Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

Jajusha -> Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 8:15:58 PM)

As the title says. Garrison VP penalty is too harsh right now.

As an Axis player, my biggest fear is not Allied bombers, or the Allied invasion of sicily and Italy. I don't lose sleep trying to figure where they will land in Italy. My biggest fear is not meeting Garrison requirements.

An Allied player can go a full month not doing a strat bomb run, and he will be missing out about 5-8 VPs per turn (25 to 40 in a month).

If i miss 1 CV (around 3500 men at regular morale) in a region for a week, i lose more then 30 VPS. I got 100 VP penalties for not being able to put a division out of the train at the end of the turn. 100 VP loss, in 1 turn, for failing to unload 5 CV points from the rail... The unit was there. The CV was there, just not enough movement points to unload from the train... History books will tell how bad the Axis defeat was, not because Berlin Fell, but because southern France missed 3500 garrison tropps for a week during July 43.

And its not just me.
Check This AAR for a 120 VP Garrisson loss in 1 turn. What was missing? My guess was about 4 or 5 CV and a Security Unit. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3766257
Or this ARR, where Garisson VP where the biggest contributor, weighting more then both US and Other losses combined http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3747844&mpage=3&key=

This is leading me to do gamy things just to achieve garisson requirements:
Resort to teleporting SUs - In September 43- instead of trying to transport a division from Belgium (where Garrison requirements go down) to Denmark (where garisson requirements go up) and fail miserably because i can't get it out of the train in time, i go to the 7th Army In Western France, and teleport 3 SUS for direct attachment in Denmark.

So, my suggestion to keep the system, but making it fair:
1) Lower the VP penalty to reasonable levels OR Allow units in rails to count for Garrison requirements OR Allow the spending of AP points to neuter Garrison requirements for a turn (while you unload the units from the train...)
2) Do the right question at end of turn. Please change the question from "Failed to meet Garrison requirements. Do you want to Return to the movement Phase? - Yes or No" to "Failed to meet Garisson requirements. Do you really want to end your turn? - Yes or No". The negative (No) answer should not be tied to the end of turn result and the VP penalty.

[image]local://upfiles/36976/A29D51C75D9349DE8467D99C4EB3287C.jpg[/image]



carlkay58 -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 8:28:01 PM)

I recall the discussions about the garrisons and the VP penalties during the game development. There were some that argued for the Axis forfeiting the game if three turns accumulated where the garrisons were not met. That was changed to a very stiff VP bonus to the Allies - which is what you are seeing now. I don't recall how it is graduated, but it could be as simple as you either have enough or not. This is also something that falls into the 'tweak with more data' category that gets looked at while the game is being played.



Baelfiin -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 8:53:53 PM)

Rails is too easy to game the system.

I think air unit CV should be able to count for Garrison.

Fort units should also be made to count for garrison CV.

Every scenario should start with the garrison situation under control IE should not have to do fiddle moves on turn one like having to move a security unit to bordeax



Jajusha -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 8:55:52 PM)

Yep, i understand Carlkay, just giving my feedback.
I do feel it's too big of a penalty right now.



NotOneStepBack -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 9:20:56 PM)

I disagree, I haven't missed a garrison req in my games. An easier way to remedy a low CV is move around support units or change supply priorities. The garrison reqs are also clearly laid out in the manual.

It is also in your benefit to have higher than the required CV's in order to rack up some easy VPs.


The question at the end of the turn can be changed though, I agree it is bad wording.



LiquidSky -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 11:18:54 PM)



Tying the Garrison value to VP's makes it gamey. Period. Any mechanic that directly influences how victory is calculated is a gameyness that has no real relation to history and is necessary only for influencing behavior during the game.

If the reasons garrisons existed in wartime can't be reproduced in game, then rather then inventing new reasons, it would have been better for a "High Command" to take one your units (might as well be at random) and send it (teleport it) to the region and freeze it for a number of turns to simulate the transport.




Baelfiin -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/1/2015 11:27:33 PM)

We are playing a wargame right? The goal is to give player choices right?



HMSWarspite -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/2/2015 10:22:08 AM)

And the garrison rule is very easy to avoid VP losses: dont try and fine tune the CVs. Aim for plenty and you dont have an issue...

"Mein Fuhrer,France needs 1 more CV or the resistance vill cost us... nein Mien Furher, don't send me the whole unit, just a regiment, I will release this damaged division, and then you can give me 3 tonnes more supply, and I am on target"[&:]

I think not.[;)]



Nico165b165 -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/2/2015 10:48:22 AM)

The best way to handle this would be something like the east front mechanism : a risk each turn that partisan activities cost you VP's, with the risk proportionnaly tied to your garrison CV.

This way the player has an incentive to make the best possible effort to garrison, but doesn't know what the exact treshold will be. Goodbye the "Mein Fuhrer, give me 3 tonnes more supply" !




HMSWarspite -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/2/2015 11:44:04 AM)

Yes, that would work... remove the single 'step' function. Make today's value +/- a random amount (maybe up to 10%) the point at which you lose say 20 VP, and a second random amount (say up to 50% CV) as the exchange rate, to set a slope. So your cv>datum *(1.5)), no loss in VP, if CV=datum, -20 VP, and if CV<(datum*(0.5), VP loss = 40. Giving a higher risk of low points loss, but if you really get caught, an even bigger loss than today.

This means a player can 'squeeze' the requirement, for a small loss, at risk of getting caught. This reflects varying dissent, resistance, out of game requirements etc. For example, the front commander wouldnt have direct control of say an increased demand for forced workers, causing more men to go into hiding and hence provide resistance recruits.

Haven't optimised the numbers BTW :)



KWG -> RE: Garrison VP penalty is too harsh (1/2/2015 8:33:36 PM)

I don't think they do.....let HQs count toward garrison. They can pull guard duty and patrols.
They don't need to spend all their time at the outdoors cafés.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375