Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE

Gary Grigsby’s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made. Starting with the Summer 1943 invasions of Sicily and Italy and proceeding through the invasions of France and the drive into Germany, War in the West brings you all the Allied campaigns in Western Europe and the capability to re-fight the Western Front according to your plan.

Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer

User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

Piss poor design which can be exploited like WitE

Post by Peltonx »

18.2 is a exploiters wet dream and really Middle Earth.

if subsequently no allied hexes are controlled in a zone the garrison requirement will immediately return

That's just plain Middle Earth sorry but I am being nice.

1. Allies land 5 divisions in Northern Italy or Northern Europe.
2. Garrison levels magicly drop.
3. Germany has to react pulling divisions from zones close by.
4. Allies see Germans react so they pull out.
5. Gandalf waves his magic wand and garrison levels majicly go back up.

Middle Earth

If the Allied player invades garrison levels should never go back up, this is rewarding poor game play and clear exploitation of a piss poor design.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Baelfiin »

I guess only way you can score points as the allies. I have thought about trying to bomb the crap out of garrison cities to see if I can get the CV to go below ten to get some points that way. I doubt it will work but.. . .
Seems like any game that is going well VP wise for the allies involves gaming the system.
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by RedLancer »

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.
 
You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?
 
How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not stonewalling - I just want to understand your obvious frustration.  As I understand the garrison levels not only control partisan effects but also the strategic imperative to have troops stationed in certain areas.

You've explained that you think the garrison rules should not go back up but why do you think that shouldn't be the case?  After a failed invasion would partisans and a repeat invasion in the same area be more or less likely?

How is a failed invasion gamey?  Is this more to do with VP allocations?

Its a great way for the WAs to gain VPs. The most effective one in the game actually.
1. WAs land in Nortern Europe.
2. Axis Garrison requirements drop so the Axis player moves out units to combat the landing.
3. The WAs pull back from Nortern Europe.
4. Garrison requirements are magically back and the Axis player won´t have a chance to move his units back to meet them.
5. Boom! Massive VP gain for the WA.

This is what happens and will continue to happen with the disastrous VP system. WA players are turning every rock and stone trying to find ways to avoid combat and the massive VP drain that comes with it. Avoiding combat. In a war game. [8|]



Image
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by RedLancer »

So to paraphrase this isn't directly about the garrison requirement but the resulting VP allocation.
 
So how would you change it ? 
 
Although there is danger of the woman that swallowed a fly routine being followed is the answer not in changing the garrison rules but having a failed invasion penalty for the Allies.  That said how you might code that is beyond me. 
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

So to paraphrase this isn't directly about the garrison requirement but the resulting VP allocation.

So how would you change it ? 

Although there is danger of the woman that swallowed a fly routine being followed is the answer not in changing the garrison rules but having a failed invasion penalty for the Allies.  That said how you might code that is beyond me. 

Again with the penalties. [8|] I´ve never seen so many rules and penalties in a game that is applied with the sole purpose of forcing people to do something specific. That such an amount is needed is a clear indicator in itself that the entire VP system is not working.

Land in Italy or get punished.
Land in Europe or get punished.
Bomb U-boats or get punished. Then bomb V-Weapons or get punished.
Attack Germans and even though you win you get punished.
If the Germans attack you. You get punished.

If you had a well designed working VP system people would do those things willingly rather then you having to force them to do so with huge penalties. And the immediate response to fix things when people find ways to circumvent the imposed VP penalties is: More penalties and rules?

No one thought it might be a better idea to actually award people for going in a certain direction instead of punishing them for not doing it? It might not sound like a big difference but it is. A little reading on the human psyche will tell you this.

Want to fix this? Get rid of the stupid VP penalties for ground combat and/or slap a big VP treasure in Italy. I promise you people will go there. Will work much better then adding a couple of pages in the rulebook with more penalties.

Image
Denniss
Posts: 8868
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Denniss »

Does the AI react properly if the garrison level jump upwards or is it confused as well?
If an Axis player sends allied units back to their ships at which time does the garrison level jump upwards? If it's immediately after clearing them from Axis Europe or in the Allied Logphase or in the Axis Logphase with VP allocation to allied player then I'd count it as (major) Bug, if it's in the Axis Log phase without having VP effects for any player it's somewhat problematic but not a bug.
At least the Axis player should get a popup/warning about raised garrison levels.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by RedLancer »

As I said before the VPs represent strategic imperatives which like them or not are a big part of waging war.  It's an curious setup having a penalty system for the side that actually 'wins'. 
 
Whilst I concede that penalties are very negative they probably represent a more realistic spin on the factors in military planning than bonuses.  Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting so avoiding combat is not a bad thing.
 
Just to explore this further how would you implement a positive VP system in Italy and of course beyond? 
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Baelfiin »

In was too late to avoid fighting in September 1939.
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As I said before the VPs represent strategic imperatives which like them or not are a big part of waging war.  It's an curious setup having a penalty system for the side that actually 'wins'. 

Whilst I concede that penalties are very negative they probably represent a more realistic spin on the factors in military planning than bonuses.  Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting so avoiding combat is not a bad thing.

Just to explore this further how would you implement a positive VP system in Italy and of course beyond? 

Oh, I agree 100%. The current VP system reflects the realities the WA faces very well.

But its a bad VP system for a game for many reason. The most obvious one is that you don´t punish people when they attack even if they win? This is what led to the situation where you had to start putting in more penalties to force people to attack?

I have to get back to you on a positive VP system for Italy later tonight. Need to think on it. (And pick up the kids from kindergarten) [:)]
Image
User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Baelfiin »

I think it is bad if you score a lot of points through an artificial mechanic because you evacuate an invasion. I am pretty sure if the Germans saw a multidivisional landing in Netherlands that they were not going to immediately be thinking that they have to get back to their posts in France because of the impending big invasion that just happened somewhere else.
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by marion61 »

As far as Italy is concerned, maybe raise the city vp modifier back to what it was originally. You got some decent points if you captured Rome earlier than Jan'44 before it changes, and you can use the vp's you got to help tide you thru all those casualty vp's your going to lose fighting.

Losing vp's to shipping is a hard pill to swallow, but without changing how many vp's you lose for casualties I'm not sure that can be coded separately.

Vp's for casualties could be tweaked some. As the WA's you have to attack, but at the same time your hobbled by casualties. I know all those poor widows cried for their loved ones, and made their congressmen stress over casualties, but they should be happy that we're killing way more Germans and we should get some positive vp's for that? In my game with NOSB, he suffered 2.3million casualties, and that didn't affect war morale in Germany? Plus the axis can just use little **** units to do pointless attacks, that cause you casualties, and so you lose vp's to a **** regiment. German commander's would never have attacked needlessly. They would have been shot.

Until the city modifiers changed a few versions ago I always tried for Rome before December to get the vp's from it. This stockpiled me some positive vp's for when I invaded in '44. It just needs a little tweak here and there, and yes playing the WA's can be hard and you can't make a big mistake, but I'm sure we can work this out. Peace, love, and happiness?

I did forget to bitch about the EF Box, but maybe in another thread.
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Smirfy »

A couple hundred of marines raided Lofoten in March 41 and it resulted in 150 batteries of Artillery being transferred to Norway.

Do German garrison provisions in Greece and Yugoslavia go up when Italiy surrenders?
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by JocMeister »

After some careful thought... [;)]

Here is what I would roughly try to do.

-Get rid of the negative VPs from combat all together. Instead of limiting the WA by negative VPs they should be limited by a finite pool of resources (men, guns, AFVs etc). Just like the Axis side. The Devs should have a tonne of experience balancing this from years of WitE and data from WitW Beta tests? Should be doable? And should feel a lot less artificial then being restricted by something as abstract as VP points.

-Remove the penalties for not invading in the "right place". Replace with big VP scores for capturing major objectives like Rome, Paris, Berlin. Award more VPs for an early capture. So capturing Rome before 44 is up gives a big VP score while taking it in late 45 hardly gives anything. This way you can "funnel" the WAs in the right direction.

-Remove negative VPs for U-boats and V-Weapons. Instead give a bonus for hitting them over hitting oil/fuel/hi/man. This gives a better sense of freedom for the WAs and gets rid of the unnatural force concentration that is currently happening around Hamburg.

-Start the VP scale at 0. No negative VPs. Put a scoring scale on it. Say 0-XXX= Axis major victory and so on. The actual numbers will of course have to be calculated.

I think a system like that would feel a lot more natural for any gamer. You have one side attacking trying to gain points and one side defending trying to defend the points. I´m no mathematician but I think given the data that should be available for this game that I should be possible to calculate the actual VPs fairly accurate?

Obviously there are other things to take into consideration but this is a roughly what I would try and do.



Image
whoofe
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:09 am

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by whoofe »

maybe the reason there is positive and negative VPs is so the balance can shift back and forth. if its a straight positive VP range, then once the allies have reached a certain point total, the axis can no longer win, and possibly loses incentive to continue

I do agree with others, however, that some changes need to be made. it may just require some minor rebalancing, I dunno. I am still working my way thru my first full match vs the AI, so I haven't fully grasped all the finer points yet. but several of the AARs make it clear that some scoring points can be improved upon

marion61
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:57 am

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by marion61 »

And what about not starting a campaign with -50vps for the allies? Those belong to the previous commander, not the new one. Allowing the axis to start with 1/6 of the vp's required for a minor victory for them seems biased. I know it has been explained before, but it's still not easy to live with starting a balanced scenario with negative points.
moss
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:04 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by moss »

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Does the AI react properly if the garrison level jump upwards or is it confused as well?

I would say that it probably reacts as GG intends. That is, it should not cause a VP swing. I have not tested this personally.

From the manual (p168 Game Play Info on top right)
To provide a better gaming experience, the Axis
AI is not impacted by the garrison and partisan
rules. It will try to meet garrison requirements, but
we found it was too hard for the AI to manage the
garrisons properly, while it does not take advantage
of not having to play by the rules. No VPs will be
scored due to the lack of or overabundance of
garrisons when the AI is playing the Axis side.
GrumpyMel
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:37 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by GrumpyMel »

While the VP point system probably accurately reflects what the Allied Commanders had to face, it doesn't necessarily make for a good game, any more then having to play while eating cold spam in the rain would. I would say a simpler VP system that gave an award for cities/territory held at the end of the game would be best. Let everything else have some actual effect on gameplay. Active U-boat sites could cause greater chance of transport loss, and slow the flow of supplies, replacements to the Allies. Active V-weapons could reduce the morale of troops. For the Germans, failure to garrison properly would cause partisan activity which would cause factory and rail line damage, loss of production, manpower, etc. The value really shouldn't change because of an invasion.... the Resistance isn't suddenly going to get LESS active because the Allies have boots on the ground somewhere. The Axis should be choosing between loss of productivity from whatever areas they are occupying (effecting long term strategic capabilities) and the immediate need to respond to an invasion. For the Allies (and Axis too) casualty concerns should be about worrying that they have sufficient replacements to staff their units.... and the morale and experience levels of the men in the units. YMMV.



User avatar
Nico165b165
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:54 pm
Location: Mons, Belgique

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by Nico165b165 »

I think the problem with this precise garrison VP-swing is the time axis has to react.

If the VP hit comes direct after the last WA unit pulled out, the player has no time to react and it's bad design and a possible exploit.

If the VP hit comes back after a few turn, or if it would be added back progressively (simulating the need for partisans to reorganise to the new situation on the ground), then axis has time to react accordingly.

I wouldn't try to correct a penalty problem by adding another penalty. Chances are it would cause further problems down the road. Just optimize the one in place.
User avatar
NotOneStepBack
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:30 pm

RE: Piss poor design which can be exploited

Post by NotOneStepBack »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

After some careful thought... [;)]

Here is what I would roughly try to do.

-Get rid of the negative VPs from combat all together. Instead of limiting the WA by negative VPs they should be limited by a finite pool of resources (men, guns, AFVs etc). Just like the Axis side. The Devs should have a tonne of experience balancing this from years of WitE and data from WitW Beta tests? Should be doable? And should feel a lot less artificial then being restricted by something as abstract as VP points.

-Remove the penalties for not invading in the "right place". Replace with big VP scores for capturing major objectives like Rome, Paris, Berlin. Award more VPs for an early capture. So capturing Rome before 44 is up gives a big VP score while taking it in late 45 hardly gives anything. This way you can "funnel" the WAs in the right direction.

-Remove negative VPs for U-boats and V-Weapons. Instead give a bonus for hitting them over hitting oil/fuel/hi/man. This gives a better sense of freedom for the WAs and gets rid of the unnatural force concentration that is currently happening around Hamburg.

-Start the VP scale at 0. No negative VPs. Put a scoring scale on it. Say 0-XXX= Axis major victory and so on. The actual numbers will of course have to be calculated.

I think a system like that would feel a lot more natural for any gamer. You have one side attacking trying to gain points and one side defending trying to defend the points. I´m no mathematician but I think given the data that should be available for this game that I should be possible to calculate the actual VPs fairly accurate?

Obviously there are other things to take into consideration but this is a roughly what I would try and do.




This is totally true, and what I've been saying since beta. +1

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the West”