RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (Full Version)

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



Message

JeffroK -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/4/2016 10:32:17 AM)

IMVHO, the VP system in WITW is an attempt to force players into recreating history. It also feels like the Army is there to attract targets for the AirForce

VP for strategic bombing of specific targets, landing in Italy & France, keeping garrison levels up, avoiding losses etc.

If more time had been put into the game there would be other ways of "encouraging" players to follow similar strategies by means of rewards/penalties and the game may have taken another 12 mths and cost 50% more.

Bombing Uboats, Germans get a number of boats manufactured (like aircraft),If you bomb the factories they don't get built, bomb the pens and they are less effective. Failure to do so sees increased interdiction levels in the Atlantic (subject to Coastal Command commitment) and a decrease in "supplies" arriving in the UK.

Bombing V-Weapons, similar, destroy factories and VSites and you stop the rain of V1/2 which damage ports.

Germans dont lose VP for lack of garrisons, but dont keep up the numbers and the Resistance creates havoc with your LOC & Depots.

A good player should be avoiding losses, and have manpower limits which should bite if you are too profligate with your troops. (Especially with troops from NZ, Sth Africa, Poland & maybe pre DDay French, very limited reinforcements)

I'd like to see a "National Morale" system, too many UBoats & V weapons and the Brits suffer a loss to morale which affects production/reinforcements, No Luftwaffe and the same happens to Germany etc

I know these sort of changes cannot be made to WITW but it should be how things are approached, not the "hit with a stick approach" currently used.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/4/2016 5:41:35 PM)

More or less. VPs are there to enable people to tell who has won the game (otherwise it isn't a game!). Germany is going down, and hence you cannot have a Chess like win condition which is the same for both sides. Otherwise Germany needs to capture London to win! So, in an asymmetric game you need a 'did you lose (historically) less badly than average, and hence in game terms have you won?' mechanism.

Once you have this mechanism, you can use it to allow for things that are not in game as you say, like the effect of Uboat production on Atlantic freight, or the effect of V weapons landing on London on a major democratic government. This is what most of your examples are. However, you have misunderstood one. The manpower issue is key. The UK did not run out of manpower - the casualties did not significantly affect the number of able bodies in the labour pool - deaths were less than 1% of prewar population for the whole war. Whilst this is obviously higher as a % of working age adults, roughly 50% of the workforce was on war related work by late 1944, so it is a good order of magnitude figure. The US was even less limited by casualties, yet they transferred technical stream recruits to the infantry in late 1944!

The issue is the available manpower was fully allocated, that is any further increases required some other critical activity to give it up (not necessarily war related). Previously, undirected resource was still being taken up (more women to the services or the land who previously didn't work or had non-directed jobs such as domestic service, completion of the call up for the affected ages etc). The Army could have been kept at full strength for a while past 1945 at the cost of other projects; the UK knew the war was won and were allocating resources to post war efforts. Did you know that the British welfare state is dated to the Beveridge report, which was presented to Parliament in Nov 1942! Much government effort went into planning the reform of education in 1944. Significant change was started from mid 1945 (i.e. as soon as the European war was over). Thus managing the desire to limit casualties solely on the manpower pool would be very unrealistic. If the war went pear shaped, manpower would have been made available, and the situation would have been reversed. But, allowing it to go pear shaped to the extent that manpower needs to be made available must be seen as poor play by a WA player...The game must allow the manpower be available to reverse the situation, but needs to penalise (lose points) the player for needing to use it (i.e. having high casualties). There is also the public opinion effect on a democratic government of high casualties, but in my opinion, the UK would have accepted it as long as the war was going well and an end could be seen. Thus the reason for the VP loss for causalities is (IMHO) not what people usually think it is... Public opinion/morale would not be the issue, the disruption of plans for after the war is key.



Joel Billings -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/4/2016 8:40:31 PM)

I just want to throw in that although I understand the reasoning and desire to build in-game reasons to perform some actions now incentivized through the VP system, some items are there to offset things that can't be as easily built in. German garrisons come to mind. They weren't just there to defeat local partisans. They were there because German high command only had a limited appreciation of the amphibious capabilities of the Allies. V-weapons were almost entirely a political weapon in that the damage they did was fairly minor and not enough to impact Allied capabilities. The political need to cut down on the V-weapons far outweighed any damage that could be reflected in the game. These are just a few examples. I also agree that providing all the in-game effects could be time-consuming, and as always we have to make trade-offs with our resources.

Not trying to sidetrack this active and interesting discussion, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on this part of it.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/5/2016 8:21:55 PM)

With all the discussions in different threads, reading and contemplation of the system I can see that much thought has gone into the VP system.


The VP system is fuzzy and variable and to nail down every possible outcome would take a lot of game data. A estimation of the real WW2 VPs into game terms would interesting. The Vweapons and Uboots play in with justification.


There is the ability to shift focus within the VP system itself. VPs can be abandoned all together for a max focus on battlefield results or one can do the reverse. And of course any point of varing degree or equalization. And you can switch strategies at any time, you can change to a new one each turn.

The fact that the VPs system is so variable and open may be the exact thing that causes it to seem out of whack, because its being played in a way to achieve a out of whack result.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 12:38:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

With all the discussions in different threads, reading and contemplation of the system I can see that much thought has gone into the VP system.


The VP system is fuzzy and variable and to nail down every possible outcome would take a lot of game data. A estimation of the real WW2 VPs into game terms would interesting. The Vweapons and Uboots play in with justification.


There is the ability to shift focus within the VP system itself. VPs can be abandoned all together for a max focus on battlefield results or one can do the reverse. And of course any point of varing degree or equalization. And you can switch strategies at any time, you can change to a new one each turn.

The fact that the VPs system is so variable and open may be the exact thing that causes it to seem out of whack, because its being played in a way to achieve a out of whack result.


I am not disputing that a lot of thought went into the VP System and I am not trying to completely over throw the System either. What I am saying is that not enough thought went into how the VP System affects the End Game from Late Summer 44 (and perhaps earlier) on. The current system penalizes the Allies (or, if you want, rewards the Germans) for taking casualties. At the same time the VP System rewards the Allies for capturing and holding certain hexes (Cities and Urban hexes) by awarding a few VPs per turn. However, no VPs (positive or negative) are awarded for holding or not holding these objectives at Games End. So it is inevitable that in every game (except those where the capture of Berlin is likely) a point will be reached where the negative casualty VPs the Allied Player will incur for capturing an objective will be greater than the VPs he will gain from holding that Objective until Games End. Therefore the smart Allied Player will simply stop attacking and, if he does so, the smart German Player will start attacking.

So I am not sure what you mean when you say that the the "VP system... may seem out of whack because it is being played to achieve a out of whack result". Do you mean that playing the game to Win (by not attacking as the Allies in the last part of the game or attacking as the Germans) is playing in a way to achieve a out of whack result? Or do you mean continuing to attack as the Allies (as I am doing) is playing in a way to achieve an out of whack result?

Either way I continue to maintain that the VP System does not just "seem" to be out of whack, it is out of whack. Or at least it is out of whack with the historical objectives and motivations of the Allies and Germans.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 2:33:26 AM)

I didnt mean to speak comments for anyone but myself.


Out of whack not in a bad way but in that the end score does not always sync with how well one is doing at the end.


Take for example a chemical reaction. It only matters what the start energy state and the end energy state are, no matter if there is 1 or 1000 steps inbetween.


For the VP system it's the opposite; the steps matter more, not so much the end state itself.



JeffroK -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 5:32:27 AM)

The VP system is out of whack because you can win the game without winning the war, or win the war without winning the game(this is a bit harder)



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 3:25:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The VP system is out of whack because you can win the game without winning the war, or win the war without winning the game(this is a bit harder)




Yes, it would have to be played within just the right parameters to win the game and win the war (land wise), as the system is open and flexible which may be as it was intended.



JeffroK -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 6:34:19 PM)

But in playing WITW the VP must replicate history, if you were playing some hypothetical scenario they can be "open & flexible"



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 6:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

But in playing WITW the VP must replicate history, if you were playing some hypothetical scenario they can be "open & flexible"




Absolutely not. VP's do not replicate history. In this way lies madness.

It's July 1943....how important is:

Caen. One year later it will be the focus of many major offensives for a month. At the beginning of the game I doubt any Allied Generals are even thinking of the place.
Arnhem. A year and a half later it will be the objective of a major campaign to end the war....again..nobody knows where it is in July 1943.
Bastogne. Held behind enemy lines. Rescued by an army. Meaningless town in 1943.

There are certain history in play at the beginning of the game. The allies are committed to invading Sicily. They want to knock Italy out of the war, but haven't quite figured out how yet. They tentatively want to invade around Taranto, the Toe and/or Sardinia.
They really really want to invade France as early as possible.
They want to bomb cities and industry to knock Germany out of the war.

That's it..thats all the history you have in July 1943. From here on in, as the allied player you are creating your own history.

VP's are just a measure on how well you play a game. There is no extra reward for mimicking history.

Winning the war is just your opponent conceding. Everything else is just points.



KWG -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 7:08:15 PM)

Seems that if the Allied player does better than say..historical results in bombing Uboots, German Production and takes some cities quicker with less casualties then having not conquered Germany is not as much of a loss to Allies therefore Allies win in VPs

And the reverse is true... You can capture Berlin but lose in VPs.... due to UBoots, un-bombed Germany production and high Allied casualties. Which could be considered as worse than historical results.

Should it be Berlin (or as much of Germany as possible) at any price?



szmike -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 8:11:36 PM)

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/6/2016 11:40:37 PM)



I was going to try taking Berlin in one of my allied games. Hitting Italy with everything and just moving up. Half the German army will be forced to sit in Garrison in France et al. But I would be hit with the 1000 point penalty for not invading.

Still....getting into Germany and taking Berlin might be worth it in the end. It could have been a case of winning the war but losing the game.



SigUp -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/7/2016 12:01:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.

No it shouldn't. Two points, first, with EF Box on the game can run until August 1945. There is no reason capturing Berlin in July 1945 for example should be rewarded with a major victory. None.

Second, the VP system is built to encourage a multidimensional approach. Strategic bombing, taking care in minimising losses etc. If you make Berlin auto-victory you will get cases of Allied players giving a damn about losses, strategic bombing, landings in Italy whatever all in pursuit of Berlin.



JeffroK -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/7/2016 5:35:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

I think capturing Berlin should enable Allied major victory regardless of VPs.

No it shouldn't. Two points, first, with EF Box on the game can run until August 1945. There is no reason capturing Berlin in July 1945 for example should be rewarded with a major victory. None.

Second, the VP system is built to encourage a multidimensional approach. Strategic bombing, taking care in minimising losses etc. If you make Berlin auto-victory you will get cases of Allied players giving a damn about losses, strategic bombing, landings in Italy whatever all in pursuit of Berlin.

Strangely that sounds like the US Army Victory Plan and land in France ASAP and drive on Berlin but the Brits were there to hobble them (and provide a level of sanity). Apart from losses, which should have their own negative effects, who gives a damn about strat bombing or landing in Italy??

"Auto Victory" for Berlin, maybe not but more points for capturing it earlier. Could be a "Feb-April" capture is AV, May gives lots of points, June onwards is less of a reward.

Of course, EF Box on makes modifications to this depending on how much is transferred above & beyond historical levels. (Take too much, Red Army gets the points for Berlin!)



JeffroK -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/7/2016 5:37:26 AM)

Finally, different people play for different reasons, I have my style and approach, others play their games differently. I wouldnt play against many, many would NOT enjoy playing against me.



SigUp -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/7/2016 7:40:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Strangely that sounds like the US Army Victory Plan and land in France ASAP and drive on Berlin but the Brits were there to hobble them (and provide a level of sanity). Apart from losses, which should have their own negative effects, who gives a damn about strat bombing or landing in Italy??

I take it that you are in favour of far lighter garrison requirements for the Germans, enabling them to use more divisions on the beaches then?

quote:

"Auto Victory" for Berlin, maybe not but more points for capturing it earlier. Could be a "Feb-April" capture is AV, May gives lots of points, June onwards is less of a reward.

Why in the world should there be any form of reward for capturing Berlin in June 1945? Even if the Soviets would have remained idle on the Oder the Allies would've taken Berlin in May. So you are basically saying the Allies should get a reward for capturing Berlin later than historically against a German force that's weaker than historically. Makes no sense.

Then, why should the Allies be the only party benefitting from a possible automatic victory? If the German sides holds onto Berlin until July (a full two months longer than historically!) why shouldn't they get the same treatment as the Allied player in the reverse case?

The game already gives a bonus for an early Berlin in form of (75 + City Points held) x #turns the game ended early. Now, we can debate about whether it should be a higher amount, but a) the devs chose a VP approach to keep both players on somewhat of a historical path b) even if you ignore that you still have to treat both sides the same. Right now your suggestions are only benefitting the Allies.



Seminole -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/7/2016 12:17:24 PM)

quote:

But I would be hit with the 1000 point penalty for not invading.


They've already patched the game to make the beachhead penalties optional, and adjustable.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 3:43:08 PM)

So my game with QBall is complete. Below is the final map. In fairness to QBall he really didn't try too hard to hold a line the last few turns as he knew the game was just about over and even if I surrounded his units or broke through I would not have time to destroy many units or capture Berlin.

[image]local://upfiles/14737/88334FC72FEF4067B673A28AEB523BEF.jpg[/image]



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 3:50:52 PM)

The Final VPs and some other Info. We had another bug with me getting -15 Vps one turn for VWPNs when it should have only been -1. So after bug adjustment the Final VPs are 266, so a Draw.



[image]local://upfiles/14737/68A4FB31D3E646FDB2119ADCD0EEEDAD.jpg[/image]



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 4:00:48 PM)

The VP graph for the whole game and the last 10 turns. As I think can be plainly seen I finished with far fewer VPs than I would have had if I had turtled at some point during the summer of 44. But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed. So from now on I for one will be turtling as the Allies. The only reason I continued attacking in this game was to see how far the Allies could drive and to prove a point. But since, like Liquid Sky, I generally play games to win (or at least to not lose as badly) the proper strategy is obvious. At least it should make for quicker games.

[image]local://upfiles/14737/19B4FFF59C90460EA2D01C2FA391387D.jpg[/image]



Seminole -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 4:09:23 PM)

He held onto more of Germany (and Italy) than 'historical', do you think the result of the game from your perspective (not simply the VP total) was a draw relative to history?



Joel Billings -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 5:11:05 PM)

Thanks for the info. Given that if the East Front is on, the Allies can lose a lot of points for not ending the war on time, a turtling Allied strategy might not be as effective. In this case, the Germans should be able to send a lot of troops east, and in theory delay the Soviets. This is not an option when the East Front is off as you know the war will end in early May no matter what the Allies do. I can see this being an issue, just not sure how the VPs could be adjusted to make things work out well for both EF on and EF off options.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 6:31:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

He held onto more of Germany (and Italy) than 'historical', do you think the result of the game from your perspective (not simply the VP total) was a draw relative to history?



Depends on how you look at it. If history is the sole judge than I guess a Minor German Victory would have been a fair result. But, IMHO, the Allies historically won this phase of the WitW so I personally think that if the Allied Player does as well as historical, or close thereto, he deserves to win a Minor Victory. Applying that to this particular game I would say that a Draw (but almost a Minor Victory) is a fair result.

But, of course, my point is that I could have easily won a Minor Victory if I had just stopped attacking at the end of summer in 44. That is the problem.



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 6:37:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Thanks for the info. Given that if the East Front is on, the Allies can lose a lot of points for not ending the war on time, a turtling Allied strategy might not be as effective. In this case, the Germans should be able to send a lot of troops east, and in theory delay the Soviets. This is not an option when the East Front is off as you know the war will end in early May no matter what the Allies do. I can see this being an issue, just not sure how the VPs could be adjusted to make things work out well for both EF on and EF off options.



Joel, I see your point. If my suggestion of giving negative VPs to the Allies for not taking certain objectives is used, than in an EF Box ON game the German Player might be better off moving lots of units from the East Front to the West front. Then even if the War ends early with a Soviet capture of Berlin he might still win the game.

Not sure as I have a solution, other than perhaps only using the Negative VPs I am suggesting for EF Box Off games only.




Seminole -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 7:56:05 PM)

quote:

But, of course, my point is that I could have easily won a Minor Victory if I had just stopped attacking at the end of summer in 44. That is the problem.


I agree with you that the VP system in a no EF box games incentivizes the Allied player to turtle at some point.

quote:

But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed.


Please don't think I don't care, or that this isn't a problem, I just haven't gotten a game to that point myself.

I'm not sure what all of our options are within the existing VP system - can the Allies be penalized (or Axis rewarded, however you choose to look at it) for not capturing cities?

I'm also not sure that reducing the bombing divisor addresses the problem - you reach a point where additional casualties will outweigh additional city control points and SB points due to city capture.
If we reduce the city control points divisor you just reward the player more for what he already grabbed. I think there is agreement that the incentive needs (I mean within the context of this struggle) to be getting to the Elbe.
Exactly what tools (given the mature code base) do we have for that? I don't see the path there by just tweaking divisors.



Peltonx -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 11:14:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I just want to throw in that although I understand the reasoning and desire to build in-game reasons to perform some actions now incentivized through the VP system, some items are there to offset things that can't be as easily built in. German garrisons come to mind. They weren't just there to defeat local partisans. They were there because German high command only had a limited appreciation of the amphibious capabilities of the Allies. V-weapons were almost entirely a political weapon in that the damage they did was fairly minor and not enough to impact Allied capabilities. The political need to cut down on the V-weapons far outweighed any damage that could be reflected in the game. These are just a few examples. I also agree that providing all the in-game effects could be time-consuming, and as always we have to make trade-offs with our resources.

Not trying to sidetrack this active and interesting discussion, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents on this part of it.


+1



Peltonx -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/19/2016 11:26:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMVHO, the VP system in WITW is an attempt to force players into recreating history. It also feels like the Army is there to attract targets for the AirForce

VP for strategic bombing of specific targets, landing in Italy & France, keeping garrison levels up, avoiding losses etc.

If more time had been put into the game there would be other ways of "encouraging" players to follow similar strategies by means
of rewards/penalties and the game may have taken another 12 mths and cost 50% more.


Bombing Uboats, Germans get a number of boats manufactured (like aircraft),If you bomb the factories they don't get built,
bomb the pens and they are less effective. Failure to do so sees increased interdiction levels in the Atlantic (subject to
Coastal Command commitment) and a decrease in "supplies" arriving in the UK.

Bombing V-Weapons, similar, destroy factories and VSites and you stop the rain of V1/2 which damage ports.

Germans dont lose VP for lack of garrisons, but dont keep up the numbers and the Resistance creates havoc with your LOC & Depots.

A good player should be avoiding losses, and have manpower limits which should bite if you are too profligate with your troops.
(Especially with troops from NZ, Sth Africa, Poland & maybe pre DDay French, very limited reinforcements)

I'd like to see a "National Morale" system, too many UBoats & V weapons and the Brits suffer a loss to morale which affects
production/reinforcements, No Luftwaffe and the same happens to Germany etc

I know these sort of changes cannot be made to WITW but it should be how things are approached, not the "hit with a stick approach" currently used.



So you know how much time was put into this game?
How do you know that?
You don't know sht about how much time was put into game or the cost.
We all have opinions, but your opinion is simply BS and wrong as you simply know nothing about what your talking about.
I was part of dev team and don't know cost/time ect ect.

I left because I have different opinions based on data, you have none.

2by3 did all the work, set up the game as they saw fit.

Its not perfect, but dam good.

The data (The facts) show that once 2by3 releases a game they support it and it improves to the point of being next to perfect - WitP/WitE.

If your going to OOOO pine start by not throwing out BS, like you know how muct time it takes to code the game or the costs.

I like to see your VP system.

What is it?



Harrybanana -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/20/2016 3:12:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole



quote:

But it does not appear that enough people think this is a problem or care enough to have it fixed.


Please don't think I don't care, or that this isn't a problem, I just haven't gotten a game to that point myself.



I wasn't talking about you Seminole, but rather about the silent majority who have not as yet provide their opinion on this subject one way or the other. But you may have hit the nail on the head that so few games make it to the End Game stage that many players just haven't yet seen the problem for themselves.



LiquidSky -> RE: Campaign Game VP System needs revision (1/20/2016 1:58:15 PM)



I have yet to play a game that didn't involve an awful lot of luck that wasn't decided in the middle, or was made clear what the inevitable conclusion is before the end approached.

That is just a fact of gaming. You can only really eliminate it by allowing extreme luck...a game like Advanced Squad Leader. Then you play on hoping for the extreme luck to save your ass.

Is there really a strategy that always works? For example will the allies always win by invading, turtling and just strat bombing to victory without attacking? Or can the Germans prevent such a win, if they suspect that is the route they are taking? If what the Germans do is meaningless because the allies can bomb cities to win, then there is a problem. I suspect, and will find out in my game with HarryBanana, that is not the case.

I think there is a counter to every strategy in the game, but some strategies are more effective to the unwary opponent.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625