Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

A few things to keep in mind:

* The Allies can and will conduct more amphibious invasions than were done historically. There were six major invasions in Europe (North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Normandy and South France). A WA player can easily exceed that through outflanking maneuvers in Italy, for example.

* WITW exacts no penalty for a failed amphib. I and others have seen Allied assault bridgeheads totally wiped out. That never happened in real life (not counting Dieppe, which was more of a raid). If it had, Allied heads would have rolled from Ike on down. WITW assesses VP losses for troops and ships destroyed, but not for the simple fact that an invasion force was destroyed.

* The above means that the Allies will be more aggressive than historically, but that may be necessary because an experienced German can make a good guess at when and where the Allies will land, how long it will take the amphs to recycle for the next landing, and they will probably have the EF box to draw on.

How this should play out in VPs, or in the question of historically realistic gameplay, I don't know. It looks to me like the VPs are unduly harsh on the Allies, but on the other hand, the Allies will be far more aggressive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

Some great replies here.
I would add that you might want to quit looking at your vp's every turn if they are getting you down. With strategic bombing targets like aircraft, armour, vehicles your reward as the Allied player is conquering Germany faster because they have less. I have a feeling that the vehicle industry could be vulnerable but i am unsure.

Will conquering Germany quicker equal or exceed the points you get for bombing U-boats? I don't know but it will be interesting to find out.

I didn't know how this discussion got started as i almost never look at my vp total. Don't care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The Mk XXI was a throwaway remark, and not exactly key to the debate. But just out of curiosity, why did the Germans go to all the trouble of dispersing production and making it in sections? I suppose they felt it would be more fun,and stretch their manufacturing engineers, or provide an employment scheme for surplus Quality Assurance staff?

I do not accept that bombing did not affect the production rate. In exactly the same way the bombing campaign generally was not a failure merely because German production rose during it. The question is 'what would it have done without the bombing?'

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



In my game with Pelton, I decided before the game started that I would try to 'minimize' vps. In other words, rather then fight hard to eliminate all negative's, I would just try and balance the vp budget. If the turn started and I had 0 vp's from the previous turn, I was happy.

As the game goes on, I get more and more positive vp's for cities, and bombing easier targets, which allows me to ignore the vp losing stuff, like bombing U-boats. When the U-boat factories reach full, and my score is in the negative teens, I will launch one strike to bring it back down to a manageable level.

This is the early game strategy.

After I invade, I start to get more negative points, which I hope is countered with more city points, and more lucrative bombing targets (as escorts get closer, allowing me to range farther) I also get more and more bombers so I can fly more and more missions. Now I try and achieve a more positive balance..like one or two vps a turn.

By the last third of the game, I hope that with good play, I can end up in a position to take German cities. Which provides the double whammy of bombing points and city points with their fall. And hopefully they reach a breaking point where I can get maybe 10-20 points a turn.

In other words, I am not trying to win the game in 1943. Even though the game designers have done away with the VP carrot at the end, and put in a more gradual system, the system is not linear, and is weighted towards the end game. So I don't mind 'losing' vp's in the early game if I can counter it with 'gaining' them in the end game.

And it keeps the German player focused. After all, he is the one getting a pounding, so it is good for him to see 'negative' points. It makes him think he is winning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

On the subject of forced responses, I currently am playing a WA game vs AI, and have been trying radical Med options. I took Sicily with 8A, and Sardinia with 7US. Then I have hit Corsica. 5US hit the mainland north or Rome in early Oct. I have thus avoided the slog up Italy, and jumped Cassino etc. The flip side is the French defences seem really solid (from recce), and I think I have suffered from not sucking troops south. Thus I see that alternatives are very possible, and the all have their pluses and minuses. Because I was trying alternatives I have not really been playing the VPs or the air war... I have just been ticking over. However I still have +9 VP on turn 25, and 193 bombing VP. I have -134 UB VP (worse than I go for usually). I dont really understand what the whole 'constrained' thing is about. It is not hard to trade points one for the other. If I had been playing my 'best' air game, I would expect maybe about the same Bombing or more, and 25 or 30 less negative UB. I find it is not hard to keep UB to just above 4 per turn average (3 a lot of turns and the odd spike). Thus I could be on +30 or 40 points on this strategy.

Compared with a 'normal' strategy (Salerno etc) I would expect to be about +200 or more by now, so I think I have a valid understanding of the strenghts and weaknesses of a radically different Med game, within the VP system. I have much stronger units (5US and 8A all had 2 months more rest than usual), but have lost 'status' for lack of visible progress. You pays your money and takes your pick. Will I be able to recover a 170 VP difference give my extra strength? Don't know. Largely depends on how the AI responds to 5US. They have just withdrawn from southern It, so I am about to get a load of VP, but if they block me in all winter without weakening France too much, maybe not.

However if you want play a 'no VP' game, and just say 'WA to Berlin before say April 45 is WA win, else a GE win', do your thing. The WA get a huge advantage not having to worry about UB/VW though

Oh, and I am by no means an expert so I would guess my scores are only mediocre.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Yes, sorry I did mean to say that based on m experience I wouldn't play this option against a human. However the first step to playing a human in a certain style is to investigate mechanics... I am on challenging.

The main issues with why I probably wouldn't do this vs humans are that the sea zone control that far north is marginal, and it allows uncontested French defence build up for 4 months.

I don't know whether you mistyped: I have not landed 5US Corps, I have landed 5th US ARMY, with 3 strong corps and more incoming (a 5 Amphib invasion, 3 Armd Divs and infantry besides, all SU'd to the eyeballs - not significantly smaller than RL Neptune). I know how to do an invasion and they would not easily be wiped out. There are no undamaged railyards south of Milan/Venice and north of Rome. I do not think a human could easily wipe me out, but neither would I break out (due to the marginal sea lanes and hence supply). But this aside your argument strikes me as a VP balance one not one of strategic options.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

But if you you read what I wrote, I think you give the German a free go at setting up the defence of France, and handicap yourself to the point you might as well surrender if you don't engage in Italy. In my 'engage late' option, the 5US has air cover from Corsica and the invasion is no more likely to go back in to the sea than a Northern French one. Even if you don't conquer Italy, I think you need to tie up troops.

I think our disagreement centres on the VP loss for casualties, rather than anything else. You think that combat loss is too high so you cannot win and must avoid combat. My position is that is a game balance issue (and I have no opinion on which way the VPs need to go any by how much). The system of what you gain or lose VPs for is (IMHO) not intrinsically broken

quote:

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.

quote:

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...

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

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).