What is up with the victory points?

[Mr_B0narpte]

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).

Oh, that's very good to know, I'm glad you agree. Molotov and Alor Star are resource rich provinces.

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.

I understand your points (although I do stick by what I originally said, I see no point in debating it). I agree that they should be the exception, not the rule (well, I'd go further then that, as you know, but I want to get a consensus). What provinces do you think deserve a lot of VPs? If you would like, you could check my edits and provide any comments on them.

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.

I do see your point, but, I'm sure you'll agree, Indonesia should not have 0 draftable manpower. But I disagree (I guess this is where the "somewhat" comes into it) when you say "low MP in populous underdeveloped countries is somewhat justified", because of the fact the Indian army provided 2 million volunteers in WWII. Wikipedia says 28,000 Indonesians were in the Dutch East India army in December 1941, which can be used as both an argument for and against what you are saying. I'd say, have the appropriate manpower worldwide with the Netherlands not having any cores on Indonesia (and the same for other countries). But this really warrants a separate thread to be honest.

 

[Count of Reval]

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).

Trying to understand possible justifications behind a current VP distribution approach is not the same thing as defending it, and not at all the same thing as defending a current VP distribution. I believe no one has claimed the current distribution is perfect.

In developers giving VPs to some totally worthless provinces I see an analogy with a Zahavi's handicap explanation from biology. You can prove you are truly strong only if you show that you can afford to be inefficient and still prosper. In HoI2/AoD terms it means that you have enough skill (and resources (in its widest sense)) that you don't need to concentrate all your efforts only on provinces which give you a direct economic benefit.

From a role play perspective it makes sense to give VPs to those worthless provinces (to few of them) that had at least some significance in WWII (had a symbolic value, had an important base, were operation targets) and not just to random ones. As a positive side effect you guide the game to follow a more historic path with this VP policy (by rewarding attacks on Narvik, Guadalcanal etc). Of course, this approach "contaminates" a pure resource-based VP scoring that has its own appeal, no doubt. On the other hand, provinces' "strategic/military value factor" also VP-rewarded introduces its arbitrariness into the VP system anyway.

 

[Autolykos]

After skimming over your version, I find pretty much all of them to be sane, justified and definitely a change for the better. I'd do a few things differently, but they are mostly a matter of taste and no way would be clearly superior:
- I prefer round numbers (saves a lot of bickering and looks nicer). I'd go with 1,2 or multiples of 5 only.
- Provinces with absurd amounts of a resource should be more important IMHO. Baku, Lubbock and Kiruna should have at least 10, Essen should keep at least 15-20 (there might be other examples, but these caught my eye).
- Why 35 VP for Moscow? It should be the same as London and Berlin (I'd give them a round 50 since they clearly are the three most important cities on the map, being the capitals of the Alliance Leaders).
Apart from that, good job. I'll look over it in more detail (and maybe provide an alternative) when I find the time.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Trying to understand possible justifications behind a current VP distribution approach is not the same thing as defending it, and not at all the same thing as defending a current VP distribution. I believe no one has claimed the current distribution is perfect.

Ah yeah I agree. So, I hope this means everyone is in support of change, it is just what needs changing is being debated.

In developers giving VPs to some totally worthless provinces I see an analogy with a Zahavi's handicap explanation from biology. You can prove you are truly strong only if you show that you can afford to be inefficient and still prosper. In HoI2/AoD terms it means that you have enough skill (and resources (in its widest sense)) that you don't need to concentrate all your efforts only on provinces which give you a direct economic benefit.

From a role play perspective it makes sense to give VPs to those worthless provinces (to few of them) that had at least some significance in WWII (had a symbolic value, had an important base, were operation targets) and not just to random ones. As a positive side effect you guide the game to follow a more historic path with this VP policy (by rewarding attacks on Narvik, Guadalcanal etc). Of course, this approach "contaminates" a pure resource-based VP scoring that has its own appeal, no doubt. On the other hand, provinces' "strategic/military value factor" also VP-rewarded introduces its arbitrariness into the VP system anyway.

But giving VPs to provinces that are worthless in the game IMO makes little sense. If the player wants to show how strong they are by capturing "inefficient" territory, then so be it. But VPs should not 'reward' that. That is where psychology comes into it. IMO VPs should be distributed according to logical, rational and identifiable rules. Giving VPs to provinces where a historical battle occurred has the potential to bring up further debate, such as the importance of one battle over another. My edits have incorporated those 'historically significant' provinces regardless, feel free to comment/ridicule them as you wish.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

After skimming over your version, I find pretty much all of them to be sane, justified and definitely a change for the better. I'd do a few things differently, but they are mostly a matter of taste and no way would be clearly superior:

Good to know.

- I prefer round numbers (saves a lot of bickering and looks nicer). I'd go with 1,2 or multiples of 5 only.

Could implement this if others agree, but there are numbers such as 7/8 etc due to those provinces being significantly more important then others, as well as the limitations I have in not being able to transfer VPs to other countries. IMO the USSR, France and many other countries are significantly over-represented; thus making it hard to fairly distribute VPs according to Pang's "will do solution". But I hope this compromise will lead to changes nonetheless.

- Provinces with absurd amounts of a resource should be more important IMHO. Baku, Lubbock and Kiruna should have at least 10, Essen should keep at least 15-20 (there might be other examples, but these caught my eye).

I agree, but again the limitations caused by Pang's rule make this very hard to implement. Why should Essen have 15-20 VPs when Baku, Lubbock and Kiruna each have more resources then Essen (and more important resources at that). I have no idea why Essen was given 25VPs in the first place. Even when solely looking at Germany there are far more important provinces (e.g. Cologne, Dortmund, Leipzig).

- Why 35 VP for Moscow? It should be the same as London and Berlin (I'd give them a round 50 since they clearly are the three most important cities on the map, being the capitals of the Alliance Leaders).

Because it was hard to find other provinces in the USSR deserving of VPs, but I could give even more to Molotov and Baku if others support this.

Apart from that, good job. I'll look over it in more detail (and maybe provide an alternative) when I find the time.

Thankyou

 

[Emmanuel_M]

I didn't look at the detail of your edits, but I guess they mostly make sense.

On the other hand MP values are delicate to twink : it's dangerous balancewise and I agree with the philosophy that MP is "mobilisable manpower to fight for their current country in 1936 after colonial multipliers", neither strict headcount nor "MP in 2013" nor "strategic value in 2013"..

Giving VP to Baku is useless : Baku is the first target of any human led Barbarossa anyways. Giving more VP to USA makes no sense, unless you want allies to win by keeping America and GB while loosing the rest of the world to one of the totalitarist ideologies.

As a comparison to DH, i would insist that despite making a ton of useless additional provinces that make the game too long to play, DH trimmed down seriously the number of provinces with VP.

 

[bosman]

I loaded the game with proposed VP distribution and what i would say, is that it's IMO too simplified ATM. I agree with the idea completely, but it seems, that your determination overshadowed some invisible factors, which should be take into account. Please don't be disappointed of my criticism, as it's already valuable piece of work, but let me give You some notices.

Provinces, which have significant importance of being communication centers deserves VP(s) (Magdeburg, Poznan, Bialystok, Woronezh).
Provinces, which have strategic location for bases/outposts (Crete, Aalborg, Ceuta, Viipuri?).
Provinces historically or politically important in many ways (Skopje, Wilno, Pskov, Quebeck City).
Finally, some countries needs to have VPs set to fit their character like Switzerland having all provinces with VP, or Finland with VP added for "Oulu" to avoid exploiting.

That all also means, that some provinces shouldn't probably have VP(s).

If You wish your changes in 1.09, You have my vote anyway.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I didn't look at the detail of your edits, but I guess they mostly make sense.

I'm glad you think so. Feel free to comment on them when you get the chance to look at them in detail.

On the other hand MP values are delicate to twink : it's dangerous balancewise and I agree with the philosophy that MP is "mobilisable manpower to fight for their current country in 1936 after colonial multipliers", neither strict headcount nor "MP in 2013" nor "strategic value in 2013"..

Of course, I completely agree that any changes to manpower must be according to the contemporary (i.e 1936) populations. But, as I've said, manpower changes are a separate issue.

Giving VP to Baku is useless : Baku is the first target of any human led Barbarossa anyways. Giving more VP to USA makes no sense, unless you want allies to win by keeping America and GB while loosing the rest of the world to one of the totalitarist ideologies.

I see VPs are representing the victory progress of nations; whoever is in the strongest position should have the most VPs. Since the USA has the most IC compared to any other nation, nearly double the base IC of its nearest competitors, it is in a pretty strong position from the start. Why is giving VPs to Baku useless? Yes the province would be the target of "any human led Barbarossa", mainly because it is a highly important province. Shouldn't VPs be given to important provinces? It sounds like you're suggesting VPs should be given to non-important provinces :unsure:

As a comparison to DH, i would insist that despite making a ton of useless additional provinces that make the game too long to play, DH trimmed down seriously the number of provinces with VP.

I have made my own edits that reduce the total worldwide VPs to 1,000 and are distributed rationally and logically. These, hopefully, will be include in Lord Jarski's mod (which is already an awesome improvement of the AIs in the 1936 scenario).

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I loaded the game with proposed VP distribution and what i would say, is that it's IMO too simplified ATM. I agree with the idea completely, but it seems, that your determination overshadowed some invisible factors, which should be take into account. Please don't be disappointed of my criticism, as it's already valuable piece of work, but let me give You some notices.

I'm not disappointed, I'm pleased to read any comments and criticism of my proposed changes. They are up for further editing, in the hope people agree they should be incorporated into 1.09.

Provinces, which have significant importance of being communication centers deserves VP(s) (Magdeburg, Poznan, Bialystok, Woronezh).

Probably a stupid question: do you mean they were important communication centres in real life?

Provinces, which have strategic location for bases/outposts (Crete, Aalborg, Ceuta, Viipuri?).

Strategic location in the game or in real life? I'm not so sure Viipuri is such a province, I guess you mean it's on the war to Helsinki from Leningrad, but for me that's way too specific for it to be given a VP. As to Aalborg; Denmark is only given 3 VPs in total, but if others agree I could give Aalborg 1 of them. Ceuta is a tough one as I don't know what affect in would have on the Spanish Civil War, and isn't really that significant as Gibraltar should really be the only aim in that area.

Provinces historically or politically important in many ways (Skopje, Wilno, Pskov, Quebeck City).

Again, the relevant countries are under-represented (Yugoslavia, Poland, Czech Republic, Canada) and others would have to agree with that change.

Finally, some countries needs to have VPs set to fit their character like Switzerland having all provinces with VP

I cannot do that if I am to stick to Pang's "will do solution", which seems to be the only viable way to bring about change (as Switzerland has a total of 2 VPs).

Finland with VP added for "Oulu" to avoid exploiting.

Could do that as Helsinki has 5 VPs.

That all also means, that some provinces shouldn't probably have VP(s).

Which provinces are those?

If You wish your changes in 1.09, You have my vote anyway.

Awesome

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Using Pang Bingxun's "will do solution":

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.

I have not checked the file so far but would like to use a changed distribution in 1.09. It helps to understand the changes if you include a list of changes in vp relative to 1.08, possible with a short explanation. Something like like "+1 due to communication center IRL". This is also needed for some event that my need adjustment to changed facts.
@The rule not to change the total VP of a nation: I am not sure it is strictly necassary to stick by that rule. But as first step imo this helps more than it hurts.
@Ceuta: Because of SCW no VP there is preferable.
@manpower diskussion: At the moment Indonesia has no manpower if released. But it has a drain on manpower due to aging of manpower in province buildings. Imo any country controlling all its national provinces should have a daily increase in manpower, even if it is a very small one. Right now it is somehow messed up. That topic deserves a seperate thread.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I have not checked the file so far but would like to use a changed distribution in 1.09. It helps to understand the changes if you include a list of changes in vp relative to 1.08, possible with a short explanation. Something like like "+1 due to communication center IRL". This is also needed for some event that my need adjustment to changed facts.

I now have done that in the notepad file, here is the new file. It also includes some more changes (Italy: Bologna -3VP, La Spezia +1 VP, Turin +2VP Finland: Helsinki -1VP, Oulu +1VP USSR: Moscow -5VP, Kaluga -1VP, Molotov +2VP, Baku +2VP, Tblisi +2VP).

@The rule not to change the total VP of a nation: I am not sure it is strictly necassary to stick by that rule. But as first step imo this helps more than it hurts.

As you may have gathered, I strongly disagree with it as so many countries are over-represented, many are under-represented. I would provide my own changes but they are probably far too 'radical' for 1.09 and will be included in a mod anyway.

@Ceuta: Because of SCW no VP there is preferable.

Duly noted.

@manpower diskussion: At the moment Indonesia has no manpower if released. But it has a drain on manpower due to aging of manpower in province buildings. Imo any country controlling all its national provinces should have a daily increase in manpower, even if it is a very small one. Right now it is somehow messed up. That topic deserves a seperate thread.

I'll move it to a separate thread.

 

[Marshall18]

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.

But hasn't it been stated that MP doesn't reflect the actual amount of inhabitants? I mean, there is a difference between how many people live in a province, and how many are willing to join the army. I would say that they are both equally important to VP. If for example, a province with a large population (although most of them are not "army people") is lost, it should be a hit.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

But hasn't it been stated that MP doesn't reflect the actual amount of inhabitants? I mean, there is a difference between how many people live in a province, and how many are willing to join the army. I would say that they are both equally important to VP. If for example, a province with a large population (although most of them are not "army people") is lost, it should be a hit.

In terms of VPs reflecting the entire population of any province, (no offence but) I donnot see the point. As I've said, I make the distinction between AoD and real life WWII. AoD is a military game; the IC, research, resources are all geared towards war. Therefore the only population that 'matters' in regards to VPs is the population that directly participates in that war (or indirectly through IC, research etc).
This is really for the other thread: but I think MP should reflect, to some degree, the actual amount of inhabitants. Maybe 2-10% of the population of that province. Since all countries effectively mobilise to the same extent this could cause problems though.

 

[Marshall18]

In terms of VPs reflecting the entire population of any province, (no offence but) I donnot see the point. As I've said, I make the distinction between AoD and real life WWII. AoD is a military game; the IC, research, resources are all geared towards war. Therefore the only population that 'matters' in regards to VPs is the population that directly participates in that war (or indirectly through IC, research etc).
This is really for the other thread: but I think MP should reflect, to some degree, the actual amount of inhabitants. Maybe 2-10% of the population of that province. Since all countries effectively mobilise to the same extent this could cause problems though.

But aren't the people away from the war as important as the ones fighting it? I mean, someone has to produce the stuff used (factory workers, farms, etc.). That is why the allies chose the targets that they did (if I remember correct). They didn't bomb cities with a lot of soldiers, but cities were tanks and planes where produced.

On the other hand, you are right on the AoD vs. real life argument

I'm just thinking out loud

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

On the other hand, you are right on the AoD vs. real life argument

Yeah, I'm unequivocally on the AoD side. But I also willing to compromise in order to get some changes through, which has been shown as I gave VPs to provinces with well-known historical battles.

I'm just thinking out loud

Haha, we all do that at some time or another!

 

[Autolykos]

After checking it in more detail, my respect for your work only grows. Within Pang's constraints (which make sense from a dev perspective, but may lead to suboptimal results), there isn't much that could be changed and (IMHO) nothing that needs to be changed. I'd definitely be in favor of including your changes to 1.09 as they are, but the list below are some nitpicks (as you might notice, I value bases a little more than you do - It's probably a matter of playstyle):

- England is completely covered in VP provinces. Bristol and maybe Blackpool should be axed (even though they would deserve VP in any other place) and go to Cyprus and Bermuda (important bases)
- Same goes for Japan and Germany, but to a lesser degree. I'd move the VP in Nürnberg, Schweinfurt, Kassel and Münster (maybe all to Dortmund), and Kagoshima, Niigita, Fukushima and Sendai to Fukuoka, Osaka and Akita.

- Vladivostok deserved its 10 VP, it's the only Soviet base in the pacific worth mentioning. 5 VP from Moscow could go there.
- I'd reduce Ufa and Chelyabinsk to 1 each and bring Leningrad and Stalingrad to a nice, round 10.

- Denver (or Casper) deserve a VP for the Oil in the region (56 in total without modifiers). Maybe from Atlantic City or Cincinnati.

- In some other places (especially the spread resources in SEA, they are almost useless without their respective port) I'd concentrate VP a little more:
- Rach Gia and Nha Trang to Saigon
- All of Sumatra to Oosthaven
- Semerang to Bandjermasin (Oil!)
- Wuchang and Hefei to Shanghai
- Tianjin and one from Taijuan to Beiping

EDIT:
Oh, and I almost forgot: Portugal is next to impossible to annex with the VP in Macao. Unless that's WAD, it should be moved to Lissabon or Porto.

EDIT2: These changes are based on your first file. The ones in the second also seem sensible, but the 5 extra VP for Vladivostok need to come from somewhere else now.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

After checking it in more detail, my respect for your work only grows.

Thankyou, it's great to now when work is appreciated

Within Pang's constraints (which make sense from a dev perspective, but may lead to suboptimal results), there isn't much that could be changed and (IMHO) nothing that needs to be changed. I'd definitely be in favor of including your changes to 1.09 as they are

Good to know at least one person is in agreement with my changes. I think Pang's constraints are for the best, I can't imagine us all coming to agreement on transferring VPs to other countries.

- England is completely covered in VP provinces. Bristol and maybe Blackpool should be axed (even though they would deserve VP in any other place) and go to Cyprus and Bermuda (important bases)

I certainly agree Bermuda deserves a VP and have taken a VP from Blackpool and given it to Bermuda. Not so sure about Cyprus though to be honest, it only has 2 metal and 4 airfields. Plus there are many provinces in the region with air bases thus reducing it's significance. But if others think Cyprus deserves a VP, I am more then willing to give it one.

- Same goes for Japan and Germany, but to a lesser degree. I'd move the VP in Nürnberg, Schweinfurt, Kassel and Münster (maybe all to Dortmund), and Kagoshima, Niigita, Fukushima and Sendai to Fukuoka, Osaka and Akita.

Dortmund should probably have more VPs, I could move some (but not all) to Dortmund. I think IC is important as well as resources.
New edits: Japan: Taipei -1VP, Sendai -1VP, Niigata -2VP, Fukushima -2VP, Kagoshima -1VP, Sapporo -1VP, Akita +2VP, Fukouka +1VP, Osaka +3VP, Nagoya +1VP, Hiroshima +2VP, Shikoku +1VP (I know that doesn't add up, can't remember all the changes, Japan's total VPs remained unchanged).

- Vladivostok deserved its 10 VP, it's the only Soviet base in the pacific worth mentioning. 5 VP from Moscow could go there.

Archangelsk -2VP, Murmansk -2VP, Odessa -1VP, Vladivostock +5VP.

- I'd reduce Ufa and Chelyabinsk to 1 each and bring Leningrad and Stalingrad to a nice, round 10.

Not to sure about that as Leningrad is more valuable economically and militarily. Both Ufa and Chelyabinsk have higher economic worth, and have more IC then Stalingrad. I don't mean to argue the reverse of what you're saying as many others probably want Stalingrad and Leningrad to be high in VPs so I'll change it if others want to be changed.

- Denver (or Casper) deserve a VP for the Oil in the region (56 in total without modifiers). Maybe from Atlantic City or Cincinnati.

Hmm.. never thought about the economic importance regionally. Personally I'd prefer to stick to the economic importance of the individual province, but if others think otherwise I'm happy to change. I'd probably take a VP from Seattle as it only has 2 IC, could give one to Fresno (42 oil) instead.

- In some other places (especially the spread resources in SEA, they are almost useless without their respective port) I'd concentrate VP a little more:
- Rach Gia and Nha Trang to Saigon
- All of Sumatra to Oosthaven
- Semerang to Bandjermasin (Oil!)
- Wuchang and Hefei to Shanghai
- Tianjin and one from Taijuan to Beiping

I think it is a personal preference: I prefer IC and resources over naval bases. But if others support the changes you're proposing, I'm more then happy to go through with them.

EDIT:
Oh, and I almost forgot: Portugal is next to impossible to annex with the VP in Macao. Unless that's WAD, it should be moved to Lissabon or Porto.

I think it is WAD, Japan can always join the war and take Macao if needed.

EDIT2: These changes are based on your first file. The ones in the second also seem sensible, but the 5 extra VP for Vladivostok need to come from somewhere else now.

Found another way to do it (look above).

New changes for Germany too: Nuremberg -1VP, Munster -1VP, Munich -1VP, Schweinfurt -1VP, Dortmund +4VP.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

New version after Autolykos' comments here

 

[bosman]

Probably a stupid question: do you mean they were important communication centres in real life?

Yes, i may have different expectations, but though, that it's also a matter of realism.

Strategic location in the game or in real life? I'm not so sure Viipuri is such a province, I guess you mean it's on the war to Helsinki from Leningrad, but for me that's way too specific for it to be given a VP. As to Aalborg; Denmark is only given 3 VPs in total, but if others agree I could give Aalborg 1 of them. Ceuta is a tough one as I don't know what affect in would have on the Spanish Civil War, and isn't really that significant as Gibraltar should really be the only aim in that area.

Viipuri was important IRL and in the game considering all the "plot" in GC for Finland and Soviets, so maybe it's like a special case.
Ceuta has strategic location IMO, not as much as Gibraltar, but for me, controlling it gives many possibilities (much better than with any of surrounding provinces) for controlling situation it this area.

Again, the relevant countries are under-represented (Yugoslavia, Poland, Czech Republic, Canada) and others would have to agree with that change.

IMO it's only a matter of how many VPs should be allocated to those specific provinces.

I cannot do that if I am to stick to Pang's "will do solution", which seems to be the only viable way to bring about change (as Switzerland has a total of 2 VPs).

If You tried to conquer a country like Switzerland, You should control practically all of vital areas, which are represented in game with provinces bigger, than main cantons.

Which provinces are those?

Dunkerque, Kaluga from both original map and your setup. I see You removed some of irrational cases, but also added some, that are IMO too arbitrary like Mozhaisk, Noginsk, Anzio, Cassino. May sound quite funny considering my proposals, but this may eventually let You better understand my choices

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Yes, i may have different expectations, but though, that it's also a matter of realism.

Yeah it's different approaches/expectations, as I make the distinction of AoD and real life WWII.

Viipuri was important IRL and in the game considering all the "plot" in GC for Finland and Soviets, so maybe it's like a special case.

Not sure I'd want to include a 'special case' as it sounds like opening Pandora's box IMO.

Ceuta has strategic location IMO, not as much as Gibraltar, but for me, controlling it gives many possibilities (much better than with any of surrounding provinces) for controlling situation it this area.

I kinda agree, but Pang has ruled this out anyway.

IMO it's only a matter of how many VPs should be allocated to those specific provinces.

If You tried to conquer a country like Switzerland, You should control practically all of vital areas, which are represented in game with provinces bigger, than main cantons.

Don't preach to the choir, I agree! It is just because I am sticking to Pang's "will do solution".

Dunkerque, Kaluga from both original map and your setup. I see You removed some of irrational cases, but also added some, that are IMO too arbitrary like Mozhaisk, Noginsk, Anzio, Cassino. May sound quite funny considering my proposals, but this may eventually let You better understand my choices

Dunkerque has a level 3 naval base. While I agree Anzio and Cassino are "irrational", I included them because well-known WWII battles occurred there and other AoDers have asked for those type of provinces to be given VPs. Mozhaisk and Noginsk were given VPs has they have 20 energy (also because the USSR has a ridiculous amount of VPs in the first place!) Kaluga is keeping 1VP as it has 1IC and 3 airfields, a rare thing in the USSR.