybanana]

I have already provided my suggestions for changing the Casualty VP divisors and the SB Divisors. With respect to the negative VPs to be earned for not capturing key Cities, my preliminary suggestions are as follows:

Rome:.......-100
Naples:..... -50
Florence.... -50
Milan....... -50
Venice...... -25
Trieste..... -25
Paris.......-100
Marseilles...-50
Amsterdam....-50
Brussels.....-50
Antwerp......-50
Rotterdam....-50
Berlin......-100
Essen........-50
Dusseldorf...-50
Wuppertal....-50
Duisburg.....-50
Bochum.......-50
Dortmund.....-50
Cologne......-50
Frankfurt....-50
Stuttgart....-50
Munich.......-50
Nuremberg....-50
Hanover......-50
Bremen.......-50
Hamburg......-50
Leipzig......-50
Prague...... -25
Vienna.......-25
Innsbruck....-25


Of course, I have not yet heard back from Red Lancer as to whether or not this is even possible.

[Harrybanana]

If all of my suggestion were applied to my game against QBall then as of the turn above for which I last posted the VP Score:

I would have less SB VPs, partly because I would not have earned as many in 43 (with my suggested 43 divisor) and partly because I ceased SB in late 44. Of course, with my new suggested divisor for the 2nd half of 44 and 45 I may not have stopped SB as it would have been more worth my while to keep doing so. In any event, my rough calculation is that I would have about 31 fewer SB VPs for a total of about 600. My US and Other negative Casualty VPs would also be quite a bit less. My best guess is that combined they would be a total of about -525 (rather than -1121). My other VPs would be the same (though remember that my actual partisan/garrison VPs are -75 not +25). So my total VPs would be +853. But as of this turn my negative VPs from not capturing certain key cities (in this case Milan, Venice, Trieste, Innsbruck, Vienna, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Essen, Dusseldorf, Wuppertal, Duisburg, Bochum, Dortmund, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Hanover, Bremen, Hamburg, Prague, Leipzig and Berlin) total -1075. So at that moment my total score was -222. If I stopped attacking at this point I could probably gain 10 VPs per turn for the remaining 8 turns giving a final score of about -142. Good enough for a draw. If I kept attacking my VP losses from Casualties would probably be about -9 per turn (because of the reduced divisor for 45) so I would still be gaining about 5 VPs per turn (rather than losing 15+ per turn). But even better I am in striking distance of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Frankfurt, Hanover, Bremen, Essen, Dusseldorf, Wuppertal, Dortmund, Duisburg and Bochum. If I could capture all of these cities while still gaining 5 VPs per turn my final score will be +368, good enough for an Allied Minor Victory. There is therefore a very strong incentive for me to continue attacking.

[Harrybanana]

Applying my suggestions to the game between Carlkay and QBall:

Carlkay would have less SB VPs as of the first January 45 turn that QBall posted above (again because of the higher 43 SB Divisor). But at the same time he will earn more points over the remainder of the game. Unsure exactly how many fewer SB VPs he would have, but probably his total would be reduced to about 620 or so. His negative casualty VPs would also be less, assuming most of his losses occurred in 44 then his total negative casualty VPs would probably be about 375, rather than 653. All other VPs would be the same. So his total current score would be about +612. But he would have negative 1425 VPs for not capturing key cities. His real current VP total would therefore be -813. If he was to turtle now with 17 turns left he would probably score about +8 VPs per turn for a total of about 150 VPs. The final VP total would therefore be about -663 and the Germans would win a Minor Victory. If Carlkay was to keep attacking he could perhaps capture enough Cities to earn a Draw. Unlikley, but preferable to not even trying.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Improving capability in the air war should improve Allies play pretty much all around. But my point with respect to player air war capability overall is to make sure we're not chasing an ephemeral target with regard to 'correcting' for SBP.
Nobody has been racking up 15 SBP per turn against me, but I don't conclude from that that it is not possible.
If both players are getting the most out of their air war what is the expected SBP per turn through the different time periods (changes in the divisor)?

Again, I don't claim to be the best with the air game, but I don't think I am worst either. In my game against QBall where I am the Germans I have all of my NFs and most of my day fighters in Germany near the targets he is bombing. I have moved AA into the Cities he is bombing. I have set priority repairs. It is still only the October 2, 1943 turn and he just collected 19 Strategic Bombing VPs against me last turn. Perhaps I could have done more to prevent this, but I don't know what.

[Q-Ball]

I really am not sure on how exactly the math should work, and I haven't read every page of this thread, but in general I will agree with Harrybanana in that:

1. SB points should be more spread out. (fewer points in '43, and more in '45)
2. Negative VPs for casualties should be LESS
3. Germans should be able to score some points for holding ground at the end of the game, or points in between. As it stands, once the Allies are ashore the only way to score a negative VP is to attack the Allies, which is unwise in most circumstances after Summer of '44.

There just isn't the incentive that existed IRL for the Allies to get into Germany. Needing to hold ground would also increase the German incentive to take risks in defense, and more properly mirror the realities that Herr Hitler imposed on his leadership

The Allies can get a Minor Vicory, with the Iron Curtain around the French border. People's Republic of Belgium?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have already provided my suggestions for changing the Casualty VP divisors and the SB Divisors. With respect to the negative VPs to be earned for not capturing key Cities, my preliminary suggestions are as follows:

Rome:.......-100
Naples:..... -50
Florence.... -50
Milan....... -50
Venice...... -25
Trieste..... -25
Paris.......-100
Marseilles...-50
Amsterdam....-50
Brussels.....-50
Antwerp......-50
Rotterdam....-50
Berlin......-100
Essen........-50
Dusseldorf...-50
Wuppertal....-50
Duisburg.....-50
Bochum.......-50
Dortmund.....-50
Cologne......-50
Frankfurt....-50
Stuttgart....-50
Munich.......-50
Nuremberg....-50
Hanover......-50
Bremen.......-50
Hamburg......-50
Leipzig......-50
Prague...... -25
Vienna.......-25
Innsbruck....-25

Of course, I have not yet heard back from Red Lancer as to whether or not this is even possible.

This suggestion is new code - if you want to adjust CCPs (25.1.1) then you need to look at adjusting the values for gaining Cities, Urban etc and the Date divisors.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This suggestion is new code - if you want to adjust CCPs (25.1.1) then you need to look at adjusting the values for gaining Cities, Urban etc and the Date divisors.

Red: Would it be a code change to make cities in certain countries worth more city points than others? Germany, for example. Just curious.

If German cities were worth more, that would incentivize a push into Germany

[szmike]

How about capital CCPs bonus for German cities?

[RedLancer]

Strictly speaking changing modifiers is a code change but a simple one that Joel has previously agreed to consider. The more complex the suggestion the less chance there is for implementation.

I observe that after 110 posts there is little, if any, consensus on a solution. It is a fair assumption that those who want a change are posting but there is little point in changing based one person's suggestion just to start all over again when the vocal majority are still not happy.

If you really want a change that much then strive for consensus and simplicity.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This suggestion is new code - if you want to adjust CCPs (25.1.1) then you need to look at adjusting the values for gaining Cities, Urban etc and the Date divisors.

That is too bad, because I don't have any other solution. I was thinking that perhaps if the CCP Divisors were increased a hundredfold for 1943 and 1944 (so essentially the WA Player will only score 5 to 10 VPs in total for these years) and then decreased to 2 for 1945 that might work. But I don't think it would. It might convince the WA Player to keep attacking, but I think it would destroy the game balance. I will have to give it more thought when I have time.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Strictly speaking changing modifiers is a code change but a simple one that Joel has previously agreed to consider. The more complex the suggestion the less chance there is for implementation.

I observe that after 110 posts there is little, if any, consensus on a solution. It is a fair assumption that those who want a change are posting but there is little point in changing based one person's suggestion just to start all over again when the vocal majority are still not happy.

If you really want a change that much then strive for consensus and simplicity.

Red,

I think you mean the "Non-Vocal" majority, as most of the people posting here have agreed that changes need to be made.

But my questions for you and the Developers are with the EF Box off:

1. Do you believe the WA Player is guaranteed a Minor Victory if he plays a certain way (ie maximise Strategic Bombing VPs avoid the non-beachhead penalties and otherwise avoid casualties), or do you need to see more proof of this?

2. Do you believe the WA Player will generally earn less VPs if he continues attacking after about Mid to late 44, or do you need to see more proof of this?

3. If you believe either 1 or 2 above are true, do you think either or both of these are acceptable?

[RedLancer]

You misunderstand me I think - by vocal I mean that should we make changes with no consensus, and the result only makes one person happy, then we'll start this discussion all over again.

I accept that those people posting are not happy but what I am not convinced about is that there is a solution for all. In this discussion, which has a dozen-ish participants, I have yet to see consensus. This is not a criticism as I know from setting small scenario VPs that it is a hellish business. I have spent hours developing a spreadsheet which enables me to balance VPs but that looks at only 20 locations per turn and end of game losses and many more playing with the numbers for each scenario.

The current campaign VP system is the best 'we' could deliver within the game as a whole. The normal approach is that history leads to a draw. As to whether attacking in mid to late 44 leads to less VPs is an issue in question but only part of the question.

I'm hoping that you can see that solutions are not always as easy to deliver as identifying problems. I really encourage someone to step up as a chairman of this discussion and present a unified solution. (Were it me (and it won't be) I would recommend that you decide on how the VPs should balance - for example should U-Boat and V-Wpn Points only balance with SBPs or should SBPs be an offset for casualty losses etc? Then when this is agreed decide on the detailed balance using AAR data and spreadsheets.)

This is not easy and we don't declare perfection which is why the offer to adjust modifiers has been made.

[HMSWarspite]

I sympathise with your problem. And maybe the whole issue needs to be allowed to age a little? Wait for some more full results, see if anyone does manage an offensive and make a profit (and if so how).

I understand the general view that you balance the game so that history is a draw, but you do have to consider where history came in the range of possible outcomes (assuming small variations in luck, etc). If RL is a draw,I see a lot more ways GE can win over WA. But maybe I just need to sort Italy out. Maybe the US was right in intent but wrong in execution, and the British were reversed. Run it as a side show but really imaginatively. Give maybe less troops but more naval so coastal end around a on both coasts can be done or something. Tie down a further 10 divisions with the same or less troops.
Back to your problems... Here is my advice: Happy New Year, and use the Force😉. Because I don't have anything useful. 😜

[LiquidSky]

I remember a year ago, when the game was young there was a consensus that the allies couldn't win the game. Now that people are more experienced the pendulum is swinging the other way. Personally I still think that it is easier to win the game as the allies but that mostly comes from the fact that they control most of the victory point currency.

When I play what I think is a good game with the allies..I feel the score (if the game wasn't resigned) would have been in the 1000 to 1500 range. As the Germans, when I play a good or even great game, the score is probably around the -600 to -1000 range. Again, hard to tell if people resign, but then who wants to keep playing a losing game? Gaming is an entertainment, something to do to avoid the wife [:'(] and should be fun. So I do not begrudge people who want to resign and move on. But it also means that for me, the end of the game is hard to predict. I don't know what trying to take the Ruhr, which is great terrain and cannot be isolated would be like. Crossing the Rhine. Collapsing the German industry.

So I cannot accurately come up with a vp system. I only know how to make it look like I am going to win in 1944...my opponent does the rest by resigning...so as such, the vp system for me seems to work 'as is'. Changing the numbers around will only change the turn my opponent resigns on.

A vp system needs to balance different things. When we play ASL, and finish a scenario...we look at victory coming from three things.....Scenario balance, luck and skill...all roughly equal. If you win at two of those, you win the scenario.

WiTW needs the same concept, except here I think we need to balance the vps from Air War, Ground War and End Game. All equal in amount. So to win the game, you need to win 2 of the 3 sub-games.

Now you only have to have balance in each sub game...balance the Air war...balance the Ground war....then balance the two together....and then come up with an End Game that equals them.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I remember a year ago, when the game was young there was a consensus that the allies couldn't win the game. Now that people are more experienced the pendulum is swinging the other way. Personally I still think that it is easier to win the game as the allies but that mostly comes from the fact that they control most of the victory point currency.

When I play what I think is a good game with the allies..I feel the score (if the game wasn't resigned) would have been in the 1000 to 1500 range. As the Germans, when I play a good or even great game, the score is probably around the -600 to -1000 range. Again, hard to tell if people resign, but then who wants to keep playing a losing game? Gaming is an entertainment, something to do to avoid the wife [:'(] and should be fun. So I do not begrudge people who want to resign and move on. But it also means that for me, the end of the game is hard to predict. I don't know what trying to take the Ruhr, which is great terrain and cannot be isolated would be like. Crossing the Rhine. Collapsing the German industry.

So I cannot accurately come up with a vp system. I only know how to make it look like I am going to win in 1944...my opponent does the rest by resigning...so as such, the vp system for me seems to work 'as is'. Changing the numbers around will only change the turn my opponent resigns on.

A vp system needs to balance different things. When we play ASL, and finish a scenario...we look at victory coming from three things.....Scenario balance, luck and skill...all roughly equal. If you win at two of those, you win the scenario.

WiTW needs the same concept, except here I think we need to balance the vps from Air War, Ground War and End Game. All equal in amount. So to win the game, you need to win 2 of the 3 sub-games.

Now you only have to have balance in each sub game...balance the Air war...balance the Ground war....then balance the two together....and then come up with an End Game that equals them.

Liquidsky, if you are willing I will play you and I will play the Allies with the EF Box Off. I will play to win the game (rather than the War). If I do not win the game I will retract my position and agree that the VP System should be left as it is. If I do win the game than you will post here that you do support my suggested changes. To date I have only played 2 multiplayer Campaign games, one with me as the Allies to turn 90 and the other as the Germans to turn 13. I consider myself pretty good with the ground game, but mediocre at best with the air game, particularly strategic bombing.

[Harrybanana]

March 10, 1945 was one of my better turns militarily. I made an actual breakthrough in the North, cutting off (but not yet isolating) the German Army in the Netherlands. I also captured one of the Ruhr Cities and began pressing on the others. My positions at the start of my March 17 turn are shown on the map below.

[Harrybanana]

My reward for my success: -20 VPs.

[Harrybanana]

Shown below are the VPs from the start of the Game and over the last 10 turns. Remember again that I was earning more VPs in early 44 then I should have been due to the garrisoning bug caused by my invasion of the Channel islands in late December 43. In any event, my VPs peaked at 348 in Early May 44 (turn 46). They than declined rapidly as I took casualties during the invasion and conquest of France and Belgium, reaching a low of about 200 on August 26, 1944 (turn 61). They then started climbing again as the Germans retreated, the weather worsened and I attacked less. The best turns were Turns 84 and 85 because I did not attack at all on turns 83 and 84. A new high of 320 VPs was reached on February 10, 1945 (Turn 85). Since than, as you can see, I have lost 52 VPs and currently sit at 268.