A big thank you! This is much appreciated.Originally Posted by Angiolillo
A big thank you! This is much appreciated.
Any news on this?
Sorry, at the moment I have no more my computer and data. The keyboard broke, replacement parts are late (as Series 8 by the way, due to strikes in East Coast ports). When I will get back all my data, I'll do it. Sorry.
Did you say EAST Coast, Andrea? Like we're having problems on first one coast then the other? O.O
Ok, you are correct - West!
Just checking, amigo... I mean, I know Thugs Gonna Thug, but one would think they'd have the sense to not try to shut down the entire GLOBAL economy, right?
Hi,
I'm new to the game, previously playing X-WING. Just discovered the Points System here and I'm happy I did. Is there a "standard range" of points with which you can "build" your squadron, e.g. 100 Points? Like I said, coming from an other miniatures game, I'm a bit unsure how to balance my future WGF games.
Hi Dennis.
There are several schools of thought on this in circulation.
Those who play historically. Sides were very seldom balanced, but what a coup if you win against the odds. those who like to start on an even playing field, and those who like myself think points are only needed when we play tournament style games at shows.
If you are of the even playing field fraternity, the best thing to do is find out from our files section which aircraft are contemporary, what are actually available at present, and then build your Squadron or Jasta to fit your desires.
Remember also that a lot of aircraft were still flying long after their sell by date, and could therefore come up against far superior enemies. I hope this has not served to just muddy the water further, and is actually of some help to you.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Hi Rob,
actually you've helped me out quite a bit. I really like your idea of pitching historically correct aircraft against each other; in the end this is the spirit of the game. I'll go with that, leaving the squadron building thing to other games.
Glad to be of service Dennis. I'm sure that a few more of the chaps will be along with more useful tips before long.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Done!
I think that you can do some Squadron building as well, with this system. Up to you and your friend to decide if with planes of same period or not - because you do not care about history or, as said, because it was even possible to find some olt machines sometimes still operating. Expecially on minor fronts.
Fix any amount of points for each side: for example 150, 200 or 250. I'd suggest to agree them depending on which minis you have. If you have plenty and variated, choose freely.
I say which because an early war monoplane costs less than 50 points, while the points system is calibrated on the Fokker D.VII costing exactly 100. So 150 is good for three early monoplanes or two biplanes with several skills, 200 two "naked" D.VII or some of the most famed planes (Camel, Dr.I) with sklills, and so on.
I am writing some rules and notes about how to use a points system in this game, including data on actual service periods - stay tuned. Even if times of planes in services are available here already.
Sounds great!
A good first approximation is that aircraft on the same front and at the same period are usually pretty well balanced against each other in equal numbers.
Pilot skill makes a big difference.
I think I'm the only person who's deliberately chosen an early 1916 DH-2 to go vs a late 1918 Fokker D.VII flock, but the opponents were too busy laughing at its comparatively lamentable performance to notice that I managed to kill one of their number, and damage another before being forced down - over friendly lines. Meanwhile the Camels and SE5as (1917) were doing well, inferior but only slightly so. 5%? 10% at the most.
Each aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses. The Fokker Triplane from early 1918 can out-turn anything but a Camel, but is really quite slow and fragile. The Spad XIII is super-fast, but turns like a brick. The SE5a is a somewhat better, but not by any huge margin. The D'VII is a great all-rounder, as fast as a Camel, can out-turn it easily in a Left turn, but slower than a Spad XIII or SE5a.
The best thing to do is to find a plane that suits your playing style. I like lots of hit points, lots of armament (A rather than B guns). I play in the vertical so turning is not so important, but speed is. A Brisfit with B front and A rear guns is my preferred mount, though B rear guns are good too (and historical for high altitudes or before 1918).
Others swear by the DrI triplane, turns on the proverbial dime, good armament, but slow and rather too fragile for my taste.
Thanks again for the help. My first three planes will be the Albatros D.Va, Fokker Dr.I and Fokker D.VIII -- enough planes to figure out which suits me best.
Thank you for this. As a newbie to the game who is trying his hand at designing some scenarios I find this point system invaluable.
Along those lines, would any one be brave enough to venture an estimated point value for trenches, machine guns, AA-guns, and the like? I'm trying to design assymetric yet roughly fair scenarios - such as 4 fighters versus 3 fighters over enemy trenches, or a bombing run where the target is guarded by AA-guns, etc.
Thanks!
Well, I kept them out of the system because they so much depend on the scenario and on optional rule. A trench or ground machinegun or even an AA gun is far more powerful if altitude rules are not in use. And if you have a target to reach in some part of the table they defend or not, and how close they are to it. And if it is a target forcing you to fly low (a trench to strafe, a balloon to take down) or not (a target that you can bomb from a high altitude)...
Even a bombing mission with no ground elements is balanced more on relative distance from bombers to targets and opponents, and on points to score for full and partial bombing, than just on strenght of planes. But with ground elements I think that points are pretty worthless and the context is far more important.
For similar reasons I left out incendiary bullets and rockets - they are part of the scenario balance instead.
RJames,
just S.W.A.G. it (make a best guess) but don't waste your time over-thinking it. WoG is not really a tournament-style, points-based game like X-Wing (or any number of other "popular" wargames). Best recommendation is pick contemporary, historically plausible opposing aircraft and just fudge the rest (like estimated value of ground targets... or 'Ace' skills, etc...). Take your best guess at what looks good and "feels" balanced to you. Any imbalance you may inadvertently create is actually a "bonus" as it makes for a more interesting and more historically accurate game.
When in doubt, do some quick internet research on WWI air combat and organize your games based on specific engagements ypou read about or, better yet, go for the "feel" of your *new* understanding of WWI air combat. Most importantly, have fun.
Chris
My philosophy exactly Chris, but I can understand newbies who have been brought up on the exact points system floundering a bit when presented with decisions like we suggest.
Also for competition games at shows it is essential to have a level playing field.
Again as usual with this wonderfully flexible system, it's horses for courses.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I appreciate the advice. What has us hankering for a point system is that we've been diligently tracking each individual pilot's success.
As was the case during WWI, very few last a fortnight....
We've gotten used to losing guys left and right, but would't want to put a cherished pilot up against unreasonable odds!
Very few, if any, contemporary aircraft are truly mismatches, beyond what common sense and a (very) quick glance at their stats/maneuver decks will show you. Pilot skill... and a whole lot of luck tend to be the deciding factors. My own campaign experience has shown me that. Most of our pilots have survived 2... maybe three sorties, with 0-2 kills each. Then there is my son, who's German pilot has only flown 4 missions but has 11 kills! There is NO JUSTICE in war... only death! ... even pretend death (which is, after all, the best kind)
Once you accept that your pilot is already dead, the rest is simple. All (pretend) war depends on it. Just fly and have fun and pray that the gods are on your side, come what may.
Chris
O/400 fire B/A 182
O/400 fire B/A 197
What is the difference that makes one of these 15 points more than the other?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say a typo.
O/400 fire B/B 157
O/400 fire B/A 182
O/400 fire B/A 197 - Should be "A/A" guns, not "B/A"?
That would make the difference?
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
You are correct, thanks. To be even more precise, I meant this:
O/400 fire B/B 157
O/400 fire B/A 182
O/400 fire A/B 182
O/400 fire A/A 197
My dear husband and I have found through our numerous play sessions that (as other people have noted) pilot skill often carries the trump at the end of the day over an aircraft's point value.
For example, last weekend we ran a couple of games -- First of me with two A/A DH4's (my favorite aircraft) versus three Dr. I's for him, and although we were technically matched for point value, I blew all three of his planes out of the sky with no casualties on my side. Afterwards, we switched, but to spice it up, I took only two Dr.I's to go against his two A/A DH4's -- and I still blew both of his planes out of the sky (although I did lose one of my own as well). He and I agreed afterwards that the reason I was victorious both games was primarily because I'm so familiar with the nuances of the DH4, and I used that knowledge well both in flying with them and fighting against them.
Personally, I love the idea of a points system, and I truly appreciate all the work done to provide one here. I cut my gaming teeth on points-based systems like Battletech and Car Wars, and being able to use one with Wings of Glory puts me in a pleasant comfort zone.
BUT ... as opposed to the aforementioned sci-fi based games, the historical aspect of WoG is even more of a major attraction to me, and so realistically unbalanced scenarios can be ripping fun as well!
That's what's so great about WoG -- it can be whatever you prefer -- both "tastes great" AND "less filling"!
Enjoy!
-- Eris
p.s. I might mention that my husband and I always use altitude rules in our games, so that played a particular role in last weekend's matches, in that as the DH4 player I was often trying to stay at a lower altitude to remove my rear blind spots, and as the Dr.I player I tried to keep on the enemy planes' tails at their same height. That wasn't easy in either game, because my husband's rather a savvy pilot himself!
Last edited by Eris Lobo; 08-18-2015 at 15:20.
I agree with much of what has been said, but I still hold that the problem with the current "points system" is that it is fundamentally flawed because it lacks differentiation, put it simply it is based on a mathematical formula when the in game performance is a composite of a number of issues, and crucially the value of pilot skills is totally undervalued in comparison to the aircraft value. I suspect if you divided the cost of the planes by 10 but kept the pilot costs the same the points would work much better
Uummm... Ken?
I think you missed the point being made above. Eris is refering to "her" skill, not a "Pilot" skill from the point listing above.
I could be wrong, but that is how I read the post. And in real life, the commander makes a big difference. A poor plan well executed will almost always trump a great plan poorly executed.
That is how I read what the Black Flight, 10 RNAS, did with single gunned Triplanes against dual gunned adversaries in May-June of 1916. 87 planes claimed in two months by five pilots. A points system would have a hard time balancing that, except with pilot skills, and the Black Flight was flying against the Flying Circus.
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
FYI, when I talked about "pilot skill", I meant the skills of the " real" pilots (i.e., the game's actual players) and not the ace skill cards that might be assigned to a particular plane.
I think skill cards are really cool, but my husband generally doesn't care for them, so we only use them occasionally -- and to remove extraneous variables affecting the outcomes, last weekend's matches were ones in which the skill cards were kept hidden, well out of sight.
No I understood Eris was saying she won because she knew how to fly her DH4s. I was mainly commenting on the fact that the current points system is unbalanced in favour of the raw aircraft values but the real differentiator is pilot skill cards (taking the player skill and luck out of the equation). The in game impact of ace abilities can be huge, particularly those that deal extra damage, but the "points" paid for those skills is peanuts. If you were to divide the current points by 10 but leave the Ace abilities as they are you would have a better and more viable points system. Play at a nominal 25 points when a major ace ability is 5-8 points and then players would be faced with a real decision, play at 250 points with the same abilities being 5-8 points and its a no brainer. I still contend the actual point system is not fit for purpose. I dream of a wings tournament with a dozen or more players playing 3 rounds in a day at a convention in the same way other game systems do, but this dream always falls at he first hurdle, the points system simply doesnt work. Apologists will say its there to balance scenarios, or that tournament play is not to their liking - fine, but I suspect for some it would be, IF the tools were there.
I've haven't spent any time looking at or play-testing the unofficial points system, so I can't comment on that. I can, however, agree completely with the idea that some of the ace skills/abilities are game-changers.
That's pretty much half my point - the other being that the difference in points between two aircraft doesn't adequately reflect the difference in performance.
The other major issue is with rear gunners. The points system seems to assume a rear gunner is just the same as a front gun when in fact a rear gunner is in my experience far more useful because it has a much wider fire arc - usually more than twice the arc of a fixed gun. Manoeuvring for a shot with a fixed gun is therefore quite a skill, rear guns usually just blaze away as targets present themselves, basically they are a damage tax on anyone that gets too close with almost no skill involved. Given the built in weakness of the rules that assumes a machine gun firing on a flexible mount is exactly the same effectiveness as one on a fixed mount (totally contrary to the historical evidence) this is a major advantage for a two seater, particularly one with both a fixed forward gun and a rear gunner. The costs of rear gunners need to be boosted - I'd suggest doubled at least, to represent the way they work in game
Last edited by PilGrim; 08-19-2015 at 01:01.
I quite agree Eris.
The beauty of Wings is that it can be all things to all men, and women.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
When figuring out points. Is it still Damage x ? A + B guns are worth how much? I know there is a 20 pt difference between the two.
Air gunners do get a lot of love in the RAP. Several forum members have added house rules to limit this: no aiming, no +1, only short range... but that doesn't address the issues you're concerned about, Ken.
What would you suggest?
I think I got if figured out.
Damage x 2 plus
Guns (A=40, B=20, B/B=48, A/B=68, A/A=88) plus
Deck (A=13, B=12, C=16, D=19, E=10, F=19, G=?, H=11, I=12, J=11, K=7 or 8, L=28, M=25, N=20, O=25, P=12, Q=14, R=7, S=11, T=6, U=20, V=10, W=13, XA=?, XB=?, XC=?)
The trouble with K
RE-8 K/BB/13 7+48+26=81 K=7
BR-14 K/BB/17 8+48+34=90 K=8
also
UFAG C.I H/BB/16 11+48+32=91 listed is 83
Is it me?
Updated thanks Nicola.
Last edited by john snelling; 08-20-2015 at 08:50.
It looks to me as thought you've cracked it. Well done as it helps to know the formula.
The movement deck of the Fokker EIII is T which fits in with the points values.
The tiny 1 point discrepancy between the K decks values of the RE8 and the BR-14 is barely enough to worry about.
Gameplay or points? Gameplay wise we built a new rear gunner deck with twice the number of 0 s in there, and used a standard B deck for the twin guns - we also penalised the twin rear gun aircraft by increasing their climb rate but that only applies if you are using altitude . We also tried tracking ammo which does help
Points are another thing, and in fact I'm not sure we will ever get a viable system, but ideally I would like to see the differentials between decks increased too. If you are aiming to have a tournament system similar to that used in X-wing you need to have discrete performance steps, and the total points of a unit needs to be something usable - 100 rather than 250. Also there must be better differentiation - as I said a while ago having an Albatross DII at 78 points and a DVa at 82 points in a total spend of 250 just isnt viable as a tournament point system. I'll run some numbers and get back
I'm new at the game and I'd like, at least to start, to play fairly or mostly balanced games. Rolling over someone kind of takes the fun out of it.
So this is very helpful to me.
Thanks,
Nice work, John!
Couple of quick questions... 1) do you know where the deck values came from? 2) are climb/dive/max altitude worked into the figures (I'd think not, as altitude isn't mandatory, but want to be sure)?
Thanks!
Chris
The initial starter set is pretty well balanced
Deck values: I had to figure out them myself. Once I figured out the damage and gun values the equation was easy. I knew the total pts and the damage pts but had to figure what worked for the guns then the deck values last. For the Pfalz D.III was J+40+32=83 then J=11 then double checked against the Albatros D.III which used the same deck 11+40+28=79 so I knew for sure that J=11.
Altitude was not included.
May the sun be at your back,
John
For those not fully steeped in WWI history, and knowledgeable about all the planes and theatres available from which to create scenarios, there is a thread that could help: General Overview of WWI Miniatures - Timeline and Theaters 2014.
Hope this will save some effort, or at least be usable as a starting point.
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
That's a good point, Mike. Something like that is great for beginners, and that and the points could help with putting together a tournament.
I have to agree... the SPAD S.XIII, Albatros D.Va, Sopwith Camel, and Fokker Dr.1 were a great place to start. Although not "equal," they were well-matched and iconic.
No points in historical games IMHO! A point system is good for fiction games, likes X-Wing or WH40K, not for real historical wargames like WoG. In that way, using points, one could be able to swarm 4 or 5 Morane Bullets against one Fokker DVII, right? But such a fight would have NEVER happened. So how come?
"We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."
I often ask myself, why did I find this game so attractive in the first place. The answers were its simplicity, no huge record keeping, no hours before a game trying to balance armies. Also speed of getting set up, playing the game, and packing up.
Now I have added terrain, rules for guns, fuel consumption, and am back to trying to get a points system to even up the sides.
Result, not quite as bad as setting up 6000 troops but well on the way. Also what Andy said. When did you actually get an equal fight? An unequal contest is where good Generalship comes in surely?
Points in games other than competitions? Not for me thanks.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I agree completely with Andy & Rob. I don't use points, and have never used points when playing Wings. Of course, though not as knowledgeable as some, I've got a pretty good feel for aircraft capabilities... at least relative to one another. I think points can help steer new players to aircraft that were comparable.
What fuel consumption rules do you use, Rob?
------------------------------------------------------------------
What I find works a little better than points mission objectives. Rather than simply having a straight-up gunfight, give each side a mission with different victory conditions... in that way, both sides may score a victory despite "unequal" sides.
Last edited by fast.git; 08-21-2015 at 06:17. Reason: Mission Objectives
I'm with Rob: I enjoy more complex and involved wargames, and if I'm in the mood for one that's what I'll play. On the other hand, a quickly set-up scrap with a group of folks who aren't necessarily grognards in other circumstances, a game you can play at least two battles in a session, and a game with campaign potential WITHOUT being overly complex; that's Wings of Glory and I love it that way!
And like every other wargamer ever, I'm going to make too many "tweaks" myself, because we can't help it. But a point system is not one of the "tweaks" which appeals to me personally, because I think that over time, it's accumulated victories for pilot characters which constitute the "score".
I take a very simple attitude to fuel usage in WWI. Whoever is the aggressor has four turns less fuel than the defenders for normal sorties. We set the fuel limit to whatever length of game we want before we start. One unit is used up every turn, so if twenty units are chosen, the attacker has 46 cards before he runs out of fuel. the defender has 60. This means that the defender can chase the attacker off the table, but must judge his return so as to be able to get back lest he stray too far. Simples.
For WW2 fast speed flying burns an extra unit so it is a bit more complex. That is why I like using the Oberst's Cockpits. You can keep your records in an instant.
It is a very naive way to do fuel, but it gives a rudimentary feeling to the need to just keep an eye on things, and not go flying off willey nilley into the blue.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Ooh. This I like. It's abstract, but conveys the reality of fuel concerns while being simple enough to not bog down play. This I will start using.
I can see that... I wonder when Herr Oberst will have his cockpits back in stock? I failed to pull the trigger fast enough the last time they were in stock...
He is going to try and get some out before he leaves on his trip in September Chris.
I asked because I really need a couple more WW2 ones.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks