What is up with the victory points?

[Mr_B0narpte]

I still believe this IS a WW II strategic game. This is not about who is economically stronger than someone else. This is about what you achieve in this surrounding compared to what happened IRL during the second WW. If you want to change this you´ll change the character of this game.

I never said it wasn't. Since AoD fails to recognise the difference between a civilian and a military economy (with it all just being military economy, CG playing a minor role), then the economic matters directly relate to the war. The strategy is to weaken/destroy the enemy, so surely holding the most vital key parts of their (military) economy would ensure that.
You seem to be assuming that the current VP situation reflects the reality of WWII: How does most of the Japanese islands in the Pacific relate to it, considering the US deliberately by-passed many of them? Was Vietnam as historically important as India in regards to the war? Was the US the 6th most important country to participate in the war? Was Yunnan's participation more significant then Hungary's or Finland's? Was the city of Stalingrad itself more important then the whole of India? Was the city of Moscow nearly as important as the whole of the USA? Was Portugal more significant in the war then Poland, Romania, Belgium, and Hungary?
IMO the current VP system is so arbitrary there is no logical reason for it.

I didn't count conquered territories automatically into aggressor's alliance. (Most of the occupied countries gave their fiercest fight against the occupier, not for them. Also an economic base is less efficient in occupier's hands, yielding its main benefits before the occupation. In game terms, occupation can be considered already as "scoring", showing some "victory progress", deviation from a starting point.) France was a part of Allies. In my calculations, I added Belgium and Netherlands into Allies as well (in addition to UK, US, France, Poland, Canada, SA, NZ, Australia). Allies had about 700 ICs, Axis 450 ICs and Comintern 160 ICs. I left Denmark, Norway and Finland out from the calculations - but they won't alter the results much either.

I did acknowledge the occupied IC effects, but a USSR could puppet most of Europe any, thus removing that issue. But anyway, if the Comintern did control all of the Axis, then it's IC would be similar to the Allies, but still not enough. I was assuming you meant a USSR after a historical game, but ahistorically taking all the occupied territories of the Axis, in which case it would have substantially more IC then the Allies.

Most of the historically important provinces (locations of WWII military operations mainly) have at least some positional value also in a game. But should some extremes like Tinian (Pacific island that has only historical value) keep its VPs only because the location had some meaning in real WWII? It's a matter of taste, but I think that regularity in VP assigning principles is important (if Tinian has VPs, so should Kursk and El Alamein).

For me, it's a matter of logic. VPs should be distributed to provinces that have (at least) some economic, military or strategic value.

The 20 oil is to simulate British support isn't it? The current state of affairs is a compromise which allows France to continue existing diplomatically and simulates their participation in the war. The options would be to either let Germany annex France and give the Free French forces and territories to the UK and then have an event release them later. The other alternative is to not give the Free French any bonuses, effectively making them useless.

Edit: Maybe giving the English an event where they can choose to give the Free French support and adding a -20 oil penalty for them... or letting them starve. In this theoretical event the ai would always choose the former.

I would recommend making an event for the UK, where it has the -20 oil and the rest to go with it. As Pang insinuated, you shouldn't get something from nothing. France doesn't even need the oil in that situation as it doesn't have a navy or airforce; but if it's going to be played by a human, it would enable them to build a reasonable force.

 

[Blecky]

If IC will make up the most of VPs then UK will "win" this game simply by bringing the US into the Allies, assuming that they can defend their island. USSR conquering all of eastern Europe and all of GER would still "lose" this game, because they don´t control most of the IC; yet GER was the major enemy in WW II, defeating it on their own should bring them a victory.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

France doesn't even need the oil in that situation as it doesn't have a navy or airforce;

In the game it often has a few ships that do not switch to Vichy.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

If IC will make up the most of VPs then UK will "win" this game simply by bringing the US into the Allies, assuming that they can defend their island. USSR conquering all of eastern Europe and all of GER would still "lose" this game, because they don´t control most of the IC; yet GER was the major enemy in WW II, defeating it on their own should bring them a victory.

The game can span to 1964. If the USSR also takes France, then it would have a very similar total, if not a higher total of VPs then the Allies. I guess we have a different perspective on VPs: I see them as literally being 'Victory Points', where the country in the strongest situation has the most VPs; whereas you see them as 'Victory in WWII Points', where the country that has defeated its historical enemy having the most VPs.

In the game it often has a few ships that do not switch to Vichy.

Ahh yeah, true, my bad.

 

[Blecky]

The game can span to 1964. If the USSR also takes France, then it would have a very similar total, if not a higher total of VPs then the Allies. I guess we have a different perspective on VPs: I see them as literally being 'Victory Points', where the country in the strongest situation has the most VPs; whereas you see them as 'Victory in WWII Points', where the country that has defeated its historical enemy having the most VPs.

I think we can agree on that

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I think we can agree on that

Well, I guess I should re-tract what I said before on AoD being a WWII game. As it transcends WWII, spanning to 1964. It is WWII-orientated though. I guess I'll just make my own edits to the VPs for my own consumption, unless others would want a more logical distribution of VPs (which assumes a distinction between RL and the mechanics of AoD).

 

[bosman]

This leads to the question, as i wrote before, if treating VPs by the game should be changed. For overall ranking i am likely to agree with Mr_B0narpte rather completely. It's a matter of a real power, which should stay behind VPs and IC mostly represents that. For diplomatic actions we can really consider different approach with use of national provinces or make it as an alternative. If a country looses all its national provinces it's practically defeated. Any exceptions can be handled via events.

As for VPs distribution on the map, if we could only have obvious cases included, that would be already great.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

This leads to the question, as i wrote before, if treating VPs by the game should be changed. For overall ranking i am likely to agree with Mr_B0narpte rather completely.

Good to know and get some agreement. But I still don't get the other side of the argument considering the current situation regarding VPs is so arbitrary I fail to see how they can even be considered 'Victory in WWII Points'.

It's a matter of a real power, which should stay behind VPs and IC mostly represents that. For diplomatic actions we can really consider different approach with use of national provinces or make it as an alternative. If a country looses all its national provinces it's practically defeated. Any exceptions can be handled via events.

I agree, I guess surrender event worries/problems caused by moving round the VPs can be resolved by editing those events. Regarding annexation, I don't see many problems occurring (only one I can think of is giving Mallorca a VP and how that might affect the Spanish Civil War; but if we only agree to small changes this issue won't arise).

As for VPs distribution on the map, if we could only have obvious cases included, that would be already great.

It would be great. I support any rational and logical change to the VPs, big or small.

 

[bosman]

Good to know and get some agreement. But I still don't get the other side of the argument considering the current situation regarding VPs is so arbitrary I fail to see how they can even be considered 'Victory in WWII Points'.

It doesn't mean, i don't support the changes in any way. I added my fifty cents just BTW. I usually get ideas additionally, so i meant to point, that maybe the way VPs are treated should be changed too. Sorry, if going a little out of topic, as it may be annoying.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

It doesn't mean, i don't support the changes in any way.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Do you support the changes, or not? Maybe I mis-interpreted "For overall ranking i am likely to agree with Mr_B0narpte rather completely".

I added my fifty cents just BTW.

I am glad you did so, the point of this thread is to get peoples' views on the matter.

I usually get ideas additionally, so i meant to point, that maybe the way VPs are treated should be changed too. Sorry, if going a little out of topic, as it may be annoying.

Nothing you've said has been annoying, not at all. I'm glad you've been expressing your ideas, feel free to share any more ideas and comments you may have.

 

[bosman]

Yes, i support changes. I only meant, that for me most important is to change their allocation because of "victory status". For diplomatic actions i'm thinking about different or alternative approach, which may not only focus on VPs as now.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Ahh ok, awesome I agree that annexations and surrenders may require a different approach.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

My edits came to this (still a work in progress):

The UK is second considering it has more base IC (when including its colonies) and many militarily and strategically significant provinces compared to the USSR. Netherlands has a seemingly disproportionate amount due to the resource rich Dutch East Indies.

 

[Autolykos]

I think the most sensible approach to VP would be how Clausewitz said wars are won. Barring complete annihilation, that is by convincing the enemy he is (or will certainly soon be) unable to resist.
What this means in practice might differ a little depending on whether "the enemy" means the government, the military leadership or the common people/soldiers, but basically they should be distributed according to how much people at the time felt taking/securing the province would decide the war. It's psychology more than hard IC/resources/population/strategy, although these will definitely influence the opinion. This approach would at least explain the high VP values for "worthless" provinces like Leningrad and Stalingrad (does Iwo Jima actually have any VP?), which were pretty much only made important by propaganda, as well as the obscenely high value for Moscow.

If you want some quick&dirty rules:
- Capital of a major power: at least 25 VP, more for Alliance Leaders
- Capital of a regional power: 10-15 VP
- Capital of a minor owning at least three provinces: 5 VP
- Provinces in which a grossly disproportionate war effort was invested (Stalingrad...): at least 10 VP
- Sites of important battles (Kursk, El Alamein, Iwo Jima, ...): 5 VP
- The top three provinces for each resource and IC*: 10 VP
- The top ten (maybe even 20) provinces for each resource, manpower or IC: 5 VP
- Provinces of high strategic importance (straits, major ports, vital airbases): 5 VP
If a province fulfills multiple criteria, VP are the highest value given, plus 5 for each additional criterion.

And finally, I'd give 1 or 2 VP to provinces with a significant amount of IC/MP/Resources, capitals of minors or revolters, sites of smaller but well-known battles, smaller ports/forts/airbases in somewhat important places etc. - but only if they aren't right next to a high-VP province. They aren't normally added (3 or 4 VP in a province seems strange IMHO), but 5 VP are given if it has enough reasons to deserve at least 5 this way (like Luxembourg).

* If the resources are spread, like the rares in Indonesia and Malaysia, they should be added for each area and the VP awarded to the most important province in that area (the one that has the most IC/MP or the biggest port).

 

[Emmanuel_M]

I think the most sensible approach to VP would be how Clausewitz said wars are won. Barring complete annihilation, that is by convincing the enemy he is (or will certainly soon be) unable to resist.
What this means in practice might differ a little depending on whether "the enemy" means the government, the military leadership or the common people/soldiers, but basically they should be distributed according to how much people at the time felt taking/securing the province would decide the war. It's psychology more than hard IC/resources/population/strategy, although these will definitely influence the opinion. This approach would at least explain the high VP values for "worthless" provinces like Leningrad and Stalingrad (does Iwo Jima actually have any VP?), which were pretty much only made important by propaganda, as well as the obscenely high value for Moscow.

If you want some quick&dirty rules:
- Capital of a major power: at least 25 VP, more for Alliance Leaders
- Capital of a regional power: 10-15 VP
- Capital of a minor owning at least three provinces: 5 VP
- Provinces in which a grossly disproportionate war effort was invested (Stalingrad...): at least 10 VP
- Sites of important battles (Kursk, El Alamein, Iwo Jima, ...): 5 VP
- The top three provinces for each resource and IC*: 10 VP
- The top ten (maybe even 20) provinces for each resource, manpower or IC: 5 VP
- Provinces of high strategic importance (straits, major ports, vital airbases): 5 VP
If a province fulfills multiple criteria, VP are the highest value given, plus 5 for each additional criterion.

And finally, I'd give 1 or 2 VP to provinces with a significant amount of IC/MP/Resources, capitals of minors or revolters, sites of smaller but well-known battles, smaller ports/forts/airbases in somewhat important places etc. - but only if they aren't right next to a high-VP province. They aren't normally added (3 or 4 VP in a province seems strange IMHO), but 5 VP are given if it has enough reasons to deserve at least 5 this way (like Luxembourg).

* If the resources are spread, like the rares in Indonesia and Malaysia, they should be added for each area and the VP awarded to the most important province in that area (the one that has the most IC/MP or the biggest port).

This is an excellent philosophy, which is almost consistent with the current ditribution

However I should add another point. Annexion should be allowed with conquering >90% of VPs (which should not include fetching tiny Pacific islands), while "allies" should get a fraction of the loosers manpower as a short term bonus. Like 5% of unmobilized manpower, and 20% of mobilized one

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

How can people defend the current system? There are at least 60 absolutely worthless provinces with VPs (I mean totally worthless: no resources of any kind, no manpower, no IC, no naval/air bases), totalling 79 completely pointless VPs. (This excludes useless provinces where well-known WWII battles occurred).

There are many other provinces that should not have VPs (e.g. Babolsar, Tabriz, Herat, Christchurch, Monterrey, Santiago, Huelva).
There are many provinces that should have VPs (e.g. Baku, Lubbock, Birmingham AL, Liverpool, Sheffield, Molotov, Sverdlovsk , Tblisi, Alor Star, Kiruna).

It is "hard IC/resources/population/strategy" that will win you the game on AoD, not "psychology". If you want to replicate the increase/decrease in morale of when certain territories are captured/lost then use events, not VPs.

Annexion should be allowed with conquering >90% of VPs (which should not include fetching tiny Pacific islands)

That can be resolved by removing the VPs in all the useless Pacific islands.

 

[Marshall18]

What about provinces that at the time had the most inhabitants? Shouldn't they also get extra VP?
(of course I don't know how well this is displayed with manpower, so maybe it is unnecessary...)

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

What about provinces that at the time had the most inhabitants? Shouldn't they also get extra VP?
(of course I don't know how well this is displayed with manpower, so maybe it is unnecessary...)

I would say provinces that had the most inhabitants should be displayed by manpower (Indonesia is an extreme example of this, apparently 0 people lived there), but this is a separate issue IMO. Any changes in the 1936 scenario in general would come first, then (hopefully further) changes in VPs would follow.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Using Pang Bingxun's "will do solution":

A "will do solution" is to keep VP mostly as they are but "redeploy" some of them within one country. Berlin -5, Königsberg +5. Something like that. For a solution included in 1.09 i would prefer small adjustments regarding VP.

Here are my edits, I have made sure that no VPs have been transferred outside of the countries. I hope this, at least exposes the current anomalies in the VP system. At most I hope this is incorporated into 1.09. I have made sure many useless (in-game) provinces have been given or kept their VPs if a well-known historical battle happened there, due to seemingly popular demand/support for it.

 

[Autolykos]

I completely agree with you that the current system is FUBAR and all those examples you named should be changed (didn't look at Molotov and Alor Star, but I suspect you've got a good reason).
But I still disagree about the function of VP. VP models (or should model) the ability to annex and get peace events, and this is done by undermining the enemies will to fight. IC, MP, Res and strategic positions are a means to this, not an end. Sure, capturing the enemies resources, industrial base and biggest cities will do a great deal to undermine his will to fight, but those two things aren't 100% identical. VP for purely psychological reasons should be the exception, not the rule - but some provinces still deserve VP (maybe even a lot of VP) even though they are objectively worthless.
EDIT: On the Manpower thing: IMHO manpower does not reflect absolute population, but population that can be readily drafted into the army. If the province has lots of population, but they're all subsistence farmers, it should have zero MP (unless you have another agricultural region with overproduction you can feed them with). The actual numbers on the map are probably just as messed up as VP and IC are, but low MP in populous underdeveloped counties is somewhat justified. It should be handled by technology and infra only, but the engine is too limited to do it that way.