1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

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

Post Reply
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by Harrybanana »

Has anyone else noticed a big increase in bombing VPs with 1.00.44? I ask because in my game against the AI it is June 1944 and last turn I scored 9 Bombing VPs (up from 7 the prior turn). I know that 1.00.44 did increase bombing damage to fuel and oil so I have been concentrating on them the last few turns. But still this seems like a lot of Bombing VPs for 1944 compared to my last game.
Robert Harris
carlkay58
Posts: 8770
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by carlkay58 »

Are you beginning to capture cities that have Fuel or Oil industry or any German cities?

Captured city industries are automatically 100% damaged and count towards the Bombing VPs. Wait until you capture the Ruhr Valley, then your Bomb VPs will be 20+/turn.
carlkay58
Posts: 8770
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by carlkay58 »

I just noticed your date. July 44 will have a new divisor . . . :)

I have managed 9 Bombing VPs or more in the first half of 44 fairly often. This is when the Ploesti Oil Fields and the Fuel sites located there are within range of the 15th US AF flying out of Sicily and Italy. That always helps in raising your Bombing VPs. The Vienna oil and fuel sites are also within range of the 15th US AF in southern Italy. The new divisor in July will lower you again but you can then start to have it climb still - just a slower rate of increase. Usually I see my Bomb VPs go down about half or thereabouts each time the divisor increases (Jan 44, Jul 44, Jan 45) but then start to raise back up. As I mentioned in the above post - once you have gotten into Germany your Bomb VPs go up as the industries you capture are counted as 100% damaged and the points available in the Ruhr Valley are huge.
User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by heliodorus04 »

As a non-owner of the title, what does the 'divisor' represent historically?
From the sound of it, divisor's lower the amount of VPs the allies get in bombing? Am I comprehending that correctly?
I ask because I'm getting ready to purchase.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
carlkay58
Posts: 8770
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by carlkay58 »

There are two divisors in the game. The Allies get VPs for controlling cities and bombing industries (among other things). There is a City VP divisor and a Bombing VP divisor. Each of these divisors increase every six months - Jan 44, Jul 44, and Jan 45 - which lowers the VPs the Allies collect for those types of VPs. This puts pressure on the Allies to move fast - capturing Rome in 43 is a HUGE VP boost but smaller in 44, etc. So both of them help pressure the Allies to move quickly.
Harrybanana
Posts: 4098
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by Harrybanana »

Thanks Carlkay. It is good to know I am getting better, rather than something being broken.
Robert Harris
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by Q-Ball »

Playing on the other side of the hill, I do think damage vs. fuel is going up, and making an impact. It certainly makes Fuel the most inviting target in the Reich, that's for sure....
User avatar
cmunson
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by cmunson »

As a non-owner of the title, what does the 'divisor' represent historically? From the sound of it, divisor's lower the amount of VPs the allies get in bombing? Am I comprehending that correctly? - heliodorus04

The divisor does lower victory points. I assume it is in there for play balance but a designer would have to answer that.
Chris
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33034
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by 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.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Geredis
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:41 am

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by Geredis »

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.
carlkay58
Posts: 8770
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by carlkay58 »

Geredis -

The Allies get VPs from Bombing targets and capturing cities. These VPs are divided by an ever growing divisor and thus gain fewer VPs as the war goes on. This mechanic makes the Allies need to be aggressive since each turn a city capture is delayed is fewer total VPs by the end of the game as VPs are awarded every turn. The earlier you gain the city the higher the actual VP/turn value it has and you collect it over a longer time. They also lose VPs when playing against a human player for allowing the Axis player to have larger garrisons than are required. This helps force the Allies to be more aggressive and force the Axis to thin down the garrisons as much as possible to stop the Allied offensives.

BUT the Allies lose VPs for the casualties they take. They can also lose VPs for not bombing Political targets (UBoats in 43, VWeapons in 44 & 45) which do not gain the Allies any Bombing VPs. This causes the Allies to love Axis players that retreat and give up territory without a fight. This also causes the Allies to have to be more cautious and not just attack all of the time where the odds are not in their favor.

The VP awards make the Allies have to do everything - be aggressive and yet be conservative on losses - just perfectly to have a chance at beating a human player. It is easier against the AI because when you play the AI there are no garrison VPs - so additional garrisoning is not a worry for the Allied player. I usually lose between 3 and 10 VPs per turn due to Axis over garrisoning areas and these are hard to avoid. The pressure is definitely on the Allies in this game. The Axis 'gain' VPs for causing Allied casualties and costing them time but have no VP change based on Axis casualties. Thus the Axis can throw away the Italians in 43 knowing that there will be no VP cost to them while costing the Allies VPs for the Allied losses and maybe gaining some time. Every extra turn spent in the early phases of the 43 Campaign will cost the Allies some potential VPs that accumulates very quickly over time.

The VP system is what puts the pressure and the drive on the Allies. Otherwise the Allies can sit back and use the strategic air war to rack up Bombing VPs and wait for the Soviets to take Berlin (turn 97 in a game not involving the EF Box). Which would make for a very boring game (as well as very non-historical). The Axis just wants to survive as long as possible and maybe gain a truce by causing large Allied casualties and bottling up the beach heads.

Geredis
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:41 am

RE: 1.00.44 beta and Bombing VPs

Post by Geredis »

Carl; I understand the purpose. I was talking more about their implementation as a mechanic.
Post Reply

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