|
Geredis -> RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs (7/11/2015 4:31:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It's to encourage the Allies to be aggressive early, as they get more points early than they do later in the game (for each city point or damage point). As the game goes on, more is expected out of the Allied player, thus they have to achieve more to score the same number of points.
Sounds like a good reason but I wonder, is this primarily a simulation of the air war's impact on the Reich, in that the more you bomb or conquer, and the more people get used to being bombed or conquered, the less psychological (VP?) effect it would have on them? Even to the point where it might actually have the opposite effect on them than what you intended? Or is it purely a matter of political consideration?
If it's supposed to be the first, at least for the air war, why tie the thresholds to historical dates, and not to percentages of the German industrial base that has been offlined? After all, that aside, from an air war perspective, once you level a certain portion of the enemy's industrial base you'll hit points of diminishing returns that will make further bombing of any sort beyond this point significantly less effective than otherwise.
And in the case of the second, why not adjust the thresholds so that they are tied to not just time elapsed but also VP already banked by the amount of ground held? Surely if the Allies, say, managed to force Italy to capitulate in early August '43 (a whole month ahead of history), then the timetable of expectations for the Italian campaign would similarly be pushed ahead. And similarly, if they meet those expectations significantly ahead of schedule, suddenly a June '44 divisor seems rather...late to the party, especially since political expectations would likely be to turn to France as quickly as feasible. And in this case, at least from a political perspective (if not from an equipment/manpower one) June '44 would feel like the Allies are slowing down and not prosecuting the war as swiftly as they should given the rather stellar results in Italy.
I mean, I understand the point where you want to push players to try and beat the historical bookmarks. However, the way it is set up, it feels like it rewards players too much for being aggressive as the Allies. Similarly, once that aggressive mindset is put into play, the way the divisor bookmarks are set up (as I understand it) don't SEEM to penalize a player for shifting away from that aggressive posture once he's done what amounts to an Italian smash-and-grab in the first year or so of the campaign.
Now, coming from a layperson, it would seem that having the divisor dates being what they are as the latest dates would be best, but also set things up such that once an Allied player gets into a sufficiently aggressive posture (say Rome by November '43), then all divisor dates are adjusted based upon this milestone.
Pardon the mini-essay here, but looking at the discussion, the rationale, and coming to this as someone rather uninitiated to this title in particular, what I just laid out seems like some sort of ideal, or if not the ideal, then certainly a far more interesting approach to the speed of VP collection for the Allied side.
|
|
|
|
