Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

I don't have many suggestions since my play time is still low. But I do have some nebulous ideas forming.

First, I like the idea of losing men meaning something.
But I think the VP hit is rather severe. I think a better system was something that was in WitP
You gained points by destroying the enemy and they gained points by destroying you.

That seems to make sense. If you plan out an invasion and an attack well, you are going to lose men, but you are going to destroy the enemy.
I understand the decision behind the design. Human lives meant a lot to the western allies and huge losses did not sit well politically.
But for all the talk about the allied armies being a rapier instead of a hammer. They turned out to be a pretty dull rapier and ended up being a hammer. The winter of 43 in Italy, Normandy, the Bulge, Breaking into the West Wall, Tunisia.
All of the big operations turned into wars of mass attrition and the Allies took huge losses.

I also understand having a component built into the scoring system of the Allies wanting to take territory. But that was always a secondary goal.
Capturing Naples, Rome, Lyon, Paris and Berlin were always attractive prestige and political targets. But by December of 1944 SHEAF and Allied high command realized that taking Berlin was not their goal.
The overall allied strategy was to destroy the Axis to the point where they could no longer make effective war. And they did that they destroying their field armies, their ability to put new soldiers into the field and their ability to arm those soldiers.


Third, I completely understand the decision behind forced bombing of U-Boats and V-Weapons. This was a political reality. But it is not working in game terms.
I will have to do some more thinking on this matter. But the negative VP system simply does not work.
Perhaps something else could be done. Perhaps for not hitting V-Weapons, British and Commonwealth units begin to suffer morale and fatigue penalties since the home front is suffering?
Or perhaps political tension increases and their is an increasing penalty and a turn delay placed on when British and CW troops arrive?
Right now I have to spend so much of my resources with constant bombing that I cannot bomb other aspects of the Axis war machine at anywhere near approaching a historical rate.

And for U-Boats, if you do not bomb them. Then this plays a role in naval interdiction and the battle of the Atlantic is not as decisive as in real life and the flow of supply from America suffers penalties.

These are just some ideas to throw out there, I will have to give it some more thought.

The problem is that while there were political pressure, we have the ability of hindsight and the bombing campaign against U-Boats and V-Weapons was not very effective.
Bombing the factories themselves was not very effective since they began so widely dispersed and dozens of small factories assembled the components. Bombing V-Weapon sites themselves had almost no effect at all.
Bombing U-Boats pens has almost no effect due to how well protected they were and the imprecision of weapons of the day.

The U-Boat war was not won due to bombing. It was won due to technology in escorting, sonar, radar, depth charges and air patrols.
The V-Weapon war was won when the Allies cleared the Channel coast and took away the launch sites by occupation.

This is hard to model in the game.

Again, I feel like I am being overly critical. But I just want this game to succeed and 90% of it does. It just needs a few redesigns and some tweaks.


I have nothing to say about garrison rules because I have yet to actually come up against them. I will try and play a game as the Axis in the next few weeks and see exactly how that aspect works.

Without any knowledge, it seems like instead of having VP penalties for not garrisoning properly that the Partisan penalties should be cranked up.
If you strip areas of garrison troops, then partisans should flare up and have a field day destroying railroads, airfields (and their planes), factories etc
In HOI III, if as a Axis you did not keep troops in your rear areas, partisan troops could actually get to the point where they could actually take over territory and do damage.

In WitP if as as the Japanese or British you do not garrison properly then you lose VPs due to damage.

I think everything in the game should revolve around the Axis trying to maintain it's ability to make war and the Allies attempt to destroy their ability to make war.

Maybe I am just too much a part of the school of Napoleon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Well I just destroyed 9 tanks on Unit attack and lost 51 fighter bombers to flak, like I said you do more damage to *yourself* than the enemy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

quote:

The German railway network was a basketcase in game they have too much capacity.

quote:

You are correct in your analysis, but I will go a bit further. Having negative Vps because you do not bomb u boats or vweapons hurts the Allied player in many ways, and overall, the game.
You have to divert resources to these targets else you are penalized.

quote:

Since I'm diverting resources in order to stop the stem of negative VPs, this hurts my ground war operations because they have less air support.

quote:

If I were simply awarded VPs for damage, I wouldn't mind shifting my directives for certain ground offensives.

quote:

Mathematically there is indeed no distinction, but the issue here has always been a psychological one. Which is ultimately a question of aesthetics -- and that matters in game design. This is a work of art, after all.

The negative VP system works (or can work with adjustments,) but it is ugly. Presentation matters here, no less so than in, say, the UI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

The German railway network was a basketcase in game they have too much capacity.

It's up to the Allied player to turn it into a basketcase.
The means are there, but I think WA players need more time to understand how best to apply their tools.

I'm able to do things I see people say are 'broken', which makes me think it isn't the game so much that is broken, but their methods.

I'm gathering the info to try and better detail how I'm using WA airpower, but want my games to get a little farther along so I can more freely divulge what I'm up to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Well I just destroyed 9 tanks on Unit attack and lost 51 fighter bombers to flak, like I said you do more damage to *yourself* than the enemy.

Smirfy, I fear you are not understanding the game mechanics here.

There are 4 ways to reduce a strong unit to a weak unit using the game engine:

a) kill so much that there is nothing left;
b) disrupt so much that what is left cannot fight effectively;
c) reduce supply/ammunition so much that what is left cannot fight effectively;
d) raise the level of fatigue so far that ... well you can fill in the sentence yourself

Now doing (a) in the WiTE/WiTW game engine is a long term project and not really what you are aiming for. b-d in combinations are the way to go (& remember that disruption can in turn lead to fatigue).

The key impact of both direct air power and artillery in the game is disruption so that when you attack the enemy cannot respond effectively. Its not how many tanks you kill, its the impact on the unit's organisation. Killing tanks from the air, when they are in cover, is hard, making tanks take cover is the goal.

I think the 'unit' ground attack mission is costly as you are directly taking on the flak in the unit under attack (so sounds right). I think on balance 'interdiction' is a better mission for setting things up and stopping enemy movements, but there are times when you need to deal with an immediate problem. With 'interdiction' your air losses are lower (your pilots have more choice etc) so its a neat trade off ... if you have time and have set things up correctly then you can achieve your goals with minimum losses, but there are times when you need to trade losses for immediate returns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am actually going to come down on the side of being OK with the VP system as a whole. While I appreciate the concerns around VWEps and Uboats and negative VPs, I think the design is fine. It's meant to show political pressures, and the fact that you have to divert resources to a target you don't want to hit sounds like the real war to me....happened all the time.

I also think the VPs for Allied casualties makes sense; Allied commanders were expected to keep a lid on losses, and that reflects that imperative

Now, while I think the essential structure is fine, I do agree that some tweaking is necessary. I suspect the WA needs more VP help, and things like awarding VPs for killing Germans is a way to do that. I would like to see more final game results, but right now it seems like it's difficult for the Allies to win the war. There are some strange incentives built in, we need to keep playing and work those out.

I would say that for now, as I play, I would focus on game balance, and leave VPs for sometime later.

I would argue on WITP-AE, the VP system is still not really perfect, and that's after 10 years on that engine....so this could take awhile

quote:

Seminole, this may vary somewhat by personality type, but it's long been understood that human beings generally perceive losses to a greater extent than gains, and tend to be risk averse. This basic rule of human nature has implications for game design. (And many other things besides.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole


I'm an INTJ personality type.
I'm aware this concern exists for some people, but it isn't how I see the world (through feelings), so it doesn't bother me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
As for scoring -80 garrison points in the first 45 turns, is that really so much given the complete system? Now my guess is that when not playing with the East Front box off, that the Germans will be a little stronger in men and CV in the West then when playing with it on. I think this is what I used to see in my tests. So it's possible that a small adjustment might be desirable when playing with the EF off, but this goes to the idea of tweaking/balancing the VPs and does not mean the system needs to be thrown out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meklore61

That's why it only take one awe ****, to wipe out 20 attaboys! I couldn't get my personality type. The test said there weren't enough letters in the alphabet to describe me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

You believe I´m wrong and I´m convinced I´m right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

My thoughts....

1) VP system - Really the only way, I'm going to be able to enjoy WitW (multi-player or single-player) is by completely ignoring it and judge how well I did by where the game ends. The VP system sort of takes the player out of the role of Commander and into the role of an operations officer executing the computers directives. That may be somewhat a historically accurate representation of what Eisenhower faced, but I bought WitW to play a game...not to work for a computer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

2) Game Balance - The Axis player has perfect knowledge of the Allied OOB and naval capabilities. The Allied player doesn't have perfect knowledge of the Axis OOB since it will vary depending upon what the Axis player pulls away from the East Front. This is a HUGE advantage for the Axis player and the inverse of what the situation was historically. This advantage should not be underestimated...and I think right now it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

3) Game Balance - The Axis player far too easly can respond to invasions in great strength. I think this is a problem which is particularly egregious when playing against the A.I. on normal and easy levels. For an invasion to be successful it must be able to gain some initiative to establish a foothold. The Axis capability to respond makes this very difficult and requires the Allied player to throw everything they have at an invasion to try to make it successful which in turn means there is no uncertainty in the Axis players mind that they need worry about a serious invasion anywhere else... thus they are free to throw the kitchen sink against the current one. I think part of the problem here is that interdiction should really be doing more to slow Axis tactical and strategic movement then it is...and not just doing some damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

4) Game Balance - I've mentioned this before but it is far too easy to form strong defensive fortifications far too quickly and to maintain those fortifications in the face of active combat/contact with the enemy and sustained air and artillery bombardment. This naturally would tend to favor the Axis. Another problem in this regard is that the Allied players only method of softening fortifications is direct frontal assault. Since the player doesn't have any nuanced control over the level of attack (e.g. Massive prepatory air/artillery bombardment with probing attacks to see if fortification has been reduced and reinforce attack if they have vs "over the top boys, no one comes back alive") this also leads to a sustained VP loss for the Allies due to casualties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
As for scoring -80 garrison points in the first 45 turns, is that really so much given the complete system? Now my guess is that when not playing with the East Front box off, that the Germans will be a little stronger in men and CV in the West then when playing with it on. I think this is what I used to see in my tests. So it's possible that a small adjustment might be desirable when playing with the EF off, but this goes to the idea of tweaking/balancing the VPs and does not mean the system needs to be thrown out.

Well, thank you for answering not a single one of the questions I asked. I guess the lack of answer is answer enough...

If you don´t think having 26,2% of your total positive VPs negated by garrison VPs to be much I don´t know what is? EF box is off btw...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.

As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.

Hi Joel.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider "very large amounts of points"? I´ve lost -80 VPs to garrisons on T45. That alone is taking away 50% of my positive bombing VPs....Server game vs. Pelton.

I have some questions that I think have some bearing on this thread.

a) Since there are no plans to try and rectify the VP system are there any plans to make a GC with alternative VP conditions?

No plans at the moment.

b) Is this the VP system we will see in the followup game (Africa, France, WitE 2?)

Haven't thought about it. The plan would be to have some kind of points based system to get away from what we had with WitE, but we haven't thought about specifics. Much of what is in this system is specific to the situation in the west in 43-45.


c) Are there any plans to do something about the current interdiction system? Besides tweaking it. Will we see a completely new system with with the arrival of the naval module?

No plans to change the system for WitW. When a naval module is added, hard to say what would change. I'm not trying to be evasive, it's just a lot of this doesn't get thought about until it needed, and I'm not the most important person to speak to this as Gary and Pavel will be making any new system.


d) Are there any plans to have a proper industry system where you can actually damage Germany by destroying things on map rather then just bomb for VPs. (Current system Germany won´t run out of anything than possibly Manpower) What is the rationale by not awarding VPs for Aircraft factories and AFVs?

I can't really speak to this fully since it's Gary's design. However, I think he put aircraft and AFV factories in a different category than the other more strategic targets. Also, the impact of bombing them are immediately seen in the game, more so than with the other targets.


e) Same question as d) Will anything be done to have U-boats and V-Weapons actually have an impact on the war? Right now the entire VP system exists outside of the game. Most things you do in regards to VPs have little to no impact on the war itself. This is a big problem when it comes to immersion.

Not during this 43-45 time frame. I understand that there are elements in this game that are "outside the game", but I guess I just don't see them the same way you do. It doesn't bother me that as the Allied player I have to bomb certain places and take certain actions or suffer a penalty, and that these items won't help me win the war. It doesn't bother me that as the German player I have to spread garrisons over Europe or suffer a penalty, even though I might not want to do that. Those are part of the design. Yes, you are not at the absolute top of the food chain. It's not that I don't understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. I'm really sorry that you are not enjoying the game, and that the victory conditions are what's causing that lack of enjoyment. You can't program in the impact of the U-boat war, but you could create and calculate your own victory conditions if you don't like the ones we have. There's lot that gets written on the forum and I can't read all of it, but I try to keep up as best I can. In the meantime, I've noticed Red Lancer has posted a number of replies to various posts and as a member of the dev team he's usually got a good handle on our thinking (or at least a good understanding of some of the limitations that we deal with).



I think you and the rest of the team are taking the criticism that has surfaced too lightly. You have charged a tremendous amount of money for this game. I own 15+ Matrix games and I have always felt it was well worth the higher price. But this is the first time I´m not only disappointed but I actually regret my purchase. If it wasn´t for the air system (which is excellent) I would be absolutely outraged I had payed almost 100 Euro for WitW. This game the foundation on which the future games in the series will build. If people doesn´t feel confident in this product you have a problem.

So at least try and take the criticism a little more serious then what you have done so far. Try and be a little more open to the community what is being done in regards to the criticism that is regularly being vented. Let people know you are listening (if you indeed are). Right now I get more information from Beta testers in my AAR then what I get from "official channels" here on the forum.

And with that said:

f) Will the buyers of WitW have to pay full price for the coming expansions? Will the expansions be full priced games?

I expect expansions will be lower priced, items considered full stand alone products will be priced as such. Right now we are working on an expansion with Tunisia and additional WitW scenarios. WitE 2.0 is expected to be a full product priced accordingly. I can't yet speak toward any other products as it depends on what they turn out to be.