The Actual VALUE/COST/PRICE of WW I AC

[Bruce]

I have the idea of assigning a "value" to Fighters and 2-seaters that reflects the actual cost to each side to put such an AC and its aircrew into front-line service. In addition, the new "value" might also be adjusted to reflect the actual contribution each/such AC typically made to the tactical or strategic war effort. The same idea could apply to Balloons.

Currently I think that most of us in long-running campaign games assign "Kills", Ace abilities and experience skills in more or less the same way - details may vary of course. But, I wonder, if we examined the actual cost of the AC types and their crews that were shot-down, could we determine, for example, that fighter Pilot A who has many "Kills" actually contributed less to the war effort than fighter Pilot B who had fewer "Kills" but most were much more valuable or expensive AC and crews.

If we could "value" the types of AC with their crews, it would create a new "statistic" which may be of interest to some of us. It might also put into better perspective the value/role/contribution of the "lowly" 2-seaters. I think that their cost (and also their contribution to the ground war) was actually much greater than the cost and contribution of Fighter AC.

And, if you want a further refinement, such a value could be increased to reflect the experience/ability/record of the crew that was shot-down/lost. The loss of an Ace would certainly be of greater significance (value) than the loss of "just another rookie".

Who knows something about this topic or can direct me to a good source?
I will share the results. Thanks in advance.
Bruce

[Oberst Hajj]

Interesting idea.


And, if you want a further refinement, such a value could be increased to reflect the experience/ability/record of the crew that was shot-down/lost. The loss of an Ace would certainly be of greater significance (value) than the loss of "just another rookie".

I would think if you were using Ace Skills of some type, the lost of the Ace would already have negative effects just by that side losing those skills. A further penalty of some type might be a bit much.

[Bruce]

Thanks Col. H, I follow your thinking and agree, but I'm not thinking of creating a "penalty". I'm trying to figure-out a way to perhaps more "correctly" or rather "differently" measure the contribution of aircrew that shoot-down En.
I recall reading historic comments that Ace's who shot-down many more two-seaters than fighters were earning their "Ace" status the easy way. The implication being that 2-seaters were not "worthy" targets. Well, if a 2-seater's "base-value" was determined to be double the value of a fighter, then a new/parallel scoring system that reflected this "double" value might be fun to have. And, it might also adjust our game design thinking to make more use of 2-seaters which would be consistent with the real thing as I understand it.

[Oberst Hajj]

Most of the Red Baron's kills were against two-seaters, so I don't think too many pilots thought that was the easy way of getting Ace. I guess ultimately you are trying to get two-seats to be used more in games?

[Colmanspig]

The german Air services main role during the majority of the air war was to prevent the RFCs Army coop machines , photographing the front, login location of german field guns, directing fire .

The baron like his fellow pilots was doing his duty by taking down these priceless work horses, not imo trying to increase his ace total the easy way.

[Bruce]

Good observation.
How about this. In WW I, 1 Observation Balloon was worth enough to justify having 100-200 support troops (a balloon company strength varied between 100-200 depending on .... and they usually only had 1 balloon) and several vehicles, and ... and .... etc. So, surely its contribution was considered to be greater by far than a fighter AC w pilot and support personnel. So, supported by what Colmanspig said in the previous post, in another system of "scoring" (the one that I'm "wrestling" with) wouldn't it make sense that shooting-down an "average" 2 seater or an "average" Balloon would be worth more than an "average" fighter? The value of any AC or Balloon would increase if it was considered "special" in some relevant way e.g. it was piloted by an Ace, or other easily defined characteristic that made it more effective at its job than an "average" one of its kind.

First thoughts are that a fighter could be worth 1 pt, a 2-seater 2 pts and a Balloon 3 pts. If an Ace is a crew member the AC's value is increased by 1, if the Balloon is defended by more than 4 AA MG or 4 AA Arty emplacements/truck-mounted it's value is also increased by 1. I'm just raising this idea because it always seemed unfair that "a kill was a kill was a kill" without regard for its "value" and "simple cost" to produce and put into service. I can imagine why they did it so simply in real-life (WW I/II/Korea, etc) but I thought I'd try to create something else for my gaming group.

[Colmanspig]

It was easyer to shoot down most two seaters than more nimble fighters.

The value of two seaters would change on a mission by misson basis. depending on their work and the timing. I.e pre offensive, day of an infantry attack.

But the difficulty in bringing them down wouldn't change so the xp awarded shouldn't either IMO. Your abilities increace based on what you learn not always the value of what you do.

I have always felt that XP should mainly be based on number of damage cards inflicted with a bonus for kills.

If you wanted to complicate matters you could have a system of XP depending on the type of plane. Come up with a figure for each plane. A deck or B deck, toughness, and so on. But really I think its the difference between your plane and his that matters so that wouldn't work. Hmmmm

[Horse4261]

I would think that if you were going to follow a pilots statistics the thing to do is compare the targets damage potential (hit points) by the total number of damage cards taken to down a particular target. Granted there is always the element of luck on the draw, but you can follow a pilots shot percentage on target. As for value of differing targets, IMHO it all depends on the mission orders. After all, if the mission is balloon busting and even downing all defending aircraft, if you don't destroy the balloon it just means someone else is going to have to do your job for you later.

[Bruce]

"Colemanspig" said ..."I have always felt that XP should mainly be based on number of damage cards inflicted with a bonus for kills"

I think that this idea has lead me to the following. Keep the "kill" record as it is and more or less as it always has been; "kills" determine who becomes an "Ace". BUT, if time and player patience permits, also number of sorties survived with a bonus for a successfully completed mission, and also track shots "for" and "against". Experience pts could be awarded simply based on the number of missions/soties flown and whether they were successful or not. AND, skill pts (if you decide to make them two different things) could be based on the number of shots for and number against - a more skillful pilot/aircrew would have more shots for than against, etc, etc.

I would need to create some sort of numerics, etc, but as a basis this sounds better than the vague ideas that I had originally about AC values/cost/worth.

I note also that shots for and against are a statistic recorded at the Wings-PBeM site for pilots. I will have a closer look to see if there is a correlation between simple dogfight results (Kills - 10 pts and shared kills - 5pts) and shots for and against (skill).

Thanks. More from me later.