Ares Games
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 611

Thread: Point system for Wings of Glory

  1. #201

    Default

    Sorry, that just does not make any sense. Are you saying that the two are in effect equal in game terms, because if so the experience of 99% of gamers here will probably disagree.

    I appreciate the work that went into the points system, and I'm 100% clear that the game would benefit from one, but (in my opinion) the one proposed is not fit for purpose. That is not to say it is not a good basis to work from, but I think there are some critical flaws. Making Ace skills proportionally more expensive would help, or reducing the overall costs of the planes, but as it is, it doesn't seem to be working - as demonstrated by the lack of competitions.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PilGrim View Post
    ... but as it is, it doesn't seem to be working - as demonstrated by the lack of competitions.
    Not sure I agree with this. As to why there aren't competitions, I would suggest that is part of the game producer's promotion of the game. Why are there Magic the Gathering and Warhammer 40k tournaments? People organize them and the game companies "recognize" them.

    Perhaps we need a system supported by ARES that promotes competitions. "Approved" officials, prize support, local and national advertising would help? Gamesworkshop didn't have this in 1987 when I started playing with Space Marines, but now have International Tournaments. We as a community, along with ARES, need to work towards this as a process/system. The points system is only a starting point.

    My nickel (being that Canada doesn't have pennies any more).

    Mike

  3. #203

    Default



    Besides, why in your experience an A-firing D.II is so much worse than the D.Va? Which single feature or features make the D.Va so much beter? Just tell us and this will help to make the system better (the way that previous tests and comments did).

  4. #204

    Default

    Its not a single factor, its a basket of speed, speed, speed and durability (and climb rate, which the points system does really need to cover too IF it is going to be used in games with altitude - and lets be honest, if not, we may as well play SoG.)

    You may notice I mentioned speed there. If there is a single lesson learned from the 100 years of air combat history it is that speed advantages count. They allow the faster aircraft to choose when to engage and when not to. Even in WW1 the trend was for faster and more powerful aircraft over maneuver. Even in WoG this holds true - SPAD XIIIs only get caught by DR1s when the SPAD chooses to fight. Do you really think the DII is that close a match to the DVa? Is the game really that poor a historical representation?

  5. #205

    Default

    Mind that the point system deals with the basic/standard rules, not with the full advanced and optional one. Call it poor, but that level sacrifice detail for playability.
    Anyway, as I said relevant differencies in speed are considered. SPAD XIII has a speed cost taken into account.

  6. #206

    Default

    Clearly I'm wasting my time here. You ask what the single feature that separates a DII from a DVa is - I answer speed, you say that is taken into account on the SPAD XIII.

    This is the Emperors New Clothes syndrome - apparently a DII is 95% as good as a DVa and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In another place it would be laughable.

    Walking away from this now.

  7. #207

    Default

    Please, I never said that you are wrong at all. I am just saying that I had a different point of view on the matter of speed when I tried to design this point system, and I am trying to explain you this. If I answer to your comments with explanations of behind-the-scenes reasonings, this has not to be taken personally.

    I told you that only very relevant speed difference have been considered. Milcoll73 just kindly quoted the notes on how we got this system, and they say that points adjustments have been made for very quick and very slow decks. Actually, as said in previous posts, the cost is higher for two-seaters with over 180 km/h of top speed and for fighters of over 200 km/h of top speed. I can add that the cost is slightly lower for planes under 180 km/h, even lower for planes under 160 km/h. So, if you tell me in a post "SPAD XIIIs only get caught by DR1s when the SPAD chooses to fight" I can answer you "SPAD XIII has a speed cost taken into account" - it's a plane that's in the "over 200 km/h" class against a plane in the "from 161 to 180 km/h" class, so the actual points system consider that twice with a rise in the cost of the SPAD and a slow decrease in the Dr.I's one. You are correct - The SPAD is actually a brick to fly (I lost at least one game for not being able to stay within a small pub table during the combat), but it can actually choose well enough if to stay in the fight or walk away to be back later, no matter who is the opponent. It is quicker of any German, Austrian, Turkish, Bulgarian plane that you can feature in the game. The Fokker Dr.I is already slower that its average opponents like the Camel. The 25% difference between the 222 km/h of the SPAD XIII and the 165 km/h of the Fokker Dr.I, that you quoted in your last comment, is maybe not so deeply reflected in the game as it was in reality, but it is there and it is anyway considered in the points system.

    For the rest, my gaming experience (that of course can be limited and bring me to wrong evaluations) says that if a plane is more or less in the average span of speed, the speed itself is traded with turn radio, since in the game the slower plane can make tighter turns - and this is an advantage. I played a lot with the Pfalz D.III flying slower that the DVas, Camels, Hanriots, SPADs at the same table - and this is the sensation I got. So, at the moment, the Pfalz D.III deck is just slightly cheaper, due to speed, from the others - and the Albatros D.II has exactly the same speed of the Pfalz and exactly the same slight cost variation. To be short, actually the 7% speed difference between the Albatros D.II (175 km/h) and the D.Va (187 km/h) is considered - but it is just quite marginal. In the game, being around 6 mm on each arrow. And in the points system too, being just a very marginal part of the cost.
    This is why the points system works this way at the moment. Maybe tomorrow it will not, we are just working together on that.

    This is the Emperors New Clothes syndrome - apparently a DII is 95% as good as a DVa and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In another place it would be laughable.
    You are not the first to disagree with the points system in this 5-pages thread, and we are doing nothing diferent from what's been done before: you tell why you think that the system is wrong, I am telling you the reasons why it has been done this way. Not to defend anything: but to understand the logics of the system, that can be sound or faulted. Maybe other people contributes too with their experiences, opinions or guesses. And everybody can contribute to help understanding if the general mechanics of the system are wrong and have to be changed/corrected, or if the logic is correct and maybe it must just be applied in a more intense or a lighter way when the proporton between different factors has to be decided. Then, after that, changes can be made in an informed and well thought-about way, aware of the different points of view about the matter. Nothing is written in stone, things have been changed before - the point costs, now, are not the same I posted one year and half ago, thanks to this process. Including the cost of the Dr.I, initially identical to the one of the Sopwith Triplane and now slightly different exactly because of the slight speed difference. It's the same difference between the D.II and the D.Va, so we are now discussing if this "slightly" must be kept so.
    And all this process can be useful in other ways too - as influencing the making of the points system for Sails of Glory. That's here, for the curious among you:
    http://www.aresgames.eu/11269

    Speaking of which, in SGN skill costs are somehow proportional to the cost of the ship. Something that makes the system less user-friendly (I would have preferred to avoid that) but that in this case it seemed to be far more adviseable. Especially because several of these skills are linked to firepower, and in Sails of Glory firepower is roughly proportional to the cost of the ships. In Wings of Glory, on the opposite, "sniper" has the same effect on a 46 points Morane and on a 110 points Breguet, if they are both firing at B in front of them. This is an example of the reasons why skills have been given a fixed cost. Something we did not all agree about, but weighting pros and cons, so it has been decided... up to now at least.

    Making speed differences more relevand in points cost is something you would like, and this is now clear. Making ace skills more expensive too, and that's another thing to be considered - just beware that their use is rarer than in other, more easy-going games you tried before proposing this, and that there has been a mathematic approach to evaluate the effect of skills compared to the effect of planes before fixing their cost. You seem to regret that everybody can buy the same skills, too, and that people does that since it's cheap - anyway you did not suggest limits to the choice of skills and IMHO that's good too, I think that they would not fit at all with the setting.
    Other people's opinions and experiences would be welcome.
    Another matter is if the D.II is correctly represented in the game, but that's now a bit OT since it can not be helped here. And if the advanced rules help in that, introducing altitude - good point, the suggestion to allow a rule for chainging costs according to altitude is now being considered (climbing being very relevant, top altitude far less IMHO).

    I'd rather prefer to focus on game mechanics, statistics and actual playtesting anyway. The first tournament of this game took place in May 2004, two months after the release of the first basic set in Italy. From then, there have been many tournaments in many countries using a whide range of systems, including this one, pre-designed scenarios and the "levels of planes balanced with skill" system quoted at the end of this baloon:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post297967
    Some have been official tournaments, many have not but often they got support from the publisher who even produced out-of-commerce silver and golden miniatures to be given away as prizes (just to give you an idea of the extent that competitions reached in the past all over the world). The organization of official tournaments has been left in each country to local distributors - some were more active, some less, and sometimes local clubs and groups went on by themselves. True that there could have been more tournaments, and that other games stress far more the competitive aspects of the hobby, but in our case different forms of public play have been often preferred - from demos to games with giant cards to special events like the 100-people-at-the-same-time game session. Besides, often tournaments have been considered by their organizers a good way to involve new players, sometimes including whole families with wives and kids, so complex points systems have been avoided in favor of more user-friendly ways to get balanced sides.
    But from all this, I would not infer if this unofficial draft of a points system works well or not. I'd rather stick to maths and actual playtesting.

    Thanks for your patience, and I hope that my far from perfect use of English did not create misunderstandings.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 07-13-2014 at 23:46.

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    one quickk and dirty way to figure in altitude is to subtract the climb rate from the points total or for those purists who dont want to arbitrarily SUBTRACT points from the total is to subtract the climb rate from 10 then add it to the planes point value total.
    Seriously considering this or an equivalent. And I would leave top altitude out of that - it is usually not relevant, being useful only in very extreme scenarios, isn't it?

  9. #209

    Default

    Aside from a marginal difference in top speed one major difference between the Albatros types is range/endurance. Ability to patrol further and stay in the fight longer would be big considerations for the powers that be and those flying them, though maybe not something for a points system.
    Last edited by flash; 07-14-2014 at 00:24.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PilGrim View Post
    This is the Emperors New Clothes syndrome - apparently a DII is 95% as good as a DVa and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In another place it would be laughable.
    I don't think this is a fair statement. Andrea has welcomed input, and has provided rationale for his prior decisions.

    If values are to be changed, they should be accompanied by something more than simply stating characteristics, for example that one plane is faster than another, but by discussing such differences in terms of the actual game mechanics, card decks, etc., i.e. by providing verifiable data to support a given number change. It is one thing to state that plane "X" should have higher points than plane "Y" because it is faster; it is another thing to state plane "X" should have 5 more points because the associated card decks result in a 0.4 inch increase in distance traveled after similar maneuvers, which justifies the 5 points because ...
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Seriously considering this or an equivalent. And I would leave top altitude out of that - it is usually not relevant, being useful only in very extreme scenarios, isn't it?
    yes i would tend to agree with that. also the way our group plays and my very limited experience with altitude in general leads me to feel somewhat the same in regards to altitude in general. while adding a whole new dimension to the game as far as realism it doesnt ad much to the "one night show", random dogfight style we mostly engage in and seems to slow down combat in general. we figure "combat" is by mutual consent so participants are engaged at the same altitude because they want to be. sure its not realistic but neither is "re-spawning" to keep everyone in the fight all night. so its nice to have a balancing system that doesnt include altitude as a baseline that other considerations can be added to or not at the whim of those participating.

    now if we were doing a campaign style play or role playing i would want to add as much "realism" as i could such as altitude, ammunition, fuel, range and endurance since the whole point of such playstyle is to try to "be there" as much as possible given the framework of the game. our group isnt at that point, YET, (though i intend to suggest that when we get enough of a core of regulars).

    thats why i was so thrilled to see a baseline beginning point that is open ended and can always be added or subtracted to (plus i have to respect the historical interest that the end product implys ).

  12. #212

    Default

    Whether you use altitude rules or not makes a difference larger than many of the differences we've been discussing.

    I can't really comment on play balance, as for the last 2 years we've always used altitude, and always used the simplified rules for it (climb up a peg, dive down 2 pegs basically... though there's more on reversals, overdives, continuous climbs etc). A Pfalz D.III's overdive ability makes it very much the equal of a D.Va, despite being slower.

    We tend not to use ace abilities, as their effect is too large, and more importantly, varies very much depending on the type of aircraft being flown. An SE5a which can do 2 consecutive steeps sometimes is vastly better than the standard one, but for an SSW D.III the difference isn't that much.

    An observation - WGF isn't terribly appropriate for a traditional competition game of 1 vs 1. Team games are better, but have their own problems re organisation.

    In friendly games, adjusting objectives and "victory points" can work better than points values for individual aircraft. Using this kind of system, a DH.2 that makes its way over enemy lines and damages one enemy aircraft, and crashlands in friendly territory can outscore a D.VII that kills 2 enemy. However, unless one is playing a Russo-Polish or Russian Civil War scenario (where pretty much anything goes... Nieuport 11s vs Snipes, for example), just restricting the aircraft types to those that commonly fought each other and then having small VP penalties seems adequate.

    Those who have played Star Fleet Battles will be aware of the controversial BPV system - points values - and the heated discussion about "what the secret formula was". In fact, the secret was that a basic value was calculated objectively, then adjusted subjectively to give "about the right outcomes". Hence the secrecy.

  13. #213

    Default

    Very good points Zoe.

    I must say that I used wargames with points systems since 1980, with the 5th edition WRG Ancient Battles rules, and with many games more after it. My idea is that these systems give roughly balanced sides, but a big part of the fun is looking for "the best choice" within the system. Many players arrived saying that their Titus Legion, or Byzantine cataphracts, or Samurais, were the unbeatable army, only to be defeated by somebody saying the same about Indians or Crusaders. That were beated lately by others... A system must allow you to find better solutions in spending points, and that's part of the game. Of course if there is a single best solution, or a general rule at least ("cavalry is always a better buy than infantry!") then the system is faulted and the choice is not meaningful and fun any more.

    With Magic, 13 years later, the concept of combo also appeared: a great attention to combinations of game elements that put together are far more powerful than just the two elements on their own. Finding them, and finding their soft spot to counter them, is again a big part of the fun. Expecially while the games evolve with new game materials released alog the years.

    So it is natural and even fun to have an active role for players in the choice of how to spend their points. A skill allowing to use two steep manoeuvres in a row will be points better spent on a plane with several of them than on a SPAD XIII, while a skill allowing any move after an Immlemann will be a total waste on most two-seaters. In our case, the cost of the skill does not reflect that. But I think that to some extent it is better to have such a system, that allows players research, than try to have a perfect system, with a skill cost that differs depending on each plane you apply it on so that every choice is perfectly 100% balanced always. This would be less fun to play. You could just put miniatures and skills in a hat and draw them at random...

    Do not read me wrong, I am not justifying faulty systems. If the Sniper skill is cheaper than due and everybody has to buy it not to be at disvantage, as PilGrim hints, that's not fun and the cost of that skill must be corrected. But a sytstem allowing better ways to spend points than others is a good thing. And if a better way to spend points (better, several better ways than others) can be found by a player, with intelligence and experience, and gives him not a sure victory in a tournament but some advantages at least, this is fair, and a good reward for the people who devise the best buys.

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    now if we were doing a campaign style play or role playing
    Working on that too.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Very good points Zoe.

    I must say that I used wargames with points systems since 1980, with the 5th edition WRG Ancient Battles rules, and with many games more after it. My idea is that these systems give roughly balanced sides, but a big part of the fun is looking for "the best choice" within the system.
    http://www.phil-barker.pwp.blueyonde...ls/Paper4.html (1984)

    http://web.archive.org/web/200905111...ls/Paper4.html

    I can't remember which day I visited the Gentleman Pensioners in the most palatial wargames club ever, with rooms hired from the local bridge club on quiet nights. The main thing I remember from there was the exposition by an Orc army's owner of the benefits of a horde in which the most elite force were "Regular C" Uruk-Hai.
    Blocks of 48 Irregular D Orc LMI (mostly shieldless) in 4-rank columns were remarkably effective, going Impetuous at the drop of a hat, especially when charging downhill . The elite Regular C Uruk-Hai LHI covered the gaps between ridges.

    I still have them.
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 04-03-2015 at 03:53.

  15. #215

    Default

    IMHO points are there to try and provide balance, in WRG 4th+ editions your irregular A naked Gasaeti were comparable o the irregular A Berserker etc. It provided a level playing field, regulated the amount of certain troop types, formed a basis for historically balanced armies and stopped the uber army general turning up with his invincible 200 Regular A SHI armed with Long Thrusting Spear, Bow and two handed cutting weapon.

    How to develop this into air combat? You first have to come up with a system, and we have one. It then needs extensive play testing and feedback to iron out any faults, more play testing, more feedback etc. I started out with 4th edition WRG and ended up going through 5th, 6th, 7th, DBA and DBM. Upto 6th each edition moved forward to redress imbalances until 7th through to DBM came up with a quite generalised abstract system that bore little resemblance to 4th to 6th.

    My point? Well how many competitions or any games for that matter have been played using the points system? How much feedback, genuine feedback, on the points system as it stands now has been put forward? Very little I imagine. Until we have some form of recognised competition system that is formalised and agreed upon to be played by everyone the I can see no way forward in developing a system that everyone can agree to use. That said, until we have extensive play testing and competitions at whatever level then it will be a long time coming.

    Perhaps a competition based around enough points to get you 3 aircraft (a simple flight) might benefit more, whether these are flown by an individual or a group/team of 3 that is not for me to decide. That way your points become relevant in that you may only have 1 high point aircraft and 2 poor aircraft, 3 middle point aircraft or possibly 4 low point aircraft. Add in mission objectives and perhaps ace skills and you begin to develop a competition that is based more around team tactical objectives than 1 on 1 knock out air combats.


    But finally I would say don't knock something unless you have extensively, and I do mean extensively, play tested the points system.

    Neil
    See you on the Dark Side......

  16. #216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Perhaps a competition based around enough points to get you 3 aircraft (a simple flight) might benefit more, whether these are flown by an individual or a group/team of 3 that is not for me to decide. That way your points become relevant in that you may only have 1 high point aircraft and 2 poor aircraft, 3 middle point aircraft or possibly 4 low point aircraft. Add in mission objectives and perhaps ace skills and you begin to develop a competition that is based more around team tactical objectives than 1 on 1 knock out air combats.
    Neil
    I want to play test this!

    This is a good foundation for present wargame competitions as I know them. It would need a bit of refinement for "historical" scenarios, or we could allow free-for-all, periodless competitions (which would really demonstrate the balance, or not).

    Play test this, and start using it for conventions, and we could "take off" as a popular game.

    Mike

  17. #217

    Default

    My sentiments exactly Mike. If you build it they will come. We have to start somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I want to play test this!

    Play test this, and start using it for conventions, and we could "take off" as a popular game.

    Mike
    See you on the Dark Side......

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Very good points Zoe.

    I must say that I used wargames with points systems since 1980, with the 5th edition WRG Ancient Battles rules, and with many games more after it. My idea is that these systems give roughly balanced sides, but a big part of the fun is looking for "the best choice" within the system. Many players arrived saying that their Titus Legion, or Byzantine cataphracts, or Samurais, were the unbeatable army, only to be defeated by somebody saying the same about Indians or Crusaders. That were beated lately by others... A system must allow you to find better solutions in spending points, and that's part of the game. Of course if there is a single best solution, or a general rule at least ("cavalry is always a better buy than infantry!") then the system is faulted and the choice is not meaningful and fun any more.

    With Magic, 13 years later, the concept of combo also appeared: a great attention to combinations of game elements that put together are far more powerful than just the two elements on their own. Finding them, and finding their soft spot to counter them, is again a big part of the fun. Expecially while the games evolve with new game materials released alog the years.

    So it is natural and even fun to have an active role for players in the choice of how to spend their points. A skill allowing to use two steep manoeuvres in a row will be points better spent on a plane with several of them than on a SPAD XIII, while a skill allowing any move after an Immlemann will be a total waste on most two-seaters. In our case, the cost of the skill does not reflect that. But I think that to some extent it is better to have such a system, that allows players research, than try to have a perfect system, with a skill cost that differs depending on each plane you apply it on so that every choice is perfectly 100% balanced always. This would be less fun to play. You could just put miniatures and skills in a hat and draw them at random...

    Do not read me wrong, I am not justifying faulty systems. If the Sniper skill is cheaper than due and everybody has to buy it not to be at disvantage, as PilGrim hints, that's not fun and the cost of that skill must be corrected. But a sytstem allowing better ways to spend points than others is a good thing. And if a better way to spend points (better, several better ways than others) can be found by a player, with intelligence and experience, and gives him not a sure victory in a tournament but some advantages at least, this is fair, and a good reward for the people who devise the best buys.



    Working on that too.
    wooohooooo!!!! i await with eager anticipation!!!!

  19. #219

    Default

    Any further playtesting is warmly welcome. Please share your results.
    This points system is also now consistrent with the plane-levels-balanced-with-skills system that has been quite whidely adopted for years, that is a rougher and far more flat variant where all skills are considered equal to each other. But it has been effective enough. Drawback - it considered planes with the same firepower. This is why tests with planes with different firepowers have been, and will be, particularly interesting.
    Multi-engine planes are something that does not really fit in an ideal system - as Zoe whisely points out, most scenarios are balanced with goals lenght initial placement and such, and multi-engine planes' destiny are such scenarios. But they are included for completeness' sake.

  20. #220

    Default

    Grteat memories Zoe! I never met Phil Barker alas, but I have some experience with his system. If I dig a bit I should find my New Kingdom Egyptians ready to face your orcs. The cheapest army ever - Atlantic plastic toy soldiers, often not even fully painted so that some still have their original orange-pinkish-salmon hue as their exposed skin. But chariots even have reins, made with my mum's sewing thread...
    A big pleasure has been to find the lost moulds of these soldiers and bring them back into production, in 1998. With the same Nexus Editrice that will later publish Wings of War.

    I perfectly agree with Neil. Even if I think that's fun to being able to explore the folds of a points system, the basic concept is that it must be sound and give balanced sides. I agree on the role of Army Lists beside the points system, and even our one can be integrated, for those wanting a more historical experience, with a table of availability of planes. It would be the equivalent of a WRG army list - let's say that in a single battle you agree nations and period and then you have to choose French planes from May 1916 to face German planes from May 1916, not just any Entente plane against any Central Powers plane. Making such a table is far more tricky than it seems - availability being a complex data to mine out especially when you consider that the same airplane has been available to different nations in different moments on different fronts, both if you consider when it was first available for combat and when it has been retired from combat duties, and that appearence at the front can be often of a single plane or a few of them to be tested my famed aces or less famed airmen. But I am also working on that.
    For tournaments, I guess that this is not needed. As it was possible to fight Aztechs against Trajan's Romans, or Hittite against Saxons, in Ancient WRG (both tournaments and play-for-fun games), so I'd generally allow a couple of Snipes facing four Fokker E.III if players want to, both in tournaments and in home games between people wanting to explore what-ifs instead than just stick to history.

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Grteat memories Zoe! I never met Phil Barker alas, but I have some experience with his system. If I dig a bit I should find my New Kingdom Egyptians ready to face your orcs.
    It would be good to have you come visit some day. Maybe an appearance at Cancon, when the weather's a bit warmer.

    Even if I think that's fun to being able to explore the folds of a points system, the basic concept is that it must be sound and give balanced sides. I agree on the role of Army Lists beside the points system, and even our one can be integrated, for those wanting a more historical experience, with a table of availability of planes. It would be the equivalent of a WRG army list - let's say that in a single battle you agree nations and period and then you have to choose French planes from May 1916 to face German planes from May 1916, not just any Entente plane against any Central Powers plane.
    Restricting it to Ares planes - or Ares/Nexus only- would simplify that a lot. The DBA system of providing opposing army lists is a technique worth borrowing.

    Making such a table is far more tricky than it seems - availability being a complex data to mine out especially when you consider that the same airplane has been available to different nations in different moments on different fronts, both if you consider when it was first available for combat and when it has been retired from combat duties, and that appearence at the front can be often of a single plane or a few of them to be tested my famed aces or less famed airmen. But I am also working on that.
    See WRG's army lists that restrict troop types. DBA doesn't use points values as such, the balancing is done via terrain. The same technique could be used by type of scenario - offensive patrol, defensive, bombing, escort etc.

    For tournaments, I guess that this is not needed. As it was possible to fight Aztechs against Trajan's Romans, or Hittite against Saxons, in Ancient WRG (both tournaments and play-for-fun games), so I'd generally allow a couple of Snipes facing four Fokker E.III if players want to, both in tournaments and in home games between people wanting to explore what-ifs instead than just stick to history.
    I've flown a DH.2 in a battle vs D.Vs and D.VIIs. It was a challenge.

    E.IIIs vs Snipes - well....some captured E.IIIs were still in use by White Russians in 1919, but I think by the time the Soviets got the dozen or so Snipes (3 flyable) from Murmansk, they appear to have been out of service. But in the Wild Wild East just about anything went. I'm still trying to see if any of the DH.2s left behind in northern Mesopotamia ended up in Georgian hands, as did some of the other RAF aircraft.

    Originally Posted by milcoll73
    now if we were doing a campaign style play or role playing
    Working on that too.
    My own ideas on the subject are influenced by En Garde - http://www.engarde.co.uk/index.html

    Like d’Artagnan, each player in En Garde! starts as a young man arriving in Paris. Now he must find his feet in Parisian society. En Garde! players may be noblemen, gentlemen or peasants. They may have lots of money or none. They may be accomplished swordsmen or not know which end of a sword to hold.

    What players have in common is their main goal in En Garde!. Players try to increase their standing (‘Social Level’) and climb the greasy pole of Parisian society. They do this by gaining status: being seen in the right places; cultivating friends in high places; joining the right regiment or club; and, of course, winning duels!

    Duelling is the usual way of settling disputes in En Garde!. Two players face each other over the affections of a woman, to settle questions of precedence – or simply because one belongs to the Cardinal’s Guard and the other to the King’s Musketeers. Then it’s down to the skill and strength (and cunning) of the two protagonists.

  22. #222

    Default

    Something has been already shared with Ares... But fare more centered on Squadrons than on individuals. Let's see what happens. I wll keep you updated.

  23. #223

    Default

    Hmm..... a what if post WW1 game with multiple sides (like the Baltic region 1918-1922); maybe with an unsatisfying ending to the war (with no "defeated" powers, just exhausted ones).
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post

    Perhaps a competition based around enough points to get you 3 aircraft (a simple flight) might benefit more, whether these are flown by an individual or a group/team of 3 that is not for me to decide. That way your points become relevant in that you may only have 1 high point aircraft and 2 poor aircraft, 3 middle point aircraft or possibly 4 low point aircraft. Add in mission objectives and perhaps ace skills and you begin to develop a competition that is based more around team tactical objectives than 1 on 1 knock out air combats.

    Neil
    As I said before, I'd like to playtest this. So, Neil, Skype game on Saturday night, with 150-200 points. You choose the period, and whoever has the planes hosts the game?

    Mike

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Hmm..... a what if post WW1 game with multiple sides (like the Baltic region 1918-1922); maybe with an unsatisfying ending to the war (with no "defeated" powers, just exhausted ones).
    Karl
    That describes the Turkish War of Independence quite accurately. Only the Greeks and Turks had stomach for a fight, the other, more powerful forces (UK, France, Italy, various Russian factions) did not.

  26. #226

    Default

    A few cards for 1919-onward wars in East Europe and the conflict between Greece and Turkey were given in Wings of War, and some of you did great things with those. With Series 2, we start having even official miniatures for these (a Soviet and a pro-Tsar Snipe being included).

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    A few cards for 1919-onward wars in East Europe and the conflict between Greece and Turkey were given in Wings of War, and some of you did great things with those. With Series 2, we start having even official miniatures for these (a Soviet and a pro-Tsar Snipe being included).
    It might be an idea if Ares put some pages about such little-known conflicts on its website, to stir interest (and sales). The pages on individual aircraft and aces are very good, but much more could be done.

    Though I have to say that history isn't taught well these days, at least not round here. I sometimes have to explain "the side with the circles on the wings is against the side with the crosses.".

  28. #228

    Default


    Use of Wings of War/Glory in schools can/has been useful for that.
    I'll pass the suggeston to Ares.
    A fond WoW player sent me as a gift "Latin American Air Wars 1912-1969". A very interesting book about 34 (thirty-four) conflicts in South and Central America ionvolving planes, with photos and profile colors. That's another interesting subject.

  29. #229

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I want to play test this!

    This is a good foundation for present wargame competitions as I know them. It would need a bit of refinement for "historical" scenarios, or we could allow free-for-all, periodless competitions (which would really demonstrate the balance, or not).

    Play test this, and start using it for conventions, and we could "take off" as a popular game.

    Mike
    Given we`re getting close to a lot of the centeneries for a lot of WW1 events perhaps that could be incorporated into any prospective tounaments that might possably be orginised in the future.
    I.E any "official" tournaments that take place in 2015 should be set in 1915 and so on.

    I think that "so many points per side" games are fine where the background is fictional but in a game with a real historical setting it seems a pity not to use it in some way.
    Last edited by Rabbit 3; 07-17-2014 at 02:53.

  30. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit 3 View Post
    I.E any "official" tournaments that take place in 2015 should be set in 1915 and so on
    The only official aircraft in squadron service at that time were a handful of Fokker E.IIIs from December 1915, a few dozen Morane N's from April 1915.

  31. #231

    Default

    Just enough to start.
    From August 1915 onward you can also use some strategic Caproni 3-engine bombers in French and Italian service.
    Actually in the game we have Caproni Ca.3 (or Ca.33 or hp450 - wartime and after-war codes, producer and army ones for that family are quite messy), but the Ca.1 (or Ca.31, or hp300) in use in 1915 has the same airframe, landing gear and armament. Main change in Ca.3 is more powerful engines.

  32. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    ... we have Caproni Ca.3 ..., but the Ca.1 ... in use in 1915 has the same airframe, landing gear and armament. Main change in Ca.3 is more powerful engines.
    So, if I were to do up a card for the Ca.1, what maneuver deck would I use?

    Mike

    [Edit: I looked it up. Ca.3 uses the XD, so the Ca.1 should use the XC, or slower deck]

  33. #233

    Default

    The XD deck is for 121/140 km/h top speed Caproni.
    Ca.2 and Ca.3 falls both in this range.
    We do not have a slower deck for such planes (Xa, xb and xc being for larger bases). As far as I know, Ca.1 had a top speed of 120 km/h, so maybe you could just pretend it was 121 and use the xd deck...
    Or draw cards with 4mm shorter arrows.

  34. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    It would be good to have you come visit some day. Maybe an appearance at Cancon, when the weather's a bit warmer.
    I'd like to, a lot. Not being a VIP as Barker, I do not even need a Porche to bring me around - any veichle would fit, even a bus.

  35. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    The XD deck is for 121/140 km/h top speed Caproni.
    Ca.2 and Ca.3 falls both in this range.
    We do not have a slower deck for such planes (Xa, xb and xc being for larger bases). As far as I know, Ca.1 had a top speed of 120 km/h, so maybe you could just pretend it was 121 and use the xd deck...
    Or draw cards with 4mm shorter arrows.
    Andrea,
    I could scan the XD deck and Photoshop it. Could I post the Slow XD deck on this forum afterward?

    Mike

    PS: I just scanned six target cards and Photo shopped them for custom card backgrounds. For a little variety in my card production.
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 07-19-2014 at 08:04. Reason: PS

  36. #236

    Default

    Well, if you ask... I believe that the publisher prefers that the official artwork is not given around for copyright problems. But if you make similar cards without it, it's ok IMHO.

  37. #237

    Default

    I've just put together a hypothetical team competition with a max of 150 points per team with 2 players per team (otherwise its not a team), and all aircraft must come from the same side.

    Team 1: Player 1 who flies the F2B B/B @ 91 points backed up by Player 2 flying DH2 @ 58 points. Total team points 149.
    Team 2: Player 1 flying an Albatross DIII with sniper skill @88 points and Player 2 flying a Halberstadt DIII @60 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 3: Player 1 flying an SE5a A @ 92 points and Player 2 flying a N17 B @ 56 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 4: Player 1 flying a Sopwith Snipe @97 points and Player 2 flying a Spad VII B rookie pilot @52 points. Total team points 149.
    Team 5: Player 1 flying a Fokker DVII @100 points and Player 2 flying a Fokker EIII @48 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 6: Player 1 flying a Spad VII B @62 points and player 2 flying a N17 + sniper skill @85 points. Total team points 147.
    Team 7: Player 1 flying a Fokker Dr1 + acrobatic pilot @ 94 points and Player 2 flying a Aviatic D1 B rookie pilot @52 points. Total team points 146.
    Team 8: Player 1 flying a Rumpler CIV B/B @ 86 points Player 2 flying an Albatross DII + daredevil @ 64 points. total team points 150.

    Which team will win?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  38. #238

    Default

    It will be interesting to know... And fun to discover I hope!
    Great job, have fun.

  39. #239

    Default

    Hopefully I can get the club members to participate, I'll even let them choose their own aircraft (from a list so there will be no surprises) and see how we get on.

    Neil

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    It will be interesting to know... And fun to discover I hope!
    Great job, have fun.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  40. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Well, if you ask... I believe that the publisher prefers that the official artwork is not given around for copyright problems. But if you make similar cards without it, it's ok IMHO.
    Angiolilo,

    Something like this?

    Name:  Maneuver XDs 01-13.png
Views: 857
Size:  280.1 KB

    Background is 1000m above Leffincourt, France, courtesy of Google Earth.

    Mike

  41. #241

    Default

    Great job indeed!
    It's perfect IMHO.

  42. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Angiolilo,

    Something like this?

    Name:  Maneuver XDs 01-13.png
Views: 857
Size:  280.1 KB

    Background is 1000m above Leffincourt, France, courtesy of Google Earth.

    Mike
    I've been looking for someone like you all my life Mike only don't tell Mrs K.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  43. #243

    Default

    Now I am perplexed. Why did we have to remove Gunners' photo decks then?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Now I am perplexed. Why did we have to remove Gunners' photo decks then?
    Neil,
    I'm going with the assumption that the decks Steve [Guntruck] had on the Forum were being printed by ARES, therefore in competition. If I post a deck that doesn't exist, it isn't competition. It may need to be removed, if ARES puts out a similar deck.

    For now, we have a Caproni Ca.1 deck, here: XDs Maneuver Deck Album

    Mike

  45. #245

    Default

    Ah understood. I just saw the XD not XDs. I have my glasses on now.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  46. #246

    Default

    Trial Game 1: Length 60 minutes. Full report here:http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...system-for-WGF

    Team 1: Guzzi Brisfit B/B and George DH2
    versus
    Team 2: skafloc Halberstadt DIII and Ant Albatross DII A guns (should have been a DIII)+ sniper skill

    Team 2 lost the Albatross in turn 3 with no shots fired to a very accurate blasting from the Brisfit. (fire/fire/smoke)
    Team 1 lost the DH2 after two mid-air collisions.

    Team 1 won after 60 minutes play (game length) scoring 9 damage to the Halberstadt for 1 on the Brisfit.
    Team 1 go through to round 2.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    I've just put together a hypothetical team competition with a max of 150 points per team with 2 players per team (otherwise its not a team), and all aircraft must come from the same side.

    Team 1: Player 1 who flies the F2B B/B @ 91 points backed up by Player 2 flying DH2 @ 58 points. Total team points 149.
    Team 2: Player 1 flying an Albatross DIII with sniper skill @88 points and Player 2 flying a Halberstadt DIII @60 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 3: Player 1 flying an SE5a A @ 92 points and Player 2 flying a N17 B @ 56 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 4: Player 1 flying a Sopwith Snipe @97 points and Player 2 flying a Spad VII B rookie pilot @52 points. Total team points 149.
    Team 5: Player 1 flying a Fokker DVII @100 points and Player 2 flying a Fokker EIII @48 points. Total team points 148.
    Team 6: Player 1 flying a Spad VII B @62 points and player 2 flying a N17 + sniper skill @85 points. Total team points 147.
    Team 7: Player 1 flying a Fokker Dr1 + acrobatic pilot @ 94 points and Player 2 flying a Aviatic D1 B rookie pilot @52 points. Total team points 146.
    Team 8: Player 1 flying a Rumpler CIV B/B @ 86 points Player 2 flying an Albatross DII + daredevil @ 64 points. total team points 150.

    Which team will win?
    6 or, perhaps, 3. I guess.

    Btw, point system perhaps should be revised:

    Basic value (climb rate should be included) + gun(s) + skill(s).

    Guns and skills values counted separately, in percents of basic value. For example (have in mind, please, I didn't use existing true point values or true ratio of damage decks and abilities, it's just an example how it could work):

    Plane X (A gun): 50pts basic value + 10pts (20% for A gun) + 5 pts (10% Daredevil) + 3 (5% rounded up for Technical Eye) = 63 pts
    Plane Y (B gun): 72pts basic value + 10pts (13% rounded up for B gun) + 4 pts (5% rounded up for Technical Eye) = 86 pts

    It may sound tough, but tables are easy to make for each gun and skill, depending on how much basic plane costs.

  48. #248

    Default

    So a B gun plane costs more than an A gun plane?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  49. #249

    Default

    Clearly amistake. 50 + 18 is not 63. At least not in the school I was taught. Were the base values swapped?

  50. #250

    Default

    Bad math, my mistake

    Plane X (A gun): 50pts basic value + 10pts (20% for A gun) + 5 pts (10% Daredevil) + 3 (5% rounded up for Technical Eye) = 68 pts
    Plane Y (B gun): 72pts basic value + 10pts (13% rounded up for B gun) + 4 pts (5% rounded up for Technical Eye) = 86 pts

    But, nevertheless, in this case B armed plane would be more expensive than A armed plan.

    And this would work fine - if you have faster, better climbing, and more maneuverable plane, you'll get a better chance to outmaneuver opponent. And in that case A gun wouldn't be much of help to the opponent.

    Of course, as I said before, this is just fictive example. Once when true mutual ratio of A vs. B gun, and Ability vs. Ability is calculated, we'll get true point values. And fact that technically superior B armed plane is more expensive than technically inferior A armed gun shouldn't be problem.

    And Andrea has basic values (I admit, I'm not sure did he take climb rate into account or not). So, we only need to calculate percent for particular gun and particular ability or state (rookie etc.).

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. WoW Point System...
    By Greywolf in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 05-14-2013, 03:12
  2. Svět deskových her - hraní Wings of Glory (Wings of War)
    By Ladinek in forum Czechoslovak Wing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-04-2013, 11:51
  3. WWI system vs WWII system question????
    By Propjockey53 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 14:14
  4. Point system?
    By LazyEyedPsycho in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 14:58
  5. DoW point system
    By DentedHead in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 11:40

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •