RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy

RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (Full Version)

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

Message

marion61 -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/20/2015 9:09:07 PM)
That may hurt the axis doing a good attack, which is okay. It's just hitting allied units with little regiments just to generate vp's that's the trouble. Not sure how you could fix that, except raising the value threshold.

JocMeister -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 4:58:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite I am not speaking for 2by3 so nothing I say could be called a plan. And I just threw an idea or 2 out there... your turn! My comment was for Red Lancer who´s immediate reaction was to think up more penalties. [;)]

HMSWarspite -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 11:16:12 AM)
Sorry. didnt twig. However, Red Lancer was commenting on my post above it. As he was specifically adding to my thought on how to penalise the WA for frivolous or gamey withdrawl of landings (which some GE players have complained at), I think it is a bit harsh to observe that the proposed penalty is ... a penalty! Over to you for ideas on how to address the game balance/effects. However are you sure you are not mixing game balance with game constraints... You seem to want the WA not to be penalised for anything and have a reason to invade Italy. More VP in Italian cities? The snag with that is either there aren't enough VP to win the game and so It remains a distraction (it might pay for itself but if it makes a much of a profit, it tends to my 'or'), or there are, and it becomes unrealistically important and we have the 'why go for Berlin' thread... You could argue that it could be set to take the VP pressure off the Allies (slight profit), but basically I think it should not be a game decider. And on your other issue 'game' vs RL, I am afraid I am totally and completely opposed to viewing WA as a game and hence anything that makes it fun is valid. I have innumerable other games (some pure fun. some historically valid). I want a game of the war in the west 43-45. We must make it fun, but within the constraints of what it is. I know great fun games. I do not have any WitW games half as good as this. If the game deviates too far from the subject, I'm out of here I am afraid. However, I hope that a few tweaks will make it fun for you too without needing to deviate. I wonder if you are just opposed on principle to anything that penalises you trashing the WA forces by attacking without thought and care, but maybe that is unfair of me.

RedLancer -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 11:55:40 AM)
My immediate reaction was to support a sensible suggestion - as Joel has already stated re-doing the whole VP setup is not on the cards.

JocMeister -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 12:04:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Sorry. didnt twig. However, Red Lancer was commenting on my post above it. As he was specifically adding to my thought on how to penalise the WA for frivolous or gamey withdrawl of landings (which some GE players have complained at), I think it is a bit harsh to observe that the proposed penalty is ... a penalty! Over to you for ideas on how to address the game balance/effects. However are you sure you are not mixing game balance with game constraints... You seem to want the WA not to be penalised for anything and have a reason to invade Italy. More VP in Italian cities? The snag with that is either there aren't enough VP to win the game and so It remains a distraction (it might pay for itself but if it makes a much of a profit, it tends to my 'or'), or there are, and it becomes unrealistically important and we have the 'why go for Berlin' thread... You could argue that it could be set to take the VP pressure off the Allies (slight profit), but basically I think it should not be a game decider. And on your other issue 'game' vs RL, I am afraid I am totally and completely opposed to viewing WA as a game and hence anything that makes it fun is valid. I have innumerable other games (some pure fun. some historically valid). I want a game of the war in the west 43-45. We must make it fun, but within the constraints of what it is. I know great fun games. I do not have any WitW games half as good as this. If the game deviates too far from the subject, I'm out of here I am afraid. However, I hope that a few tweaks will make it fun for you too without needing to deviate. I wonder if you are just opposed on principle to anything that penalises you trashing the WA forces by attacking without thought and care, but maybe that is unfair of me. I think you missed one of my posts where I specifically said I strongly believe the WA should Invade Italy? (Post #10). [:)] The game would make little sense without an Italian campaign. They need to sort this out or their next module (Africa) will make even less sense. Are people to skip Africa and Italy all together and go straight for Europe because the VP system leaves them no other option? The only band-aid I can think of is indeed to slap more VPs onto Italy. Or make it less costly in VP terms of VPs to land and make war in Italy for the WAs. It might actually not be a bad idea to pretty much guarantee the WAs a slight positive VPs from an Italian campaign as by all accounts the WAs need a VP boost overall. If "everyone" knows you gain VPs from Italy I can promise you "everyone" will go there. I don´t want the game to deviate too much either. That people pretty much have to land straight into Europe (VP wise) in 43 is not desirable for a game perspective as you are missing a big part of the game. That people feel forced to do this is a design failure. I know Joel said they won´t redo the VP system. While I can understand a total rewrite from scratch is too much to do at this stage they need to look at it and sort out all the problems. Its the VP system creating all this "unwanted behavior". Until they admit that (at least internally) and fix it the basic problem will remain.

JocMeister -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 12:06:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer My immediate reaction was to support a sensible suggestion - as Joel has already stated re-doing the whole VP setup is not on the cards. I wasn´t too serious with the comment. It was supposed to be a jest. Hence the smiley at then end... [;)]

Smirfy -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 12:12:03 PM)
Could I ask for the Italian scenario to get a bit of attention. Some people can't commit to the bigger scenarios so Italy is ideal. The scenario could use some attention with regards production and could use more aircraft in theatre made available specifically patrol planes and Bombers.

HMSWarspite -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 3:39:57 PM)
I haven't played Italy on its own, but that sounds sensible (and within the constaints as I understand). The issue will be getting the right aircraft tweaked rather than a blanket...

RedLancer -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/21/2015 4:46:56 PM)
Sounds easy but is both difficult and time consuming as you have to amend at the factory level which is balanced to the Campaigns. If you want it done I suggest you start another thread and list what aircraft you shouldn't be getting and those you need more of - ideally with an indication of by how much.

Davekhps -> RE: Why the Allies need to invade Italy (2/22/2015 2:27:43 AM)
RE: re-doing the VPs... while a wholesale revision is off the table, how would this tweak affect the game: make the WA casualty VPs graduated, either by date, or by percentage of casualties. Meaning, WA can take more casualties earlier in the game without as bad a VP hit. It is, after all, earlier in the war, well before war-weariness and political calculations are taking effect. (Similarly, you could have U.S. casualties be worth less than UK-- the Brits, after all, were taking more of a toll by this stage of the war). As the war goes on, taking more casualties hurts VP more. Similarly, you could do it by percentage. The more casualties you take, the more VP they cost. WA would still have incentive not to "spend" casualties in the early game in order to "save" them for later, but if needed, they could go a "high cost" route earlier in the game in the hopes of dealing a knock-out blow. Basically: don't make it so costly to invade Italy in 1943 because the war wasn't that costly yet-- morale, particularly American, was still high. But by the end of 1944/45, the WA are probably looking to avoid costly battles as the cost of each casualty increases exponentially. Anyway... just thinking out loud.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7180176