Ares Games
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 611

Thread: Point system for Wings of Glory

  1. #251

    Default

    No, climb rates are not in the system (yet). And maybe two-seaters with Immelmann should be a bit more expensive - but I will wait for the end of the experiment to change anything.
    Thanks a lot!

  2. #252

    Default

    As I see it, basic value should consist of strength, maneuver and climb rate (I'm not quite sure how many players use ceiling rules. Just in case, maybe it sould be calculated separately). Deck with immelman is more maneuverable, and thus should be more expensive at start. All other values should be added later - and (ceterum censeo... ) should be based on percentage.

  3. #253

    Default

    I agree that ceiling can stay out. Immelmann turn is already paid for, I only think that it could maybe be somehow a bit more expensive for the rare two-seaters featuring it.
    Percentage could maybe be a bit more accurate - I already answered why I included it in Sails of Glory but not here. In any case, is far less user-friendly.

  4. #254

    Default

    With the Brisfit B/B being the only 2 seater immelman that could sensibly be picked in a 150 point game, we'll just have to see how it fairs later on. Game 1 was not much of a comparison as the only A gun plane (I put that in to balance the Brisfit) went down in turn 3 without firing a shot! But hey such is life. In a competition you pays your money you takes your chances like everyone else.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  5. #255

    Default

    Yes, mine was a wandering thought - indipendent from this first test. Let's see how it goes on.

    Anyway the 90 points Halberstadt Cl.II is another two-seater with Immelmann candidate, on the German side.

  6. #256

    Default

    Did anyone had some thoughts how an AA gun post point value should be calculated?

  7. #257

    Default

    Their weight on the battle is so variable depending on scenario goal and rules in use (altitude or not), that I saw them more as a part of scenario balance than of a regular points system. But any different idea is welcome.

  8. #258

    Default

    Just saw this thread. This point system like FoW and other games is an special rule or no?
    Thanks


    Nick

  9. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barkmann View Post
    Just saw this thread. This point system like FoW and other games is an special rule or no?
    Thanks
    Nick
    Nick,

    as I see it, for now it's subsidiary, but helpful, tool

  10. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Their weight on the battle is so variable depending on scenario goal and rules in use (altitude or not), that I saw them more as a part of scenario balance than of a regular points system. But any different idea is welcome.
    Maybe then AA cards should have two values - one for altitude and other for not-altitude rules? I believe some values should be given, as AA fire could influence the game enough for point values to be included. I guess both values should also include health points and arc of fire?

  11. #261

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Interesting conversation, but I see competing purposes going on simultaneously.
    Which to me seems to be: Historical accuracy vs "play balance".

    As has been pointed out, a "point system" is, at best, a general outline. Aspects and their relative values will always be a topic of debate. I see a point system as a tool for a scenario designer. Absolute 'play balance' is not a needed feature for its use.

    As an old time wargamer, 'play balance' is not always a desired feature. If you want that in a head-to-head match, play a game like chess where balance is built in. However you can use an 'unbalanced' game, for determining a competitive "winner".

    To shorten this post (and to illustrate my point), I'll provide a skeleton scenario template using WGF:

    The Death/Last Flight of Werner Voss (23 September 1917)

    Forces:

    Entente---EIGHT SE5a's (with appropriate Aces & skills)

    VS

    Central Powers---One Fokker Dr. 1 triplane (Also with Voss's Ace skills)

    Various "Victory Points" awarded for the usual kills as well damage inflicted on the Entente planes.

    The basic idea is, "Can you do as well as Voss, or can you do better?

    Each competitor takes on the role as Voss to see how well he can do. Its a no brainer that he will die (the scenario ends when he is shot down), but how many points can he accumulate until then? You could also award points for things like 'consecutive turns tailing or shooting', or bonus points for simple surviving past a certain point, etc.. Use your imagination. However, this has to be clear to the players before the completion starts and must be consistent throughout the tourney.

    That's where the competition is. Who can rack up the most points during his chance to play Voss?

    Obviously, its best if the same players play the British each and every time it's played (consistency?). It can even be played as a tie-breaker for some other event. Plus, it's historical !

    [I just gave the most basic set-up. You could add the lone Albatros DV if you want at some point, and so on. The idea is you set up an unbalanced scenario that is repeated for each competitor (in this case, only Voss). Game balance is not needed for competition or determining a 'winner'.]

  12. #262

    Default

    I like it Grey. Most historical battles are not 'balanced'. I have run countless games in other systems that it was a guaranteed outcome that one side would be destroyed. Setting imaginative victory conditions to make it an interesting battle to play is the key.

  13. #263

    Default

    Tottaly agree with you Grey. We cant have historical AND balanced scenarios, as most battles or at least 60% of them werent balanced. I like your scenario idea too. Now to find 8 SE5.
    Thanks


    Nick

  14. #264

    Default

    But that misses the point entirely. The requirement (as I see it) for points systems is to allow fixed points games at competitions, not as some guide to scenario designers. Scenario designers would presumably play test their scenario to see if the balance was where it was supposed to be. That's a luxury competition organisers don't have.

    Of course if you have no interest in promoting that type of play then you don't need points systems.

  15. #265

    Default

    Why do competitions have to be based on a point system? If scenario designers can playtest their games for balance why can't competition designers do likewise?

  16. #266

    Default

    Because your typical tourney assumes One Plane One Player, and no matter how you load it up with Ace abilities, even if the Entente have a Clone Richthofen at the stick I just don't see it beating even a rookie D.VII, E.V/D.VIII or Snipe.

  17. #267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Why do competitions have to be based on a point system? If scenario designers can playtest their games for balance why can't competition designers do likewise?
    Assuming this isn't trolling, the answer is simply logistics. For a result to be valid the competition should ensure as far as is reasonable that all players encounter the same challenges. Lets's take the Voss scenario above as an example. To run that simultaneously for 20 players requires 20 DR1s and 160 SE5a's, plus 40 helpers each flying 4 Se5as and 10 umpires. Anyone got 160 SE5as and 50 supporting players??

    OK it is an extreme example but it demonstrates the point. You could run it 20 times, once for each player, with only 9 models and 4 helpers but players wont want to take part in that sort of format - they want a guarantee of several games to make their participation worthwhile and it will take 3 days. A typical tournament will be restricted to 3 rounds in one day - you need odd numbers so given the usual length of a convention 5 is a push - thats my experience - others may disagree.

    Finally - players like the meta game involved with building forces to a points limit. The trick is to ensure that the weighting of points reflects the game value of whatever aircraft or trait at the chosen level. If a pair of Snipes loaded with Ace skills beats three average Albatrii the points need amending.

  18. #268

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    It seems to me IF you really want a 100% balanced one-on -one scenario, all you have to do is simply have a duel between two identical planes.

    Fokker DVII vs Fokker DVII, etc.

    I'd call it Welcome to the Thunderdrome...'two planes enter; one plane leaves'
    Apologies to MadMax Immelmann.

  19. #269

    Default

    Andrea,
    Any chance of having the points for announced planes in the list? IE: The Macchi M.5 and the D.VIII?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  20. #270

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    I disagree. What you (PilGrim) propose is akin to running an entire NFL football season on one Sunday.

    In the 'olden days', such a MATCH would have a schedule of competitors over the day(s) with specified game slots. I did this with the old "Ace of Aces" game.

    Playing for those running the match was continuous, but not for the competitors. They had a slot assigned, and if they didn't show up, they forfeited
    If the player doesn't like the format, tough beans---no trophy, no prizes, no bragging rights.
    Last edited by Grey; 10-10-2014 at 16:55.

  21. #271

    Default

    Perhaps in "olden days", competitors were all from the same local area? That would make multi-day competitions more economical. Lots of conventions today attract participants from all over the region, and even other countries.

    I've been looking at other game systems and their "success" or proliferation at conventions.

    What makes these games so popular? Is it the game, the competition format (and a point system that enables free-form competition), and/or the publishing company's support or sponsorship that is attracting participants? I'm specifically looking at WH40k and X-Wing that are at almost every convention in BC, and have tournaments, with painting competitions and prizes.

    Is this something a points system in Wings of Glory might allow? Is thisthe type of competition we want? I've been getting mixed feedback on this forum, but predominantly in favor of scenario games, not competitions at conventions. Fun, not conflict. Sharing and mentoring, not rules laywering and cheesy combinations of planes/skills to win at any cost.

    Is there a balance we can find between the extremes, that promotes quick, easy, but fun competitions? Let's set the groundwork and build the framework for that now, so we end up with the game we want to play at conventions in the future. Perhaps fun scenarios and a competition run in parallel?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  22. #272

    Default

    How WOTC usually ran AAM at GenCon was a League format: "pay your fee, open your boosters and build your armies, come and go as you like all Con--small prizes at end of each round." I'd suggest something like that, or the format Grey suggests that we've used at Enfilade: you don't know what you're flying until you hit the table, and the other guy gets the same. D.VII Munchkin Master finding yourself with an unboosted Eindecker against someone who really knows the E.III's deck? Sux-2-B-U... LOL

  23. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PilGrim View Post
    Assuming this isn't trolling, the answer is simply logistics. For a result to be valid the competition should ensure as far as is reasonable that all players encounter the same challenges. Lets's take the Voss scenario above as an example. To run that simultaneously for 20 players requires 20 DR1s and 160 SE5a's, plus 40 helpers each flying 4 Se5as and 10 umpires. Anyone got 160 SE5as and 50 supporting players??

    OK it is an extreme example but it demonstrates the point. You could run it 20 times, once for each player, with only 9 models and 4 helpers but players wont want to take part in that sort of format - they want a guarantee of several games to make their participation worthwhile and it will take 3 days. A typical tournament will be restricted to 3 rounds in one day - you need odd numbers so given the usual length of a convention 5 is a push - thats my experience - others may disagree.

    Finally - players like the meta game involved with building forces to a points limit. The trick is to ensure that the weighting of points reflects the game value of whatever aircraft or trait at the chosen level. If a pair of Snipes loaded with Ace skills beats three average Albatrii the points need amending.
    No, not trolling at all. In you Voss example you are taking it to an extreme. 180 planes for 20 players? You can break it into groups and play a round robin, say 4 planes vs 1. Top Voss (or two) of the group moves on. The planes don't have to all be the same. Each round one would get a different plane. Everyone would have to play all the same planes everyone else flew. To me you don't have to worry about points this way. Next round could be a different scenario with similar plane rotation between players.

    I think there can be other ways than just 1 vs 1 competition.

  24. #274

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    My experience gaming with "point based armies" is...everyone thinks they have mastered the system and have developed their army to be the 'best' one allowed under the restrictions of the point ratings. Meh. If that's what you want to play, fine. But it's not for me or most gamers I know.

    Nor am I fond of exactly equal sided games, in a competition.

    I guess it all depends on what you consider "fun" and that's a matter of opinion and/or taste...neither of which can be argued.

  25. #275

    Default

    Right, I'm not sure there CAN be a "perfect" answer, other than to run multiple formats under the same banner. Again going back to the WOTC GenCon example, in addition to Leagues they also had "bring your own pre-built army" and other events, trying to have at least some little event for everyone.

  26. #276

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Now, the question is what would I use a point system for? And something like this occurred to me, as I am developing a long term campaign game.

    I envision a campaign game something like this...

    4 Squadrons: 2 Central Powers; 2 Entente

    Each squadron gets so many points (the same) to allocate for the "purchase" of planes and pilots and pilot skills.
    Each cycle of the game requires 1 Squadron to face off with a Squadron of the opposite side.
    After each cycle, each Squadron gets an additional allotment of points to replace lost aircraft AND/OR repair damaged aircraft that survived the previous cycle.
    The "best" pilots of each Squadron gets to choose his mount (from those available) for the next cycle...

    Wounded pilots may be out of play for a cycle or two, plus leave, etc.

    You get the gist.

    All sorts of variables can be used...such as a "factory recall" for a certain aircraft type, etc. This may require a referee or some sort of random event generator (dice & a chart) The same could be used for the missions within the cycle.

  27. #277

    Default

    Very, very interesting points.
    Up to now, Wings of Whatever worked pretty well played in scenarios. And it is true that these are fun even if unbalanced.
    And you don't always want to give equal chances of winning to everybody - the traditon of handicaps in games of any kind being pretty strong, maybe you too give a stronger plane to a rookie player to help him having fun against you.
    And even if you want, scenarios are balanced in so many ways besides giving equivalent planes. Goals being one - do better than Voss is a very good example. There would not be wargames about Normandy if the goal should be "win the battle" or even "win ww2 there" for Germans too. In a historical scenario the goal can be "delay Allied troops as long as possible" or "destroy most units before collapsing" or, in short, "do better than Germans did".
    But goals are not the only factor. Just imagine a bombing misson on a 90 x 150 table, with a two-seater having to reach a target 30 cm from the opposite side of the table with its escort and then go back home. Just having his and the opponent side being the short sides of the table, instead than the long ones, will change its chances of bombing the target succesfully, and of being back home safely. As the starting position of the opponents. And many more factors. In Go, the white player is said to have some advantage in being white because players were allowed to shake their stones in their basket to invite opponents to move quicker, and best stones were made of slate if black and mother-of-pearl if white, and so white ones made a more irritating noise. In Our man in Avana the main character plays a game of draughts using miniature bottles of Scotch and Bourbon, where each has to be drunk when taken - the handicap in the game is that the strongest players moves Scotch bottles and when he takes he has to drink Bourbon, that's stronger and makes him more dazed than if he had to drink Scotch.

    And there is an easy trick, anyway, to balance scenaros. See this one, inspired by Grey's:

    The Victory Cross/Last Flight of William G. Barker (29 October 1918)

    Forces:

    Entente---one Sopwith Snipe (optional: with appropriate Aces & skills)

    VS

    Central Powers---Fifteen Fokker D.VII (optional: also with skills)

    Various "Victory Points" awarded for the usual kills as well damage inflicted on the planes.

    Play in two rounds. In the first one, player A is Entente and player B is Central Powers. In the second one, player A is Central Powers and player B is Entente. Winner is the one with the highest points total at the end of both rounds.

    This is very balanced. And even if you believe that there were more than 15 D.VII that day around Barker, just add them - it will be balanced anyway.

    In any case, tournaments are useful to the hobby. Back in 1983 I organized the first Italian tournament of Dungeons & Dragons. Many followed, far larger than mine. In 1991 the Italian D&D championship involves 2800 players in 20 cities; in 1992 they are 3800 players in 30 cities. I took part as a player. Most of us, starting from the organizers, were convinced that tournaments were not the best occasion to play D&D. Nor that D&D was the best game to organize tournaments of. But it was great to spread the hobby.

    I think that a friendly game of Wings is very fun and involving, and there is no need to add a prize. Relxed players with a "knights of the air" attitude are IMHO far better than competitive ones from a fun point of view. Demos in public places are great and very effective. But in spite of all that, some tournaments can help too to involve new players, to give visibility to the game in events. In Italy always saw open tournaments with veterans and novices all together, and usually a lot of chivalry and fair play - everybody had fun, sometime novices won, several players took home some prizes that could be a starting box or a few miniatures, and new gamers were born.

    Do tournaments need a point system? No. Many have been succesfully played with the "same level" system described posts ago: take planes of the same level, or (in some tournaments) balance them with skills.
    Some tournaments have been played on scenaros. Even more fun and variated than just "take some planes and destroy your opponent". An Italian Wings of War championship had the 3 final turns played on a dogfight scenario, a bombing scenario and a balloon busting scenario.

    Anyway a point system can be useful for some games and tournaments where each player can personalize his own air fleet, and that's fun. Even trying to stretch the presumed bugs in the system at his own advantage and then play to see if they were really bugs can be funIt also allow players to play with their own stuff, not forcing organizers to provide planes for everybody.
    On the opposite, points can be anyway a base to start for designing scenarios. Maybe with a chart of planes availability at hand to match "historical opponents", if people prefer. I am working on this too... more soon. Or maybe not too soon, but you will forgive me for that.

    Thanks a lot for your attention!
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 10-10-2014 at 22:19.

  28. #278

    Default

    Or maybe you score by having better than a certain ratio of "points invested to points scored". For example, let's say it's a 10:1 ratio and you want to bring a What-If MvR D.VII. That means you're going to have to VASTLY outscore your competitor who's bringing an unmodified Eindecker, because he's going to have a MUCH easier time making ten times his initial point "investment".

  29. #279

    Default

    About next releases: I will try to post points for them before they are available.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Now, the question is what would I use a point system for? And something like this occurred to me, as I am developing a long term campaign game.

    I envision a campaign game something like this...

    4 Squadrons: 2 Central Powers; 2 Entente

    Each squadron gets so many points (the same) to allocate for the "purchase" of planes and pilots (with skills).
    I worked on the same, but squadrons are not turning - you have one of fighters and one of two-seaters on each side, to allow more variated scenarios.
    At first I tought about using points to buy the initial allowance of planes and pilots, and then to get reinforcement every week or so. After much thinking I decided not to do that... Mor on that in the future.

  30. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post

    I've been looking at other game systems and their "success" or proliferation at conventions.

    What makes these games so popular? Is it the game, the competition format (and a point system that enables free-form competition), and/or the publishing company's support or sponsorship that is attracting participants? I'm specifically looking at WH40k and X-Wing that are at almost every convention in BC, and have tournaments, with painting competitions and prizes.

    Is this something a points system in Wings of Glory might allow? Is thisthe type of competition we want? I've been getting mixed feedback on this forum, but predominantly in favor of scenario games, not competitions at conventions. Fun, not conflict. Sharing and mentoring, not rules laywering and cheesy combinations of planes/skills to win at any cost.

    Is there a balance we can find between the extremes, that promotes quick, easy, but fun competitions? Let's set the groundwork and build the framework for that now, so we end up with the game we want to play at conventions in the future. Perhaps fun scenarios and a competition run in parallel?
    I'd pretty much agree with everything Mike says - except perhaps the rules lawyering - you get that anyway, its just worse in some competitions. What we have already , as far as I can see, is a great little game system that delivers vague scenario driven games where everyone sits around a big table, players drift in and out, easy to play etc. Wings has that, and if you are one of the players that is "into" that long may it continue. What it lacks is an organised tournament format similar to that used in XWing, and that needs a viable tournament points system, which we don't have.

  31. #281

    Default

    Somebody else is working on that, but the points system is here for anybody needing it. If you try tournaments with it, let me know.

  32. #282

    Default

    One of the main problems with tournaments in the UK is actual game time. For a venue to allocate table space we have to prove it is viable.

    Average time available is roughly 6 hours. 90 minutes a game with change overs etc that gives you probably 3 games with time for prizes etc at the end.
    There are very few 2 day shows in the UK, in fact I think there are only 2; Sheffield Triples and Derby World Championships.
    So points to balance the playing field would be required.
    Otherwise you would have to set up a number of identical tables, for example 1. balloon busting, 2. photo recon, 3. dawn patrol etc. So everyone plays the same sequence of missions.
    Simpler to have a table with 2 (4 gamers with referee) in a free for all time limit. Points awarded for damage caused within a time limit.
    winners go into 1 pot, 2nd into another etc. Then draw for game 2. Repeat for game 3. That way all ubber/experienced players keep playing each other and again balances the playing field.
    Impractical to run a knock out as again time constraints limits us to 3 games, max 8 players. (8 to 4 to 2 to 1 winner).
    But I think still doable (tournaments) as a way to promote the game and get more people playing at shows.

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

  33. #283

  34. #284

    Default

    So, we had three different suggestions for tournament format:

    a) 1 vs. 1
    b) 1 vs. many (with "Conan" changing after every game)
    c) many vs. many

    As I see it, if one organizes competitive games, A) and B) options are more appropriate for tournament, as in C) you depend on your teammates which blurs actual individual achievements, specially as one can harvest planes damaged by others.

    System B) is good and it gives different view to the issue. But, it's obtainable only in smaller tournaments. Dividing 50 participants in 10 1 vs. 4 (for example) groups is neither easy, nor fair (groups will be of different quality, so some players could benefit from that).

    Finally, classic 1 vs. 1 system will work fine. If playing classical (example) 64 - 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1, every one has a fair start with pre-agreed number of points. However, it has same downside as B) - as there's no "ATP list", some players could benefit from draft.

    That's why I believe 1 vs. 1 Swiss system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament ) should work the best for the tournaments, no matter how many players compete. Pre-agreed point limit will give the players equal opportunity to choose the best plane they find appropriate.

    Finally, if someone finds point system limiting and/or non-historical, planes could always additionally be limited to period/theatre of war.
    Also, players could play two games each round, changing airplanes after first (this preventing "Death Star tournaments")

  35. #285

    Default

    In Italian tournaments, when I have been asked for an opinion I usually suggested the following.

    The easiest way to organize a tournament is open it to individuals. For the first turn of the tournament, randomply divide players in tables with the same even amount of people, from 4 to 10. For each table, half of the players are Entente and half Central Powers, again chosen at random. Each player must have a fighter plane, either his own or provioded by organizers; all of them must be equivalent according to the "classes" given earlier in this thread. Starting position is with teams on opposite sides of the table, with the planes evenly distributed among them and the table sides, with the bottom of the card touching their side of the table.

    Play a dogfight scenario. If organizers do not decide differently, use basic rules. Before the start, take away explosion cards from damage decks. The winning team is the one still on the table when all the enemy planes are eliminated or left the table.

    For each match, score is individual. Divide again the people to play a second match, and maybe even a third one if there is time. Then add the individual scores of each players and take for the next turn the players with the highest total: at least half of the people, and in a number that is a power of 2 (4, 8, 16, 32, 64...). In case of a tie, take the player who won the most matches; if still even the ones who shot down more planes; if even the ones who were on the table at the end of the match more frequently; if still even choose randoply.

    Match score
    The tournament score is individual and given as follows at the end of each match:
    10 points for each match in which the player belongs to the winning team.
    3 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at short range (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    2 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at long range (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    3 points for each plane shot down; consider the last shot, and if a plane goes down because it is hit by more than one plane in the same phase consider it as shot down by each of them.
    -10 if shot down.
    -20 if exiting the table with the central dot of the plane, abandoning the match.

    Match Report
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Player n. ____ Name _______________ Family name __________________________

    Plane used ______________________________________________

    Winning team [ ] Loosing team [ ]

    Short range shots fired [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
    Long range shots fired [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    Enemies shot down [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] shot down [ ] exited table [ ]

    Individual tournament score for the match ______________________________________________

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the second turn onward, divide randoply the players into tables of 4 people, with two teams of two. Go on with direct elimination: from each table take the players of the winning team, that is the one with at least one plane on the table when all opponents are shot down or gone out of the table. There is no more need to keep scores. All players taken are again randomply divided into tables of four, and so on until a final match mong players will be held. The two winning players will play again among them for the first and second placement, while the two loosers will play among them for the third and fourth one. These last two matches will be two player ones: choose randomly who will be the Entente and who the Central Powers player, then give each the two planes he prefers for that side.

    Time limit
    If there are organization needs, the match can be limited to a specific amount of time and in any case to no less than 45 minutes of effective play. When the limit is reached, complete the turn planned. If at the end of the match there are planes of both sides still on the table, the victory goes to the team with the better sum of individual scores (excluding of course the 10 points for the winning team). If even, the team with more planes still on the table wins. If even, the winning team is the one with less damage points received (consider shot down and exited planes for 16 points, no matter the real damage suffered). If it is still a draw, choose the winning team randomly.

    Expert tournament
    With experts, there can be diferent ways to make the tournament an even more fun experience. One is to use the Points system to allow each player to make his own prsonal squadron, the other is to variate scenarios. The two methods are alternative: if the Points system is in use, play a series of dogfights as in the basic tournament.

    Points system in tournaments
    People taking part in the tournament must be an even number. Players can form their own squadron spending that amount of points, secretly writing down the composition of their squadron on a sheet of paper given to the organizers. Players must provide themselves all the planes that they need to form their squadron.
    Players are randomly assigned to tables, two players for each table, and play a dogfight scenario against each other. The players winning the match pass the turn. If the number of player passing is not a power of 2, add as many players as needed taking, among the losers, those having the highest individual score. If the players taking part in the tournament are already a power of 2 at the start, there is no need to track individual scores. Nor there is any need to track the scores of winners.
    Before the start of the second turn, players have 10 minutes to change their squadron, spending again the same amount of points and giving a new sheet to the organizers. Then play all the remaining turns of the tiournament with the new squadrons, without any new changes, with dogfight scenarios of two players per table.

    Match score (with Points system)
    The tournament score is individual and given as follows at the end of each match:
    90 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at short range inflicting A cards (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    60 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at long range inflicting an A card (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    60 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at short range inflicting B cards (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    30 points for each time the player fires at an enemy plane at long range inflicting a B card (no matter how much damage is inflicted).
    The value in points of each plane shot down.
    Three time the value of an own plane shot down.
    Six time the value of an own plane exiting the table with the central dot of the plane, abandoning the match.

    Match Report
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Player n. ____ Name _______________ Family name __________________________

    Plane used ______________________________________________

    Winning team [ ] Loosing team [ ]

    Short range shots fired [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
    Long range shots fired [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    Enemies shot down [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] shot down [ ] exited table [ ]

    Individual tournament score for the match ______________________________________________

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Different scenarios
    Play as in the basic tournament. For more fun and variety, from the second turn onward the organizers can choose different scenarios to be played (bombings, balloon busting, trench strafing, dogfights...). The team passing the turn is the one winning the scenario. If organizers are not completely sure about the balance of their scenarios, better than in each turn the scenario is played twice swapping sides: then each time adds the two scores and the team with the highest one pass the turn. In case of a tie, draw at random.

    Alternative scoring
    It can be easier to organize a tournament without damage decks. This also allows to reduce the luck factor, even if some thrill in the game is lost together vith variated damages and their secrecy. Besides, this makes impossible to use the standard rules with special damages.
    Play with the basic rules. The only difference is that instead of taking damage cards, A-firing planes inflict a fixed amount of 2 points at long ranges, 3 at short range. B-firing planes inflict a fixed amount of 1 point at long range, 2 points at short range. There are neither explosions nor jammings.

    Match score with fixed damage
    The tournament score is individual and given as follows at the end of each match:
    10 points for each match in which the player belongs to the winning team.
    1 point for each damage point inflicted to an enemy plane.
    5 points for each plane shot down; consider the last shot, and if a plane goes down because it is hit by more than one plane in the same phase consider it as shot down by each of them.
    -10 if shot down.
    -20 if exiting the table with the central dot of the plane, abandoning the match.

    Match report (fixed damage)

    Player n. ____ Name _______________ Family name __________________________

    Plane used ______________________________________________

    Winning team [ ] Loosing team [ ]

    Damage suffered [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
    [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    Enemies shot down [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] shot down [ ] exited table [ ]

    Individual tournament score for the match ______________________________________________

  36. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    -10 if shot down.
    -20 if exiting the table with the central dot of the plane, abandoning the match.
    Interesting that you penalize more for leaving than being shot down. I would've figured it should be the opposite. Care to elaborate?

  37. #287

    Default

    Chicken leaves the field factor. Either that, or simple mistake.

  38. #288

    Default

    Actually, thinking upon it for an hour I might be down with something along the lines of:
    leaving the field: - 20, less 1 point per point of damage taken; less 5 points for wounded pilot special damage, less 5 point for Engine Damage special damage, less 5 points for Observer Killed Special Damage (less an additional 5 if Observer rquired for the mission).

    A little more complicated, but also a little more interesting, IMHO.

  39. #289

    Default

    Well, the idea is that for a single scenario - not in a campaign - bravery would have to be encouraged. A player should not fear losing his airplane if he could bring a few enemies with him, so pčenatly to be shoy should be not too high. Calculations and tactics of "fleeing after getting enough points" should be discouraged.
    Besides, if a winning plane is not allowed to flee out of the table after calculating convenience, the losing side has the change to get even or even accumulate more points than him going on in the match. The game session is more open, fun and interesting, and a player can try to recover after a lucky strike from his opponent.

  40. #290

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    This is why I hate playing in tournaments.

    I show up with an expectation at one level, and find out the 'rules' once I show up.
    Last edited by Grey; 10-13-2014 at 13:27.

  41. #291

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    On the other hand, my "club" had an interesting match this weekend: a four-way 'free-for-all' dogfight

    Lithuanian Front--June 1920
    4 Teams that were at each other. They were:

    Bolshevik
    Freikorp (German planes only)
    Polish Volunteer
    Allied Intervention

    Unfortunately, I didn't attend, but I heard it was pretty bloody.
    My friend finally got to fly his Sapozhnikov Snipe, and my other friend got to fly his Junkers D.1. Both survived (barely).

    EDIT: As I understand it, there was no attempt to balance the scenario. You just showed up and played for whatever side you wanted.

    A point system would have been only useful during the post-flight pub debriefing when counterpointing someone's brag.
    Last edited by Grey; 10-13-2014 at 13:32.

  42. #292

    Default

    That's OK, and can be amusing. Basically, most of historical games I played, actually were unbalanced, and i liked it, as balanced battle in real life is a scarce. But, point of this topic is a point . In other words, how to balance games for those occasions when game balancing necessary, specially for tournaments. For any off-battle point system is not necessary, but can be helpful - as at least you can get a picture how many of which aircraft to pair. And for unexperienced (or worse, completely new) players it's almost a must. If you feel frustrated after first two games you played in your life, you probably wouldn't try to play third one.

  43. #293

    Default

    Thank you for the points value system. I think it's a great idea.
    But I have one query.
    Why is the SS D.1 54 points?
    I thought it was a copy of the Nieuport 11 (and not a copy of the 17) so should have the same points - 46.

    PS I ask because I'm thinking of converting an 11 to a SS D.1 and using it as an opponent to the 11.

  44. #294

    Default

    Good luck with your project!
    Functionally it was a copy of Ni.17. It also had a 110hp engine, same as early Ni.17 (Ni.11 had 80hp).
    The difference is the metal structure. This makes it sturdier, hence the 13 damages sustained (against 10 of Ni.11 and 12 of Ni.17) and a slower speed (so it shares Ni.11's E deck, not Ni.17's I deck). Hence also the higher cost.
    I judged it anyway a more balanced project than the Ni.16, again a heavier and more powerful plane than the Ni.11 but with problems and then with a worse maneuvre deck (and cheaper).
    I leave you to judge size and aesthetics, but I'd rather start from a Ni.17 by instinct. Anyway the engine was different and the cowling was open in the lower part, so that detail is closer to Ni.11's.
    Ni.11 is to be released soon in our line, Ni.17 to be part in the next reprint of WoW planes.

  45. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Good luck with your project!
    Functionally it was a copy of Ni.17. It also had a 110hp engine, same as early Ni.17 (Ni.11 had 80hp).
    The difference is the metal structure. This makes it sturdier, hence the 13 damages sustained (against 10 of Ni.11 and 12 of Ni.17) and a slower speed (so it shares Ni.11's E deck, not Ni.17's I deck). Hence also the higher cost.
    I judged it anyway a more balanced project than the Ni.16, again a heavier and more powerful plane than the Ni.11 but with problems and then with a worse maneuvre deck (and cheaper).
    I leave you to judge size and aesthetics, but I'd rather start from a Ni.17 by instinct. Anyway the engine was different and the cowling was open in the lower part, so that detail is closer to Ni.11's.
    Ni.11 is to be released soon in our line, Ni.17 to be part in the next reprint of WoW planes.
    Thanks for taking the time to reply. Based on this, I going to paint up the plane I've done as a Ni 22 instead.

  46. #296

    Default

    Many of my friends play X-Wing and like the point buy system so something like this for Wings of Glory is needed. As much as I like your point system some of the numbers for the decks seem arbitrary. I've been playing with the numbers would something like this work?

    Name:  Point System Proposal 2.JPG
Views: 662
Size:  101.1 KB

    I was trying to assign each maneuver a hard value basically 1/2, 1, and 2. The machine gun was based on the A deck doing 1.7 times more damage than a B and multiplying that time damage sustained. I rounded to 10. I've seen a similar point system in the files section that we have also used.

    Basically:

    HR = Hard Right
    HL = Hard Left

    RS = Right Slip
    LS = Left Slip

    WRS = Wide Right Slip
    WLS = Wide Left Slip
    Last edited by WWIflyingace; 12-14-2014 at 06:15.

  47. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    One of the main problems with tournaments in the UK is actual game time. For a venue to allocate table space we have to prove it is viable...There are very few 2 day shows in the UK, in fact I think there are only 2; Sheffield Triples and Derby World Championships....Neil
    Warfare (Reading) & Bovington (Tank Museum) are two others - Colours (Newbury) has just switched to one day this year

  48. #298

    Default

    Update on Points for Series 8? Did I miss it in the thread?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  49. #299

    Default

    I will do it soon. Promised!

  50. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    My experience gaming with "point based armies" is...everyone thinks they have mastered the system and have developed their army to be the 'best' one allowed under the restrictions of the point ratings. Meh. If that's what you want to play, fine. But it's not for me or most gamers I know.

    Nor am I fond of exactly equal sided games, in a competition.

    I guess it all depends on what you consider "fun" and that's a matter of opinion and/or taste...neither of which can be argued.
    I agree with you and others in not likeing the idea of a points system, (however I do appreciate the work Andrea has put into devloping a practical system) and yes I do appreciated that others will like the system, but it is not for me. Each to his own I say.

Page 6 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
  •