Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE (2/12/2015 9:28:32 AM)

18.2 is a exploiters wet dream and really Middle Earth.

if subsequently no allied hexes are controlled in a zone the garrison requirement will immediately return

That's just plain Middle Earth sorry but I am being nice.

1. Allies land 5 divisions in Northern Italy or Northern Europe.
2. Garrison levels magicly drop.
3. Germany has to react pulling divisions from zones close by.
4. Allies see Germans react so they pull out.
5. Gandalf waves his magic wand and garrison levels majicly go back up.

Middle Earth

If the Allied player invades garrison levels should never go back up, this is rewarding poor game play and clear exploitation of a piss poor design.



Baelfiin -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 10:06:41 AM)

I guess only way you can score points as the allies. I have thought about trying to bomb the crap out of garrison cities to see if I can get the CV to go below ten to get some points that way. I doubt it will work but.. . .
Seems like any game that is going well VP wise for the allies involves gaming the system.



RedLancer -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 10:17:32 AM)

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.

You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?

How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 10:30:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.

You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?

How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?


Its a great way for the WAs to gain VPs. The most effective one in the game actually.
1. WAs land in Nortern Europe.
2. Axis Garrison requirements drop so the Axis player moves out units to combat the landing.
3. The WAs pull back from Nortern Europe.
4. Garrison requirements are magically back and the Axis player won´t have a chance to move his units back to meet them.
5. Boom! Massive VP gain for the WA.

This is what happens and will continue to happen with the disastrous VP system. WA players are turning every rock and stone trying to find ways to avoid combat and the massive VP drain that comes with it. Avoiding combat. In a war game. [8|]






RedLancer -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 10:55:48 AM)

So to paraphrase this isn't directly about the garrison requirement but the resulting VP allocation.

So how would you change it ? 

Although there is danger of the woman that swallowed a fly routine being followed is the answer not in changing the garrison rules but having a failed invasion penalty for the Allies.  That said how you might code that is beyond me. 



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 11:28:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So to paraphrase this isn't directly about the garrison requirement but the resulting VP allocation.

So how would you change it ? 

Although there is danger of the woman that swallowed a fly routine being followed is the answer not in changing the garrison rules but having a failed invasion penalty for the Allies.  That said how you might code that is beyond me. 


Again with the penalties. [8|] I´ve never seen so many rules and penalties in a game that is applied with the sole purpose of forcing people to do something specific. That such an amount is needed is a clear indicator in itself that the entire VP system is not working.

Land in Italy or get punished.
Land in Europe or get punished.
Bomb U-boats or get punished. Then bomb V-Weapons or get punished.
Attack Germans and even though you win you get punished.
If the Germans attack you. You get punished.

If you had a well designed working VP system people would do those things willingly rather then you having to force them to do so with huge penalties. And the immediate response to fix things when people find ways to circumvent the imposed VP penalties is: More penalties and rules?

No one thought it might be a better idea to actually award people for going in a certain direction instead of punishing them for not doing it? It might not sound like a big difference but it is. A little reading on the human psyche will tell you this.

Want to fix this? Get rid of the stupid VP penalties for ground combat and/or slap a big VP treasure in Italy. I promise you people will go there. Will work much better then adding a couple of pages in the rulebook with more penalties.




Denniss -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 11:30:25 AM)

Does the AI react properly if the garrison level jump upwards or is it confused as well?
If an Axis player sends allied units back to their ships at which time does the garrison level jump upwards? If it's immediately after clearing them from Axis Europe or in the Allied Logphase or in the Axis Logphase with VP allocation to allied player then I'd count it as (major) Bug, if it's in the Axis Log phase without having VP effects for any player it's somewhat problematic but not a bug.
At least the Axis player should get a popup/warning about raised garrison levels.



RedLancer -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 12:11:30 PM)

As I said before the VPs represent strategic imperatives which like them or not are a big part of waging war.  It's an curious setup having a penalty system for the side that actually 'wins'. 

Whilst I concede that penalties are very negative they probably represent a more realistic spin on the factors in military planning than bonuses.  Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting so avoiding combat is not a bad thing.

Just to explore this further how would you implement a positive VP system in Italy and of course beyond? 



Baelfiin -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 12:24:27 PM)

In was too late to avoid fighting in September 1939.



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 12:30:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As I said before the VPs represent strategic imperatives which like them or not are a big part of waging war.  It's an curious setup having a penalty system for the side that actually 'wins'. 

Whilst I concede that penalties are very negative they probably represent a more realistic spin on the factors in military planning than bonuses.  Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting so avoiding combat is not a bad thing.

Just to explore this further how would you implement a positive VP system in Italy and of course beyond? 


Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well.

But its a bad VP system for a game for many reason. The most obvious one is that you don´t punish people when they attack even if they win? This is what led to the situation where you had to start putting in more penalties to force people to attack?

I have to get back to you on a positive VP system for Italy later tonight. Need to think on it. (And pick up the kids from kindergarten) [:)]



Baelfiin -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 12:38:01 PM)

I think it is bad if you score a lot of points through an artificial mechanic because you evacuate an invasion. I am pretty sure if the Germans saw a multidivisional landing in Netherlands that they were not going to immediately be thinking that they have to get back to their posts in France because of the impending big invasion that just happened somewhere else.



marion61 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 12:38:59 PM)

As far as Italy is concerned, maybe raise the city vp modifier back to what it was originally. You got some decent points if you captured Rome earlier than Jan'44 before it changes, and you can use the vp's you got to help tide you thru all those casualty vp's your going to lose fighting.

Losing vp's to shipping is a hard pill to swallow, but without changing how many vp's you lose for casualties I'm not sure that can be coded separately.

Vp's for casualties could be tweaked some. As the WA's you have to attack, but at the same time your hobbled by casualties. I know all those poor widows cried for their loved ones, and made their congressmen stress over casualties, but they should be happy that we're killing way more Germans and we should get some positive vp's for that? In my game with NOSB, he suffered 2.3million casualties, and that didn't affect war morale in Germany? Plus the axis can just use little **** units to do pointless attacks, that cause you casualties, and so you lose vp's to a **** regiment. German commander's would never have attacked needlessly. They would have been shot.

Until the city modifiers changed a few versions ago I always tried for Rome before December to get the vp's from it. This stockpiled me some positive vp's for when I invaded in '44. It just needs a little tweak here and there, and yes playing the WA's can be hard and you can't make a big mistake, but I'm sure we can work this out. Peace, love, and happiness?[sm=love0028.gif]

I did forget to bitch about the EF Box, but maybe in another thread.



Smirfy -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 1:07:50 PM)

A couple hundred of marines raided Lofoten in March 41 and it resulted in 150 batteries of Artillery being transferred to Norway.

Do German garrison provisions in Greece and Yugoslavia go up when Italiy surrenders?



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 2:29:50 PM)

After some careful thought... [;)]

Here is what I would roughly try to do.

-Get rid of the negative VPs from combat all together. Instead of limiting the WA by negative VPs they should be limited by a finite pool of resources (men, guns, AFVs etc). Just like the Axis side. The Devs should have a tonne of experience balancing this from years of WitE and data from WitW Beta tests? Should be doable? And should feel a lot less artificial then being restricted by something as abstract as VP points.

-Remove the penalties for not invading in the "right place". Replace with big VP scores for capturing major objectives like Rome, Paris, Berlin. Award more VPs for an early capture. So capturing Rome before 44 is up gives a big VP score while taking it in late 45 hardly gives anything. This way you can "funnel" the WAs in the right direction.

-Remove negative VPs for U-boats and V-Weapons. Instead give a bonus for hitting them over hitting oil/fuel/hi/man. This gives a better sense of freedom for the WAs and gets rid of the unnatural force concentration that is currently happening around Hamburg.

-Start the VP scale at 0. No negative VPs. Put a scoring scale on it. Say 0-XXX= Axis major victory and so on. The actual numbers will of course have to be calculated.

I think a system like that would feel a lot more natural for any gamer. You have one side attacking trying to gain points and one side defending trying to defend the points. I´m no mathematician but I think given the data that should be available for this game that I should be possible to calculate the actual VPs fairly accurate?

Obviously there are other things to take into consideration but this is a roughly what I would try and do.






whoofe -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 2:39:54 PM)

maybe the reason there is positive and negative VPs is so the balance can shift back and forth. if its a straight positive VP range, then once the allies have reached a certain point total, the axis can no longer win, and possibly loses incentive to continue

I do agree with others, however, that some changes need to be made. it may just require some minor rebalancing, I dunno. I am still working my way thru my first full match vs the AI, so I haven't fully grasped all the finer points yet. but several of the AARs make it clear that some scoring points can be improved upon




marion61 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 2:49:51 PM)

And what about not starting a campaign with -50vps for the allies? Those belong to the previous commander, not the new one. Allowing the axis to start with 1/6 of the vp's required for a minor victory for them seems biased. I know it has been explained before, but it's still not easy to live with starting a balanced scenario with negative points.



moss -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 2:52:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Does the AI react properly if the garrison level jump upwards or is it confused as well?



I would say that it probably reacts as GG intends. That is, it should not cause a VP swing. I have not tested this personally.

From the manual (p168 Game Play Info on top right)
quote:

To provide a better gaming experience, the Axis
AI is not impacted by the garrison and partisan
rules. It will try to meet garrison requirements, but
we found it was too hard for the AI to manage the
garrisons properly, while it does not take advantage
of not having to play by the rules. No VPs will be
scored due to the lack of or overabundance of
garrisons when the AI is playing the Axis side.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 3:30:52 PM)

While the VP point system probably accurately reflects what the Allied Commanders had to face, it doesn't necessarily make for a good game, any more then having to play while eating cold spam in the rain would. I would say a simpler VP system that gave an award for cities/territory held at the end of the game would be best. Let everything else have some actual effect on gameplay. Active U-boat sites could cause greater chance of transport loss, and slow the flow of supplies, replacements to the Allies. Active V-weapons could reduce the morale of troops. For the Germans, failure to garrison properly would cause partisan activity which would cause factory and rail line damage, loss of production, manpower, etc. The value really shouldn't change because of an invasion.... the Resistance isn't suddenly going to get LESS active because the Allies have boots on the ground somewhere. The Axis should be choosing between loss of productivity from whatever areas they are occupying (effecting long term strategic capabilities) and the immediate need to respond to an invasion. For the Allies (and Axis too) casualty concerns should be about worrying that they have sufficient replacements to staff their units.... and the morale and experience levels of the men in the units. YMMV.






Nico165b165 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 4:32:16 PM)

I think the problem with this precise garrison VP-swing is the time axis has to react.

If the VP hit comes direct after the last WA unit pulled out, the player has no time to react and it's bad design and a possible exploit.

If the VP hit comes back after a few turn, or if it would be added back progressively (simulating the need for partisans to reorganise to the new situation on the ground), then axis has time to react accordingly.

I wouldn't try to correct a penalty problem by adding another penalty. Chances are it would cause further problems down the road. Just optimize the one in place.



NotOneStepBack -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 5:10:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

After some careful thought... [;)]

Here is what I would roughly try to do.

-Get rid of the negative VPs from combat all together. Instead of limiting the WA by negative VPs they should be limited by a finite pool of resources (men, guns, AFVs etc). Just like the Axis side. The Devs should have a tonne of experience balancing this from years of WitE and data from WitW Beta tests? Should be doable? And should feel a lot less artificial then being restricted by something as abstract as VP points.

-Remove the penalties for not invading in the "right place". Replace with big VP scores for capturing major objectives like Rome, Paris, Berlin. Award more VPs for an early capture. So capturing Rome before 44 is up gives a big VP score while taking it in late 45 hardly gives anything. This way you can "funnel" the WAs in the right direction.

-Remove negative VPs for U-boats and V-Weapons. Instead give a bonus for hitting them over hitting oil/fuel/hi/man. This gives a better sense of freedom for the WAs and gets rid of the unnatural force concentration that is currently happening around Hamburg.

-Start the VP scale at 0. No negative VPs. Put a scoring scale on it. Say 0-XXX= Axis major victory and so on. The actual numbers will of course have to be calculated.

I think a system like that would feel a lot more natural for any gamer. You have one side attacking trying to gain points and one side defending trying to defend the points. I´m no mathematician but I think given the data that should be available for this game that I should be possible to calculate the actual VPs fairly accurate?

Obviously there are other things to take into consideration but this is a roughly what I would try and do.






This is totally true, and what I've been saying since beta. +1




Joel Billings -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 5:34:30 PM)

The initial post re the sudden drop in garrison requirements is a reasonable concern. We're considering options here.

As for the rest of the debate re victory points I would like to remind everyone of the many comments in WitE about how our victory system was too simple and didn't account for anything but the situation at the end of the war. We tried hard to come up with a system that would score players on how they were doing during the game, encouraging certain actions. Also, there were outside circumstances that forced choices on the player that he wouldn't make had he free reign and/or 20/20 hindsight. Some of the posts seem to just be a reaction to having negative points. Changing some items from negatives if you don't do them to positives if you do just changes the math but doesn't really alter the final results. Also, we put points on casualties for a reason. It's not simply a matter of allowing the Allies to clean out their manpower pools. We think there should be a penalty associated with taking higher losses. The last thing I want to do now is to throw out the scoring system, build a new one, and then have to balance it. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but a do over is not in the cards.



decourcy2 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 5:44:52 PM)

Sorry Joc, I am with Joel on this, i like the vp system here in WitW.
I think a change for garrison requirements after a withdrawal could be a one full turn leeway before the garrison requirements kick in again.

Other than that i think Italy needs more vp's around to represent the importance of Italy to the political leaders.



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 6:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The initial post re the sudden drop in garrison requirements is a reasonable concern. We're considering options here.

As for the rest of the debate re victory points I would like to remind everyone of the many comments in WitE about how our victory system was too simple and didn't account for anything but the situation at the end of the war. We tried hard to come up with a system that would score players on how they were doing during the game, encouraging certain actions. Also, there were outside circumstances that forced choices on the player that he wouldn't make had he free reign and/or 20/20 hindsight. Some of the posts seem to just be a reaction to having negative points. Changing some items from negatives if you don't do them to positives if you do just changes the math but doesn't really alter the final results. Also, we put points on casualties for a reason. It's not simply a matter of allowing the Allies to clean out their manpower pools. We think there should be a penalty associated with taking higher losses. The last thing I want to do now is to throw out the scoring system, build a new one, and then have to balance it. It's not going to happen. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but a do over is not in the cards.


Joel,

With all respect. You are not encouraging anyone to do anything. You are punishing players if they don´t behave in a certain way. Its a big, big difference between the two. And I think you are downplaying the difference by saying its just a difference between positive and negative scores. Its not just about math. And there are a million reasons for not having a system like the current one. Most have to do with humans psychology. Not all of us see everything in pure numbers. The best example is with the combat losses. If you attack as the WA and win a battle you are still punished with negative VPs. This messes with the brain reward system (don´t know the English term) something terrible. I could write an essay on this but I won´t clutter this anymore then I already have.

I think the current system have a much larger impact on the way people play this game then you realize. And not in a positive way. The whole system actually discourage you to do anything as the WA. To remedy that you have put in huge penalties to force people into action. I´m sorry but that is not a good design for a game.

I´m also sorry to hear nothing will be done about it. I can certainly understand the reasons for not doing it but I still think its a wasted opportunity to get it right. I´m also fearful it means we will continue to see the use of this system in the next installments/addons. And that is not good news for the franchise and a possible future "War in Europe".

As someone wrote in one of the AAR. "The current system feels like its designed by a mathematician rather then a game designer". Its a good observation and one I think you should listen too. Mathematicians are probably not the best people to design a game... [:)]




RedLancer -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 6:23:53 PM)

How you can have that point of view and post "Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well" confuses me. Am I missing something?



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 6:34:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

How you can have that point of view and post "Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well" confuses me. Am I missing something?


Yes, reality doesn´t always make for a good game? The current system reflects the realities very well. But its a poor design for a game.



smokindave34 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 6:52:19 PM)

You have to constrain players to some sort of reality with the VP system or you get what we have in WITE - which is players on both sides taking actions that would never have been considered in the actual conflict. I love the fact that as the axis I'm forced to garrison cities/areas to a certain level. This reflects one of the realities the high commands had to deal with.



RedLancer -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 6:55:35 PM)

...but if your design ethos is to reproduce the frustrations of history then it's a fair call. When I played my Op Mars scenario for WitE as the Soviets I hated my fruitless assaults and knew I'd got it pretty correct. I appreciate your view on this being a game but when I want to relax I don't play WitW - soldiering is hard work and IMO WitW's success is reproducing the same mental processes.



marion61 -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 7:09:11 PM)

Well you got it right! It's frustrating![;)]



JocMeister -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 7:44:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

...but if your design ethos is to reproduce the frustrations of history then it's a fair call. When I played my Op Mars scenario for WitE as the Soviets I hated my fruitless assaults and knew I'd got it pretty correct. I appreciate your view on this being a game but when I want to relax I don't play WitW - soldiering is hard work and IMO WitW's success is reproducing the same mental processes.


Absolutely a valid point. But I strongly believe the vast majority of people play games to have fun. Not to torment themselves. [;)] I personally believe WitW would be a better game and more fun given a different approach when it comes to the VP system. I think most game designers are confronted with the dilemma of game/fun vs. reality/historical accuracy at some point of the development. Personally I think that while many players might enjoy reality and historical accuracy a game has to be fun and make sense or they will stop playing at some point. Regardless of historical accuracy.

As I said I understand the VP system and its a good reflection of the problems faced by Allied commanders. Absolutely. But you could have achieved exactly the same thing using a more "game minded" approach.

I can only urge you to take a step back and look at the current system for the next development in the series. You can´t turn a blind eye to the fact that some things are not working well and creating frustration rather then enjoyment. And do you really want to keep piling on penalties and rules to get the desired result rather then having people do those things willingly? The ruleset for WitE 2.0 would be...interesting using the same system.

I like WitW. Especially the air war. But for me the VP system ruins the experience. Especially when it comes to multiplayer. Hopefully for you guys I´m a minority...



whoofe -> RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited (2/12/2015 8:03:46 PM)

I am ok with the penalties. I look at it as Churchill demanding the U-boat factories be taken care of early on, and then V-weapons afterwards.

and there should be some political pressure to win the war but at the same time not throw lives away like the Russians did.

that being said, some adjustments can still be made to improve the VP system. I wonder if the casualty VP losses are partially due to the way some people are playing? would be interesting to find out if anyone is using a strategy that has fairly low casualty VP loss. has anyone won a pvp major victory as WA?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6054688