Fallschirmjager
Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Interesting thread, thanks for the feedback.
As for the VPs, the Garrison and bombing points reflect real world issues that impact what the player's could do. I don't see how you scrap the garrison rules and the bombing rules without causing all kinds of other gimmicks and distortions. We take points away for casualties, but in the end, the biggest points are for getting to Berlin and ending the war. You can't do that without casualties. I said we are not interested in coming up with an entirely different set of victory conditions. Tweaking the current system to generate a better balanced game is always possible. However, to do that, we need data points, not theory. We'd like to see some games go the distance and show us where the points can be improved. As for gaining extra points from garrisons. I'd be surprised if very large amounts of points are being scored for extra garrisons, but if you're seeing a situation where this is happening, by all means post a note about it with a save game or email it to 2by3@2by3games.com and we'll take a look. As for the balance, I think it's way to early to say what that is, especially given Pavel's recent adjustments for naval interdiction. Also, we had some nasty bugs where beachheads in Italy were not getting supplies when they should have, and this could have impacted some of the failed invasions. All in all, I haven't seen the evidence that the game is unbalanced, but we keep an eye on the AARs so the best way to push for a change is to post an AAR of a game, especially one that goes the distance.
I don't have many suggestions since my play time is still low. But I do have some nebulous ideas forming.
First, I like the idea of losing men meaning something.
But I think the VP hit is rather severe. I think a better system was something that was in WitP
You gained points by destroying the enemy and they gained points by destroying you.
That seems to make sense. If you plan out an invasion and an attack well, you are going to lose men, but you are going to destroy the enemy.
I understand the decision behind the design. Human lives meant a lot to the western allies and huge losses did not sit well politically.
But for all the talk about the allied armies being a rapier instead of a hammer. They turned out to be a pretty dull rapier and ended up being a hammer. The winter of 43 in Italy, Normandy, the Bulge, Breaking into the West Wall, Tunisia.
All of the big operations turned into wars of mass attrition and the Allies took huge losses.
I also understand having a component built into the scoring system of the Allies wanting to take territory. But that was always a secondary goal.
Capturing Naples, Rome, Lyon, Paris and Berlin were always attractive prestige and political targets. But by December of 1944 SHEAF and Allied high command realized that taking Berlin was not their goal.
The overall allied strategy was to destroy the Axis to the point where they could no longer make effective war. And they did that they destroying their field armies, their ability to put new soldiers into the field and their ability to arm those soldiers.
Third, I completely understand the decision behind forced bombing of U-Boats and V-Weapons. This was a political reality. But it is not working in game terms.
I will have to do some more thinking on this matter. But the negative VP system simply does not work.
Perhaps something else could be done. Perhaps for not hitting V-Weapons, British and Commonwealth units begin to suffer morale and fatigue penalties since the home front is suffering?
Or perhaps political tension increases and their is an increasing penalty and a turn delay placed on when British and CW troops arrive?
Right now I have to spend so much of my resources with constant bombing that I cannot bomb other aspects of the Axis war machine at anywhere near approaching a historical rate.
And for U-Boats, if you do not bomb them. Then this plays a role in naval interdiction and the battle of the Atlantic is not as decisive as in real life and the flow of supply from America suffers penalties.
These are just some ideas to throw out there, I will have to give it some more thought.
The problem is that while there were political pressure, we have the ability of hindsight and the bombing campaign against U-Boats and V-Weapons was not very effective.
Bombing the factories themselves was not very effective since they began so widely dispersed and dozens of small factories assembled the components. Bombing V-Weapon sites themselves had almost no effect at all.
Bombing U-Boats pens has almost no effect due to how well protected they were and the imprecision of weapons of the day.
The U-Boat war was not won due to bombing. It was won due to technology in escorting, sonar, radar, depth charges and air patrols.
The V-Weapon war was won when the Allies cleared the Channel coast and took away the launch sites by occupation.
This is hard to model in the game.
Again, I feel like I am being overly critical. But I just want this game to succeed and 90% of it does. It just needs a few redesigns and some tweaks.
I have nothing to say about garrison rules because I have yet to actually come up against them. I will try and play a game as the Axis in the next few weeks and see exactly how that aspect works.
Without any knowledge, it seems like instead of having VP penalties for not garrisoning properly that the Partisan penalties should be cranked up.
If you strip areas of garrison troops, then partisans should flare up and have a field day destroying railroads, airfields (and their planes), factories etc
In HOI III, if as a Axis you did not keep troops in your rear areas, partisan troops could actually get to the point where they could actually take over territory and do damage.
In WitP if as as the Japanese or British you do not garrison properly then you lose VPs due to damage.
I think everything in the game should revolve around the Axis trying to maintain it's ability to make war and the Allies attempt to destroy their ability to make war.
Maybe I am just too much a part of the school of Napoleon 
< Message edited by Fallschirmjager -- 2/25/2015 3:48:45 AM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Does WITW Favor the Germans? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread