Campaign Game VP System needs revision

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

If you are curious as to what the basics are:

Both sides need to be able to earn vps. Its okay to use negative to denote one side and positive for the other. We are all educated enough to do simple arithmetic.

It doesn't have to be gained for the same things, but they should complement some how. Strat bombing cities for vps matched with bombers shot down for example....casualty points on one side with cities taken on the other. And none of the systems should overpower the others. You want to aim for zero being a draw. The more positive (or negative) the better the win. That way we can compare. Peltons German win at -449 compared to somebody elses at -490...

A sliding scale is fine, but should reflect urgency and scale of forces. As said before, you don't want one vp system being much greater then another. You want people to being using every system they can to get the most vps they can. Not throwing one system out for another because it is an order of magnitude better.

As it stands the system that is in place is pretty close. The casualty points tend to overshadow the city points, but the strat bombing can make up for it. The real problem I think is that the German side has little control over vps.. and can only win if the allied player makes mistakes. I am confident of beating anyone as the allies, but as the Germans, I have to hope I can guess certain events. Or for the allies to make a mistake.

Again you seem to be making my arguments for me. At the present time one way for the Allies to gain VPs (Strategic Bombing) is very much greater than the other (capturing Cities). You are correct that the German side has very little control over VPs. So how about we give them some control by giving the Allies negative VPs if they don't capture certain Strategic Cities by games end. This way the German player can decide which of these Cities he wants to defend most strongly and also has some control over defending these Cities in such a way as to cause maximum casualties to the Allies. I am also confident of beating anyone as the Allies. Indeed it would appear that so long as the WA Player wages a competent SB Campaign and otherwise doesn't do anything stupid he is pretty much guaranteed a draw. If he is more than competent he is pretty much guaranteed a Minor Victory. With my system of awarding VPs to the Germans if the Allies don't, for example, capture Paris, Rome, Milan, Venice, Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Essen, Hamburg, etc. the Germans will actually stand a chance of winning.

My purpose in reducing the negative casualty VPs is not to help the Allies. My purpose is to force the Allies to keep fighting until the end of the game, give the German Player at least some control (other than making ahistorical banzai attacks) over the game and to give the German player an actual chance to win a game between two competent opponents. With my system QBall would win at least a Minor and probably a Major Victory over Carlkay (sorry Carlkay) and our game would still be hanging in the balance.

[RedLancer]

Just to be clear - we are happy to adjust modifiers and values. There is no appetite to code a new VP system.

Ideally we need to see some concrete suggestions like reduce US loss modifier to X because it doesn't balance with possible points for cities taken after date Y which encourages this behaviour.

[Hofstadter]

I agree with what HarryBanana is talking about. Once an allied player reaches the required amount of VP's to get the minor, all he has to do is sit in france and form forts and keep bombing, with that the WA player would stay about 1-5 positive VP's per turn. But thats the weird thing with the EF box. Dunno which would be the proper way to play with that

[loki100]

I must admit I disagree with him.

Once you close off a route to victory (strat bombing for eg) then you close off the incentive for a German player to defend against that option.

This matters as (I think rightly) you will struggle to bomb out the German economy so the only reason to divert fighters/flak to the Reich is to slow down VP gain. It also matters as without the VP incentive for bombing most allied players will use their heavy bombers in operational support of ground action.

I've seen enough rules abuse in WiTE to have a very good idea what someone like Pelton will do if VP for bombing is removed or lowered.

I think its easy enough with the Axis to slow VP gain for bombing if you divert enough force to the task.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I must admit I disagree with him.

Once you close off a route to victory (strat bombing for eg) then you close off the incentive for a German player to defend against that option.

This matters as (I think rightly) you will struggle to bomb out the German economy so the only reason to divert fighters/flak to the Reich is to slow down VP gain. It also matters as without the VP incentive for bombing most allied players will use their heavy bombers in operational support of ground action.

I've seen enough rules abuse in WiTE to have a very good idea what someone like Pelton will do if VP for bombing is removed or lowered.

I think its easy enough with the Axis to slow VP gain for bombing if you divert enough force to the task.

But SB being the major drive for VP is one huge aspect of what I think is wrong.
1. SB for VP (which takes a lot of options out for WA bombing strategy right there)
2. Invade to avoid negatives for not doing, and to get Foggia and Sardinia/Corsica.
3. fight until either you are too far from UK for the 'easy' air support and supply options, or German resistance toughens.
4. Turtle
5. Turtle
6. Turtle
7. Look for a new opponent as very few players will carry on to the end like this

My aim in comparing with history is to try and get a combination of cities and casualties that happened in real life, as a datum point. We then agree what level of victory this represents, and adjust points accordingly. The tricky 2 parts is what we think SB for RL performance should be, and what the exchange rate should be for Cities/territory and SB. If the allies had not crossed the Rhine, industry was significantly more damaged (or maybe the opposite is better - WA get to Berlin, but with less damage to German industry), would we count that as the same level as 'history', or better/worse. Obviously it will depend on how much less damage (and the casualty count will also be interlinked, because at 'constant German player effectiveness' the casualties should be higher both for the amount of fighting, and the better supplies/kit the Germans should have).

Rome is an interesting point. Rome should have fallen in January '44 if we had not had Lucas at Anzio. Thus, the assessment above should recognise that Rome will likely fall. But it doesn't invalidate my intent.

People play the game, both for history, and as a contest. The VP imperative will drive poor games. And my nightmare is something else is nerfed (or strengthened) to make a good game and we enter a spiral of chasing the balance while moving away from history...

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: loki100
...
I've seen enough rules abuse in WiTE to have a very good idea what someone like Pelton will do if VP for bombing is removed or lowered.

I think its easy enough with the Axis to slow VP gain for bombing if you divert enough force to the task.

I am not seeking a lowering of SB VP. Far from it. But if bombing VP can be dropped, combine it with the lack of cost effective city capture we seem to have now, and you have no chance of a WA win and hence no chance of a late '44/45 offensive...

[szmike]

I think simple and easy to agree solution would be more points for German cities. There's code for capital city bonus, add it to German cities. How much of a bonus I don't know though.

[HMSWarspite]

And (I think) that is what my approach will end up with. It is just there are only 2 ways I can think of to do it: wait for a load of suitable games to finish and see the discrepancy, and my way. The problem with the former method is turtling invalidates the VP score...

[Seminole]

I hope folks could post the VP point graphs as well, so we can see the difference the divisors and strategies make.

IF it is broken, my inclination remains to award more for captured/held territory.
But I haven't played through an Allied grand campaign, and I'd rather finish several strategies as the Allies myself before trying to offer fixes to the VP balance.

It has a lot of moving pieces, and as Allied player acumen steps up (the air interface updates I think are helping this) the VP balance may shift.

I've played the Aixs campaign a lot, but still feel I have a bunch of room to improve my own air war conduct, and I haven't faced the best I've seen at it.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Just to be clear - we are happy to adjust modifiers and values. There is no appetite to code a new VP system.

Ideally we need to see some concrete suggestions like reduce US loss modifier to X because it doesn't balance with possible points for cities taken after date Y which encourages this behaviour.

Thanks Red. But would awarding negative VPs to the WA Player for not owning certain cities at games end require you to "code a new VP System". I would have thought this would be easy to accomplish, but I know next to nothing about coding.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I must admit I disagree with him.

Once you close off a route to victory (strat bombing for eg) then you close off the incentive for a German player to defend against that option.

This matters as (I think rightly) you will struggle to bomb out the German economy so the only reason to divert fighters/flak to the Reich is to slow down VP gain. It also matters as without the VP incentive for bombing most allied players will use their heavy bombers in operational support of ground action.

I've seen enough rules abuse in WiTE to have a very good idea what someone like Pelton will do if VP for bombing is removed or lowered.

I think its easy enough with the Axis to slow VP gain for bombing if you divert enough force to the task.

Who said anything about lowering the VPs for SB? Certainly not me. To be clear, I am not advocating that the VPs gained from strategic bombing be reduced. What I am advocating is that fewer of these VPs be earned in 43 (by increasing the 43 divisor) and that more of them be earned in the second half of 44 and in 45 (by lowering the divisor). On Release the divisor for 43 was 6 and the divisor for 45 was 18. They are now 2 and 12 respectively. You say you don't want to close off a route to victory; but this is exactly what has happened to the Allies in that they can no longer win on the ground after mid 44 because they will lose more VPs to casualties than they can ever hope to gain from capturing cities. Again, the exception is if they have destroyed the German Army by mid 44. But that is unlikely with two equal players and certainly did not happen historically.


So since Release the VPs earned for SB have increased by 300% for 43 and by only 50% for 45. I am suggesting that the divisors be changed as follows:

.............. Original Divisor..... Current Divisor...... Suggested Divisor

1943.................. 6 ...................... 2........................... 3
Jan-Jun 44 ........ 9 ........................ 6 ........................ 6
Jul-Dec 44 ........ 12 ....................... 9 ........................ 8
1945................ 18....................... 12..................... ... 10


The effect of my suggested divisors will be to encourage the Allies to continue bombing into 45 and accordingly encourage the German Player to keep his fighters for home defense.

[HMSWarspite]

+1, as to the intent but no ideal whether the numbers are right.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I hope folks could post the VP point graphs as well, so we can see the difference the divisors and strategies make.

IF it is broken, my inclination remains to award more for captured/held territory.
But I haven't played through an Allied grand campaign, and I'd rather finish several strategies as the Allies myself before trying to offer fixes to the VP balance.

It has a lot of moving pieces, and as Allied player acumen steps up (the air interface updates I think are helping this) the VP balance may shift.

I've played the Aixs campaign a lot, but still feel I have a bunch of room to improve my own air war conduct, and I haven't faced the best I've seen at it.

Your point about improving Allies play is all about gaining SB VP, which is the opposite to what needs to happen I think.

[szmike]

Just add more points for German cities (like +5 for minor capital), so they become worth the trouble.

[Seminole]

Your point about improving Allies play is all about gaining SB VP, which is the opposite to what needs to happen I think.

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)?

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Your point about improving Allies play is all about gaining SB VP, which is the opposite to what needs to happen I think.

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)?

Getting back to you from the other thread[;)]

I think one can easily tie by getting the minimal land hexs and then maximizing SB. And Victories could be achieved.
In another game outside of the one Iam doing with Pelton I think I have found a key tactic in getting the most from strategic bombing.

One thing about SB VPs is that you only get VPs for certain targets, from the others you get only the affect of the damaged target. A TOP target - Rails/Railyards yields no VPs.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I hope folks could post the VP point graphs as well, so we can see the difference the divisors and strategies make.

IF it is broken, my inclination remains to award more for captured/held territory.
But I haven't played through an Allied grand campaign, and I'd rather finish several strategies as the Allies myself before trying to offer fixes to the VP balance.

It has a lot of moving pieces, and as Allied player acumen steps up (the air interface updates I think are helping this) the VP balance may shift.

I've played the Aixs campaign a lot, but still feel I have a bunch of room to improve my own air war conduct, and I haven't faced the best I've seen at it.

Your point about improving Allies play is all about gaining SB VP, which is the opposite to what needs to happen I think.

Which is one of my concerns. There needs to be a valid decision whether to bomb for VPs (follow the political masters and manpower bombing), or bomb for effect (AFV, aircraft, rail etc). There is no choice if SB is the backbone of Allied VPs.

[Peltonx]

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.

[Peltonx]

The fix is simple

morveals VP system for To The Bitter End WitE.

[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?