Campaign Game VP System needs revision (Full Version)

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



Message

Harrybanana -> Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 6:39:34 AM)

Reading Loki's AAR against Smokindave I personally think it is obvious that the Campaign Game VPs need to be seriously looked at. Carlkay and I are both playing games against Qball that are in early 45. From what QBall has told me I understand that Carlkay has done a better job than me of gaining Strategic bombing VPs and I have done a better job on the ground. Carlkay is stuck in Brittany and Normandy while I am in about the same positions as the Allies were in historically. It seems that Carlkay and I will both end up with about 400 VPs, but in my case QBall and I have agreed to deduct 100 points from my score because of a bug that prevented him from scoring about that many garrison points. So at the moment it is still unclear if I will win a minor victory or if the game will end in a draw. But what I do know is that I could have won the game if I had just stopped my ground offensive shortly after I captured Paris. At that time I think I had over 450 VPs (350 actually). Since then even though I have captured more cities I have lost VPs due to casualties. For example last turn (February 17) I captured Cologne, expanded my bridghead over the Rhine, isolated a few units and generally had what I thought was militarily a good turn. But I had -25 casualty VPs and consequently lost 10+ VPs.

There is no way, in my opinion, that in the last 6 months of the War the Allied player can gain more VPs from capturing cities than he will lose from casualties. Well not unless he has already pretty much destroyed the German army, which will not happen between two equal players. I just don't understand a VP system that gives a Victory of any sort to an Allied Player who doesn't even capture Paris. This is no slam on Carlkay who I know is a good player but happened to make some bad choices and got hit by a bug. I leave it to Carlkay to say whether or not he thinks that he deserves a victory in his game.

This game against QBall I played to win the War (as I know Carlkay did) but next game I will play to win the game.



RedLancer -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 8:05:57 AM)

We've always said that we are open to adjusting the VP levels but to do so we need final scores and some analysis. For example if you are saying that casualty VPs are too high then what level would you deem acceptable and why?



Ralzakark -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 11:39:40 AM)

Can you explain the rationale for victory points allocated for strategic bombing?

My (cynical) assumption is that the affects of strategic bombing in the game are so limited that they are there simply to stop the Allied player using the strategic air forces for tactical purposes all the time.



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 12:32:54 PM)



The rationale for vps in any game is to reward proper behaviour. Specifically for Strategic Bombing you gain points for bombing targets that politically were pursued. It also 'rewards' the german player for protecting those targets. (by reduced vp's gained).

There is a trap that needs to be avoided. In the past I have seen people whine and bitch about the vp system, who didn't actually know what that system was when they started playing. Apparently they thought they were supposed to be rewarded just because.

So when you look at a single game you have to ask...did both sides play for victory? Or were they just playing?

Did the Germans do everything they could to prevent the bombing? Did they spend their precious admin points on beefing up the flak defences? Did they use the Luftwaffe on defence or did they throw it away in the Med?

Did they attack the beach head at 1:1....for the purposes of gaining casualty points or did they just sit and defend? The Germans get rewarded for playing like..well...Germans. You have to really know how to gain vps.

Does the vp system even matter? I have yet to have a game reach 1945 without my opponent resigning. Both as allies and Axis.

My feeling, without any real data is that the allies have a harder time gaining vps in general, but are much more powerful to play. Which means between two average players, the Germans have the advantage, but between two experienced players, the Allies have the advantage.



Ralzakark -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 1:56:00 PM)

If the Allies are penalised for not following the historical air war pattern, why are the Germans not penalised for failing to launch Operation Steinbock?

This was an entirely politically driven offensive designed to show that Germany could strike back before the V-weapons became available, and its main outcome was to wreck the German bomber force just before D-Day.



Seminole -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 2:27:35 PM)

quote:

Since then even though I have captured more cities I have lost VPs due to casualties. For example last turn (February 17) I captured Cologne, expanded my bridghead over the Rhine, isolated a few units and generally had what I thought was militarily a good turn. But I had -23 casualty VPs and consequently lost 10+ VPs.



If I am looking at the math right Cologne should be ~.7 VP a turn for holding it in terms of city control points and strategic bombing points (captured factories considered 100% damaged). So however many turns are left that will added to your total.
Capturing the Ruhr industrial complex around Essen on the east side of the Rhine (6 light urban, 1 city hex) is worth ~3.3 VP per turn in ccp and sbp in '45. That same Ruhr urban area would be worth 4.575 per turn in the last half of '44.

Also, it's not quantifiable, but has to be considered: capturing Cologne, etc. frees up strategic bombers for other cities, so there should be incremental extra VP each turn from that as well.



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 2:33:04 PM)



The germans are rewarded for every attack they make on the allies. They cause casualty vp's. So yes....in game you can launch an Operation Steinbock and you will be rewarded for bombing any units you are lucky enough to hit. Whether it is worth it or not is up to you.



carlkay58 -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 5:52:52 PM)

I am sticking with my 'sitzkrieg' vs Q-Ball to see if I can eke out a Minor Victory - but note that the game is just finishing 44 and once 45 hits the VWeapon VP divisor is decreased (so more negative VPs from not hitting all of those VWeapon factories) and the Bombing VP and City VP divisors increase (so less positive VPs from them). I think this will probably tip me into negative VPs. Also realize that there is the End Game VPs for the game ending before Turn 110 (when the Soviets take Berlin in May 45). I believe these VPs are settled with only the City VPs being taken into account - something that Harry should have more of. It is definitely a good comparison between the two games as the Axis defender is the same. I actually believe that I may be able to stick with my Minor Victory but it is not a sure thing by any stretch at this time. I did some major mistakes as the Allies that have reduced me to taking this strategy and I still am launching some attacks to try and capture some more cities, but on the whole I admit to playing for the Minor Victory at this time.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 7:22:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We've always said that we are open to adjusting the VP levels but to do so we need final scores and some analysis. For example if you are saying that casualty VPs are too high then what level would you deem acceptable and why?


Thank you Red Lancer, sorry for sounding surly. I appreciate that the Developers are willing to listen to the gamers. I was in a bad mood when I posted the above because I had just finished a 4 hour marathon session and when I sent my turn the game crashed. My own fault for not saving.

As Carlkay says there may be a good opportunity for data here because I think all players in these 2 games are determined to play until the end; and we have the same German Player in both. Below are the VPs and Map of my game with QBall at the start of my February 24 turn. In Italy I have captured everything south of and including Florence. As you can see I lost 25 VPs to casualties last turn and was over all negative 14. I got 5 negative points from VWpns, which is an aberration I tried to correct this turn. In the previous 61 turns prior to this I was averaging only about 1.5 negative Vwpn points per turn.

[image]local://upfiles/14737/5C337F9E16224EEDA57A8241383BDA8B.jpg[/image]



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 10:03:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole


If I am looking at the math right Cologne should be ~.7 VP a turn for holding it in terms of city control points and strategic bombing points (captured factories considered 100% damaged). So however many turns are left that will added to your total.
Capturing the Ruhr industrial complex around Essen on the east side of the Rhine (6 light urban, 1 city hex) is worth ~3.3 VP per turn in ccp and sbp in '45. That same Ruhr urban area would be worth 4.575 per turn in the last half of '44.

Also, it's not quantifiable, but has to be considered: capturing Cologne, etc. frees up strategic bombers for other cities, so there should be incremental extra VP each turn from that as well.


I believe you are correct. I am receiving approx 0.42 City VPs per turn and will take your word that I am receiving about 0.3 Strategic bombing VPs per turn for Cologne. However I had pretty much destroyed the HI and a good chunk of the Manpower in Cologne before capturing it. So my net gain is probably about 0.6 VPs per turn at best for the 11 turns left in the game for a total of maybe 6 or 7 VPs. I can assure you that the casualties required to capture it were far more than 7000 American casualties. My recollection is that the assaults alone cost me about 4000. Of course, I incurred tens of thousands more before I was even in a position to attack the City.

My best estimate is that capturing the Ruhr will cost me 8000 to 12,000 casualties per cold/light rain turn for at least 5 to 7 turns. So approximately 40,000 to 84,000 casualties, which even assuming they are all Americans (which they won't be) is a loss of 40 to 84 VPs. So even if the weather is good for the next 5 turns that will only give me at most 6 turns to score VPs of 3.3 per turn or 20 VPs. And again Bomber Command has already destroyed much of the industry in the Ruhr. Unfortunately the weather will likely be heavy rain for the 2 turns after this, so at best I will have only 4 turns to score VPs for the Ruhr.

Oh yeah, and the only way I can even keep my losses at this level is by using my strategic air force in a tactical role. Similar to what KWG is doing to Pelton. The way I figure it with the 45 Strategic bombing divisor the very best I could do is 4 or maybe 5 SB VPs per turn. I know others can do better, but I haven't their skill. I figure using them tactically they are saving me far more than 2000 casualties per turn.

As I said the next few turns (after this one) are bad weather so I will be making only limited attacks. It will be interesting to see how many VPs I earn. My recollection is that I was earning positive VPs during the bad weather turns of January 45, but I don't recall how many.




KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 10:21:26 PM)

quote:

Oh yeah, and the only way I can even keep my losses at this level is by using my strategic air force in a tactical role. Similar to what KWG is doing to Pelton. The way I figure it with the 45 Strategic bombing divisor the very best I could do is 4 or maybe 5 SB VPs per turn. I know others can do better, but I haven't there skill. I figure using them tactically they are saving far more than 2000 casualties per turn.


The Allies were doing more of it toward the end of the war. The Battle of the Bulge, Aachen , etc
When the Germans started booking it out of France there was no longer a big reason to massively bomb them, until the Bulge, and when the fight for Germany began.


During "A Bridge Too Far" reports were coming in to the Allies, of large Tiger tank formations assembling in a forest just inside of Germany. So B17s were sent to "UNIT BOMB" the forest. And they bombed a whole lot of "SCUTTLEBUTT" and trees [:)]



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 10:44:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

For example if you are saying that casualty VPs are too high then what level would you deem acceptable and why?



Based on my game I would advise:

1.That the combat divisor be halved, so that the Allies lose one VP for every 2000 American or 1400 Other casualties. Alternatively, the divisor can be left where it is for 1943, switched to this level in 44 and then in 45 increased again to 1 VP lost for every 3000 American and 2000 Other casualties. The rationale for this is that early in the War the Allied Governments were worried that high casualties would lead to public discontent and unrest. But as the War progressed and support for the War remained generally high the political need to keep losses to a minimum receded.

2. To compensate the Allies should receive VPs Penalties if by games end they have not captured certain objectives. -100 VPs for each of Paris and Rome for example. With lesser VP penalties for other cities. I think, for example, that there needs to be VP Penalties for not capturing Milan, Florence or Venice. In my game with QBall I have not advanced beyond Florence as I don't see what there is to be gained. For that matter, if I could do it again I am not even certain that I would have captured Florence.

3. In my opinion the divisors for Strategic bombing also need to be adjusted so that the Allies receive fewer Bombing VPs in 43 and more in 45. I'm not sure what the rationale is for the game encouraging strategic bombing in 43 and discouraging it in 45.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 10:46:38 PM)

Oops, double post.



carlkay58 -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 11:32:14 PM)

I agree with Harry that the divisors should be higher for casualties and Bombing VPs. The game had -1VP for every 2000 US or 1000 Allied casualties right up until release. This may be closer to what it should be. I can understand the bombing VP divisor shrinking every six months - as the Allies advanced and captured ground it was easier to bomb or capture German Industry out right. Allied casualties, on the other hand, became more of an issue as the war progressed because they were starting to have to scrape the bottom of the barrels. Several British and US divisions were stripped for replacements to other divisions due to losses in late 44 and 45.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/21/2015 11:57:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I agree with Harry that the divisors should be higher for casualties and Bombing VPs. The game had -1VP for every 2000 US or 1000 Allied casualties right up until release. This may be closer to what it should be. I can understand the bombing VP divisor shrinking every six months - as the Allies advanced and captured ground it was easier to bomb or capture German Industry out right. Allied casualties, on the other hand, became more of an issue as the war progressed because they were starting to have to scrape the bottom of the barrels. Several British and US divisions were stripped for replacements to other divisions due to losses in late 44 and 45.



My understanding of the rationale for the Allies losing VPs for casualties is not because they were low on manpower (which by Wars end was the case with every major combatant except perhaps the US), but rather because there was a political fear that high casualties would cause civil unrest. The game already has a military consequence for being careless with losses, the loss of VPs is to include a political one as well. But as the War progresses this was less of a political concern.

By 1945 (or even earlier) the Political and Military Leaders of the Western Allies were far more concerned with capturing territory than they were about casualties. How do you think things would have gone down at Potsdam if the Western Allies stopped at the Rhine or even before to save casualties and thus allowed the Russians to capture all of Germany, Austria, etc.



Q-Ball -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:04:00 AM)

Interesting discussion, I will post what I can from my end...unfortunately I have a work project dropped on me today that is going to keep me pretty busy right up to X-Mas. But I'll provide some data.

I think the changes mentioned so far are worth considering. There is no doubt the Allies needed to grab territory by the end of the war, because of the post-war political imperatives.




Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 5:48:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Also realize that there is the End Game VPs for the game ending before Turn 110 (when the Soviets take Berlin in May 45). I believe these VPs are settled with only the City VPs being taken into account - something that Harry should have more of.



I don't think this is true Carlkay. With the EF box off it is my understanding that there are no End Game VPs awarded to anybody unless the WA captures Berlin before May 45. That is not going to happen. I would be pleased to find out I am wrong however.



Ralzakark -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 7:34:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The germans are rewarded for every attack they make on the allies. They cause casualty vp's. So yes....in game you can launch an Operation Steinbock and you will be rewarded for bombing any units you are lucky enough to hit. Whether it is worth it or not is up to you.


If the Luftwaffe wanted to inflict damage on Allied ground troops it probably would not have tried to do so by area bombing London from 20,000 feet at night. Steinbock was not aimed at units. It was designed to inflict damage and civilian casualties in retaliation for RAF Bomber Command's raids over Germany. The objective was political, any military damage done to ground units was both minimal and incidental.

Perhaps one operation is too small to model in the games victory conditions, but to me it has always felt that the Allies are tightly bound to political events whereas the Germans effectively get a free ride.




carlkay58 -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 7:49:52 AM)

Harry - I am pretty certain that early end VPs are awarded upon the fall of Berlin - either by the Soviets or the Western Allies. But we shall see as our games approach April 45. (Turn 97 I believe.)



HMSWarspite -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 9:32:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I agree with Harry that the divisors should be higher for casualties and Bombing VPs. The game had -1VP for every 2000 US or 1000 Allied casualties right up until release. This may be closer to what it should be. I can understand the bombing VP divisor shrinking every six months - as the Allies advanced and captured ground it was easier to bomb or capture German Industry out right. Allied casualties, on the other hand, became more of an issue as the war progressed because they were starting to have to scrape the bottom of the barrels. Several British and US divisions were stripped for replacements to other divisions due to losses in late 44 and 45.



I agree with the cutting of VP for casualties as the war progresses. The VP is to account for 'out of game' effects. The manpower shortage is modelled 'in game with the pools and so shouldn't be modelled again. The British public (or more probably, the politicians fears about the public) did not want a repeat of WW1. Historically in RL, the UK casualties were so far short of WW1 that it was not the fear of casualties for their effect on the public that mattered in late 44-45. It was the pools, the sheer lack of men to run the armed forces at the size then in place. On the other hand early on, there was a huge fear that the invasion of France would be very bloody, and high casualties in 1943/early 44 before it happened would have amplified this. Thus I think the manpower shortage should be left to look after itself, and the VP should be cut progressively from June 1944 to the end of the war. The base level at start and for the first year of the game then needs consideration.

There is then an incentive on the Germans to resist in France, and maybe counter attack before the VPs drop - you are not forced to do Bulge, but it acquires a sort of logic rather than hang on in stubborn defence throughout 1945..



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 2:39:48 PM)



There already is an incentive to attack. Just because some people choose not to, or don't have to because the allies are not pursuing vps by strat bombing doesn't mean that the Germans should stay defensive.

In my last game, I attacked a Beachhead in Italy with my mechanized forces...not because I thought I could push them back to the sea, but because I would inflict 3000-6000 casualties on them in a turn. Which would equate to around -10 to -17 vps in casualty points.

I did that two turns in a row...and probably would have continued it for a couple more turns before having to refit my panzers. I would do the same at Normandy or anywhere else the allies wish to land. Especially in areas where they don't project massive amounts of airpower.

I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.

I also see a danger of people trying to eliminate any source of vps for the Germans. This is a two player game...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total. Otherwise the game will just end when the allies reach their magic number. You don't necessarily need a balance, but the more out of whack it is, the easier it will be for the allies.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:04:11 PM)

quote:

[I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.


Is that not how most people play, except with FOW on? VPs seem to be the main motivator for actions.

In my campaign against Pelton my main goal is to destroy German Forces. I was careful not to take the invasion VP hits and I bombed the targets that were high priority.
Now Ive thrown VPs to the wind and am doing what I think will cause the elimination of German resistance on the field of battle, that will result in German units being forced to surrender.


quote:

...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total.


True. They get VPs for what the Allies fail to do as in ; Invasion time limits and for vweapons and subs due to the damage they would cause if not destroyed by the Allies.

Yet the Allies get no VPs for German ground losses. and Germans get the same Allied losses VPs whether attacking or defending.

Some way to account for "All Types of Destruction to Enemy" and "Territory Held" for both sides.







LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:25:55 PM)


It seems to me that most people aren't even aware of what the vps are. I've seen people get surprised by the NO BEACHEAD penalty for example. I think people would rather play by pushing counters around without any thought to whether it hurts or helps vps.


No...I think most people play emotionally and not logically with vps in mind which makes them easy to beat.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:35:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


It seems to me that most people aren't even aware of what the vps are. I've seen people get surprised by the NO BEACHEAD penalty for example. I think people would rather play by pushing counters around without any thought to whether it hurts or helps vps.


No...I think most people play emotionally and not logically with vps in mind which makes them easy to beat.



Maybe so, Iam probably just taking into account power players and what gets posted about more and Ive only played 1 person. And VPs need to be in the background of the process.


quote:

"...play emotionally and not logically with vps "



To play emotionally and logically but without a concern for VPs.






whoofe -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:35:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

[I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.


Is that not how most people play, except with FOW on? VPs seem to be the main motivator for actions.

In my campaign against Pelton my main goal is to destroy German Forces. I was careful not to take the invasion VP hits and I bombed the targets that were high priority.
Now Ive thrown VPs to the wind and am doing what I think will cause the elimination of German resistance on the field of battle, that will result in German units being forced to surrender.


quote:

...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total.


True. They get VPs for what the Allies fail to do as in ; Invasion time limits and for vweapons and subs due to the damage they would cause if not destroyed by the Allies.

Yet the Allies get no VPs for German ground losses. and Germans get the same Allied losses VPs whether attacking or defending.

Some way to account for "All Types of Destruction to Enemy" and "Territory Held" for both sides.







i suppose its possible you could forgo short term VPs by taking casualties while weakening the german army enough that you can stroll to Berlin early and regain the VPs in the long run.




KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 3:45:10 PM)

quote:

i suppose its possible you could forgo short term VPs by taking casualties while weakening the german army enough that you can stroll to Berlin early and regain the VPs in the long run.


[:)]Exactly! Even If the VPs are at -1000 in the Germans favor yet they are destroyed as a fighting force and the nation is under foreign occupation.... how high is too much of a cost to achieve that? I will do all the maintain as low as possible causalities.

example
Is it not better to suffer higher losses in a short time span than to suffer even more over a longer span.



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 4:28:46 PM)



You guys are basically arguing that it is okay to lose more vps now so you can get less later.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 4:31:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



You guys are basically arguing that it is okay to lose more vps now so you can get less later.


HAAAAAAA!!! thats what the enemy never expects! [:)]



Seminole -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 5:04:49 PM)

In my mind the foremost 'victory' determinant is how much of Europe the Allies can liberate.

Where I would want to start tweaking is in the value placed on city control points.
I'd like to see some games actually played to the end to see how these values play out, but in working Harry's example it seems the trade off between capturing German cities and the losses required to do so make them unappealing, and that shouldn't be the case.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (12/22/2015 5:27:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


There already is an incentive to attack. Just because some people choose not to, or don't have to because the allies are not pursuing vps by strat bombing doesn't mean that the Germans should stay defensive.

In my last game, I attacked a Beachhead in Italy with my mechanized forces...not because I thought I could push them back to the sea, but because I would inflict 3000-6000 casualties on them in a turn. Which would equate to around -10 to -17 vps in casualty points.

I did that two turns in a row...and probably would have continued it for a couple more turns before having to refit my panzers. I would do the same at Normandy or anywhere else the allies wish to land. Especially in areas where they don't project massive amounts of airpower.


Assuming the units on the beachhead were non-American 3000 to 6000 casualties is only 4.5 to 9 VPs per turn. But maybe you were talking about the points you earned for 2 turns of attacks. In any event I get your point. But I am not suggesting getting rid of the casualty VPs altogether. I am suggesting it be scaled back in 44 and again in 45. I also have a problem with the game rewarding a player in VPs for doing something that historically was neither a military or political objective. Historically the Germans did not attack Allied beachheads for the purpose of inflicting casualties, their purpose was to drive them back into the sea. Near the end of the War one of Eisenhowsers expressed objectives was to kill Germans rather than capture territory, yet the Allies get no VPs for German casualties.

quote:

I am thinking that to truly figure out if how the vp system works you need two opponents who are thinking utmost of winning the game, instead of roleplaying one side or the other....and they should play with FOW off for optimum play.


Well then I think you may be getting your wish in the game between Carlkay and QBall. As I understand it Carlkay is a master with Strategic Bombing and he is now turtling to gain as many VPs as possible. The only problem I suppose is that QBall probably has not been attacking to try and rack up as many casualty VPs as he can. Maybe this will change as their game moves into 45.

quote:

I also see a danger of people trying to eliminate any source of vps for the Germans. This is a two player game...the Germans need some sort of method of gaining vps against the allied total. Otherwise the game will just end when the allies reach their magic number. You don't necessarily need a balance, but the more out of whack it is, the easier it will be for the allies.


I am not suggesting "eliminating" Allied casualties as a source of VPs for the Germans. I am suggesting reducing the VPs the Germans get for this and replacing it with VPs for holding certain strategic cities. Well actually of course the Germans don't get VPs for anything, but rather the Allies get negative VPs.

As an aside I think the current VP system of the game favours the Allies to win the game; at least with competent players on both sides. In both games against QBall he will end the game holding more geography than the Germans did historically. Yet in both games he has no chance of winning even a minor victory and is at risk of losing both games. In my game I think he probably could and should have counter attacked more often then he has so far; but I don't think it would have made any significant difference. On the other hand it is my opinion that it is too tough for the Allies to win the war (ie by conquering as much territory as they did historically). So if VPs were solely awarded based on cities captured vis a vis historical than the Germans would win most games.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.671875