Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

VP system needs tweaking?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> VP system needs tweaking? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 3:44:26 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1031
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
An observation from reading some AARs:

It seems Axis players are electing to not capture certain cities in 41 as they will be adversely punished by Sov VPs if the cities are recaptured during first winter - even if temporarily recaptured.

It doesn't feel right to me that there be any VP punishments whatsoever for Axis capturing as much ground as possible in 41/42? It's forcing if you like gamey decisions onto the Axis player that don't serve the game or the simulation.
Post #: 1
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 4:51:04 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 2894
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
+1

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 2
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 5:38:34 PM   
loki100


Posts: 9943
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

An observation from reading some AARs:

It seems Axis players are electing to not capture certain cities in 41 as they will be adversely punished by Sov VPs if the cities are recaptured during first winter - even if temporarily recaptured.

It doesn't feel right to me that there be any VP punishments whatsoever for Axis capturing as much ground as possible in 41/42? It's forcing if you like gamey decisions onto the Axis player that don't serve the game or the simulation.


I wonder if the solution is to make the Soviet +6 conditional? So its fine they get it for an early recapture (& that they can get the +6 in the period of axis initiative) but they lose if the city is retaken. In effect it only 'sticks' as a permanent VP gain if they take and hold the city continuously before the historical date.

So that evens things up, a city can be lost in the 1941-2 winter (Soviet +6), retaken in the summer of 42 (so -6) and then lost again at or near to the historical date. Given their locations and the relevant dates my feeling is this applies only really to the cluster of cities from Rzhev, Orel, Kursk, Kharkov and Stalino. Depending on a game, all can end up as the winter front line.

_____________________________


(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 3
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 5:56:38 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 879
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: online
I think the issue with conditional re-takes is that one of the driving forces of the VP system is that it is supposed to encourage the Germans to overextended and the soviets to fight forward. If you can grab once for sixteen, then abandon, knowing when you retake it'll be net 16 again...that's not much incentive to hold. And would the soviets have a chance to get their points back coming the other way, or create the inverse situation?

Maybe a compromise would be that the soviet bonus is never triggered until initiative swap, but the German bonus gets chewed away over time of occupation...for big round visualization, one point for losing it up front, and maybe another for every three weeks/month held after that. So if you say, took Urel on time, lost it in February, and reclaimed it in May, your bonus would be wiped out but it wouldn't be net negative. Of course, the soviets would still get their chance to earn +6 on history when they came back the other way...we may be over thinking this, because I can already think a few ways of gaming that system too. Probably the larger point here is that to pull up short before Rzhev/Orel/Kharkov/Stalino may keep the German player a few points safer, but it means putting yourself up for a much harder '42 and abandoning the opportunity to earn places like Kalinin and Rostov. Is purchasing a few points of safety at the cost of making points harder in '42 that bad of a thing?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 4
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 10:27:35 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2164
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
I think +6 is a good idea for both sides, but, albeit with limited experience of 1941 Axis logistics, I'm not sure it's jigged right. Russians can afford to give up the western objectives early, fall back ahead of Axis infantry, just like WitE1, then compensate for the early +6 VP loss by denying late summer/autumn VP when they've accumulated enough strength to make a stand. That view may change if I get a better grasp of logistics, but it seems that way now.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 5
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/11/2021 11:11:16 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 8331
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The one thing the current system does is force the Axis to push hard to gather the necessary VPs to continue the war and then hold the territory as much as possible to avoid the Soviets ability to hit the VPs. So it does two things - push the Axis to extend and then reflect the Hitler 'no retreat' maxim without actually forcing the Axis player to do so. Can you game the system? You bet you can. But overall it works. Can it stand adjusting - yes but the main portion of the VP system does work overall. If the Soviets recapture a city early then loses it the Soviets will not gain the bonus again in the game - but the question being raised is how much that affects the end game. So the current system rewards the Soviets to take the risk and recapture the VP cities even if they can't hold it for long. This gives an active incentive to the Soviets to have a broad 41 Winter Offensive. It also gives the Axis an incentive to keep the Soviets from being successful.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 6
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/12/2021 7:20:49 AM   
loki100


Posts: 9943
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
coming back to this. This occurs in 2 of the current AARs (one mine the other SmokingDave) and yes we are both dancing around gambling on holding back until 1942 in the hope of holding the city in turn past the 1943 Soviet capture date.

a bit of important context - we are both losing, actually fairly badly (I'm sure Dave won't disagree with me on that)

Carlkay makes an important point the early +6 is quite the incentive to a Soviet player to take some chances, if we went down this road:

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

...

It doesn't feel right to me that there be any VP punishments whatsoever for Axis capturing as much ground as possible in 41/42? It's forcing if you like gamey decisions onto the Axis player that don't serve the game or the simulation.


I suspect we risk going back to the early games in WiTE1 where 'elite' German play was to run as far East as possible and then retreat back to Poland to avoid the winter losses, repeat in 1942.

Also if the Soviets don't get +6 for recapture in the Axis initiative period then you have 2 gamey outcomes. The axis player gives up a load before the switch simply to deny the Soviets that bonus or the Soviets in turn start refusing to take cities till they can gain.

In other words, more I think of it, the more I'd say the current issue is by far the lesser of many evils. So I decide not to prosecute a final offensive towards Orel, well I pay a price (no time bonus) and make a huge gamble that by some not easy to describe combination of factors I'll amazingly come out equal by late 1943?



Roger

< Message edited by loki100 -- 7/12/2021 7:54:37 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 7
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/12/2021 11:54:48 AM   
smokindave34


Posts: 877
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

coming back to this. This occurs in 2 of the current AARs (one mine the other SmokingDave) and yes we are both dancing around gambling on holding back until 1942 in the hope of holding the city in turn past the 1943 Soviet capture date.

a bit of important context - we are both losing, actually fairly badly (I'm sure Dave won't disagree with me on that)




I wholeheartedly agree Loki

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 8
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/12/2021 2:43:08 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 2894
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: online
The whole issue should not be Victory Points but economical or other type of benefits and bonuses that offset the losing / surrendering ground too quickly.

The Soviets should be fighting teeth and nails to protect their factories not to get smoked by Axis advance. They've guarantee that they can just get their max production, with some extra delay.

Axis should need Soviet resources to fuel their warmachine; even Ukraine grain feeds German workers and 'collaborators', without the need to have a specific mine of this or that metal.

That is what makes players hold ground or surrender it at some point.

Territorial control linked up to Victory Points is fine to extents, but I believe players need something more tangible and that affects the game beyond the scope of 'auto victory' or 'auto loss'.
Besides cities themselves VPs should be tied to hexes too (like, each 10 hexes of Russia occupied by Axis, Axis scores 1 more VP instead of just cities). That mandates some review of the levels of victory obviously.
And to retain control per turn accumulates VPs.


(in reply to smokindave34)
Post #: 9
RE: VP system needs tweaking? - 7/12/2021 4:08:10 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 31222
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Don't forget that taking Soviet territory also captures/destroys some manpower. That manpower has a much larger multiplier early in the war than later in the war. Take Orel with 16 population. In a recent test when it was taken 5 manpower evacuated, which left 11 captured or destroyed. Each turn those 11 points would have produced 363 men each week in 41 and 451 in 1942. If you take it in October 41 and hold it until the end of June 42, you will have reduced Soviet manpower by 15000 men (as opposed to not taking it). Even if you take it and lose it, you will damage and destroy some manpower, causing a loss in Soviet manpower. Maybe that's not a lot of men, but when you account for other nearby cities, it all adds up.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> VP system needs tweaking? Page: [1]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.348