I am with you Al,
but for those who feel a need for it the crutch will be there, which can only be a good thing. No one can impose it upon anyone who wishes to continue in the old way, any more than the new rules from Ares can stop people using the Nexus ones. The more diversity available, the more people can find their own comfort zone in which to play. This can serve to attract more players to the game, so we have a win, win, situation.
Rob.
Andrea,
it's a great job, and thank you very much for it (and I certainly will use it in multi-games when all have the same machine guns).
But, it seems to me that A-guns are a bit overrated to B-guns. For example,
''Nieuport 17/23 fire A 77
Nieuport 17/23 fire B 53''
It's a difference which takes three skills to get points even. And I believe that, in hypothetical encounter of two same planes having different guns, three-skilled B-plane would have an easy victory over 0-skilled A-plane.
Well, try. But it does not seems so unfair to me.
Just imagine those two Nieuports, with same maneuvrability, shooting every three maneuver cards to each other once at long range, once at short range, once missing. So 3 damage cards every turn of three cards. Just as a totally abstract example. On the average, 1,6 points per A card and 0,8 for B cards. 3 A damage cards are 5 points, 3 B are 2,5 points. After 2 turns, score is 10 damages to 5 with 6 cards inflicted. After 2 turns and one maneuvre, with two more damage cards, 13,2 to 6,6 and the game ends.
Give the B firer Sniper, Perfect aim, Lucky pilot. All combat skills. The +1 of Perfect aim can be applied every 4 fire phases, so let's say on 3 cards out of the 8 inflicted. +2 points (on average, one of these three will be a 0 that does not ghet the +1 bonus). So damages become 13,2 to 8,6. Lucky pilot can once avoid one card of damages - let's say it ignores a 3. So damages become 10,2 to 8,6. There is time to use sniper once or twice and compensate the difference and even get into advantage, if cards help you. Planes are not eliminated yet, Lucky pilot skill is used forever, it is again a 1,6 rate of damage against 0,6 per card... IMHO you actually need three combat skills to get even on a second MG, and things are not so easy.
I think that while the points system may not be obligatory for friendly dogfights and such, it will definitely come in handy for scenario, campaign and tournament designers.
I am still working on a spreadsheet with points values for the official airplanes (there are still some missing there) using a system available in the files. I am going to post it together with the tables used for it. The comparison with Andrea's system may be useful and interesting.
EDIT: I cannot add the file for some unknown reason.
Last edited by Watchdog; 02-23-2013 at 02:23.
Now all we need is the formula - though I think we can work it out- and we can do it for the Unofficial planes. All 100+ of them....
Indeed, then we will be tournament-readyOriginally Posted by Zoe Brain
This one is a bit odd. Since you mention you haven't placed a point value on rockets, I'll assume this is the N16 sans rockets, i.e., just a N11 with the R-deck.
Exactly my thoughts, Al.
The one point is that I need a mathematician for the game, the other, that I have this stuff already with the X-Wings and Tie-Fighters.
I like fights that are a little bit imbalanced*. There is more chance for a honorable defeat or a glorious victory.
Just my opinion, but I see that a lot of forum members are very happy about this list.
*I'm not talking about Fokker E.IIIs versus Sopwith Snipes.
The Ni.16 was not so well balanced, so it was less agile. In the game, with the R deck it has three pairs of standard sideslips. With the E deck, the Ni.10 has two of them and a pair of quite useful broad sideslips, that allow you to move further sideways and advancing less. More choince of movement. Hence the difference in points.
I am no fan of points systems. In fact i have deliberately NOT created them for any of the many sets of rules that I've had published over the years.
BUT
I can see why there is a crying need for a system for Wings of Glory, and that is because there is a strong desire to establish some kind of tournament system. And running a local or national tournament would be an excellent way to raise the profile of the game. FFG is doing this in spades with X Wing - dozens of tournaments, maybe even 100+ in the last few months across the US and Europe, lots of chat on TMP and elsewhere about it, its really helping to make it a popular game. We can't do that for WoG without a suitable system to rank aircraft otherwise you end up with everyone choosing superplanes.
I am 100% certain that a points system will not become a fundamental part of WoG; if there is an official system then I am sure no-one will be forced to use it if they don't want to, nor will the game be written around it.
As I said earlier Sven.Exactly my thoughts, Al.
The one point is that I need a mathematician for the game, the other, that I have this stuff already with the X-Wings and Tie-Fighters.
I like fights that are a little bit imbalanced*. There is more chance for a honorable defeat or a glorious victory.
Just my opinion, but I see that a lot of forum members are very happy about this list.
.
I will not use it personally, but for tournament organisers it is a Godsend.
Rob.
It's usefulness for creating scenarios should not be over looked either.
I'm with Sven on this one Keith.
Never did run a balanced wargame in my friendlies.
Often don't even refer to the finer points of the rules in our games.
We often decide on moves based on concensus between both sides. Sort of well what would you do if you were a General in that situation. What would your men most be likely to do? I'd rally back. I'd run away. I'd make for those woods.
I know it is not an accepted way of playing, but it works for my friends and I. If we can't agree, and that happens very rarely, we just dice for it.
Whilst WoG does not lend itself to this method, we still do what we like with the aircraft we like within that time period and enjoy the outcome whatever it may be.
Rob.
(Please read in conjunction with my other posts in this thread, as I am not against the idea of points systems. In fact quite the opposite. It's just that I personally will not be using them outside tournaments.)
Rob.
I don't know about the scenarios usefulness. I prefer historical scenarios rather than fair and balanced, and yes I do believe in the Kobayashi Maru scenarios.
The way to make the historical scenarios believable and fair, is not to make sure the aircraft participating are of equal values. Rather, you should make time limits of how long you can survive or how long it takes you to kill off the targets etc. Approach the scenario design based on what you think the goals of each side should be other than just shoot em down!
Alternately, as example, Pearl Harbor 1941, can you take off from Hickam Field and get to x altitude without being killed. How many aircraft can you get up to that altitude. On the other side, each American a/c that makes it to altitude is a knife in your back.
The goals of a scenario should make the game fun. The idea of the grand melee really doesn't appeal to me that much - the idea of hundreds of a/c in a scenario automatically make me think that it is time to switch scales - instead of this game with individual a/c, I would switch to a game using counters of squadron or wings units.
@Andrea
thanks for the explanation! And I will try to play 10 or so games 3-skill B-gun vs. 0-skill A-gun and let you know about results. It might be interesting, but I still believe 3-skiller will prevail.
I think you're right. In tournaments or what have you OK but as long as a set of aircraft is matched as regards the time line for use what you bump into is what you bump into.
OPs (offensive patrols) are just pootling about on the wrong side of the line looking for trouble. Sometimes you find it in spades.
A points system is not for me. I prefer going with various combinations of historical matchups, and playing deliberately unbalanced scenarios can often be the most fun and interesting!
I also like uneven scenarios. Most of WoW/G ones are - one side trying to bomb, take pictures, strafe trenches, destroy balloons, cross the table, recover a downed crew, stay as long as possible behind enemy lines to direct artillery, and the other side trying to prevent that. Forces can be uneven - victory points, limited turns and such are here to balance. In general, this allows to make wargames about any battle or war: no serious simulation of the Normandy landings really allow Germans to "win" throwing back Allies into sea, but they evalue "victory" depending on quickness of advance, losses and such.
Back to WoW/G, points can not really help to create that kind of scenarios - but once a scenario is created and balanced, they can be useful anyway to tell you how to replace some planes with others, because you do not have them or you want to adapt it to another year of the war or you just want to variate that.
Again, points can help but are not a perfect instrument that can solve everything. Even if two planes cost the same because in a duel they match, if one is slower than a specific two-seater and the other is quicker, in a bombing/recon scenario against that two-seaters the quickler is better. As said before, some even subtle scenario factors/rules adopted actually change the efficiency of a given plane.
If you do that, I will be really grateful to you. Mine is an abstract explanation of why the point syestem sounds to me and 2 skills should not be enough, but in practice it could work differently.
Exactly.
When recreating a historical event, points per plane is useless as we already know what planes were involved and are trying to recreate that. However, for those scenarios that we don't have all the details of, or fall into the "could have happened" category, having the point system would be very helpful in making sure it is a fun game for everyone. Let's say someone is trying to create an Aerodrome Attack scenario. He knows he wants to have the Entente attacking a German aerodrome with scouts in 1918. Within the "historical" limits of aircraft operating at that time, it could be 4 Snipes attacking an aerodrome with 4 Albatros D.Va on it. It sounds even with the number of planes, and the unbalanced part (which I also think makes for the best missions) is the better Entente planes and them already being in the air. But if you look at the points, even if the D.Va were also already flying, they would be down 60 points. Not quite as even as it looked. Knowing this, the creator could throw in an old Roland C.II rear only B gun plane (perhaps a Jasta logistics bird) and make the planes even, with the only imbalance the fact that the Germans start out on the ground.
Having some type of points system for building scenarios does not mean they have to be balanced, it just means you can skew them in the correct manner and in the correct amount.
Another good example of how the points come in handy for scenario design is at Conventions. It's quite often that you do not know exactly how many players you will have at a game until you start the event. What happens when you have an odd number show up? If you built your scenario with the points system (or even just know what the points on each side was), you could quickly decide which side the extra player should fly for, and what type of plane he/she should have (perhaps you are out of Nieuport 17 minis, and need to know what other Entente plane would fill in nicely for that with out upsetting things to much).
I think you guys need to look at these as a tool to a goal, and not the goal its self
I'd find these even more useful for scenario building if we had points for the different types of ground guns.
Agreed.
After 10 games (both Nieuports 23)
B-3-skiller vs. A-0-skiller
Skills: Acrobatic Pilot; Sniper; Perfect Aim;
Rules: WoW rules
House rules:
1. Flame inflicts every damage noted (not just hull)
2. Explosion doesn't kill immediately, but you take 4 A-cards and apply every damage
3. In Collision take 1 C-card and apply every damage
3. Leaving the field not allowed (for those particular games).
Score was 6 : 4 for B-3-skiller (100 : 84 points inflicted).
Special damage:
4 Jammings, 5 Rudders, 1 Engine, 2 Pilots, 2 Smokes, 1 Explosion taken by A;
3 Jammings, 3 Rudders, 2 Engines, 5 Pilots, 2 smokes, 1 Flame taken by B;
We had one 14:0 (B won) and one 15:0 (A won), and one 12:0 after Collision (A won, after B took 10 from C-deck).
I hope this was helpful
Last edited by Пилот; 02-24-2013 at 14:03. Reason: Final score!
I totally agree. I think the thing that lots of people miss when looking to balance planes out is that the victory conditions can be used to balance out the scenario. Points really are only needed in dogfights but we could still use vp in that way, too. Make a better plane give up more victory points (maybe in a few categories). You can look at the scenarios that Ares releases to see this. Often times, the contrary objectives aren't scored the same. This helps balance the two sides out. Still, I like seeing systems that help us balance in other ways as the more info the better. Those who like this can check it out and add to the conversation, those who don't, can leave this thread and go on with their game as is. Everyone wins!
VERY interesting indeed, thanks so much! All this with three skills based on damage, I wonder what would happen with others.After 10 games (both Nieuports 23)
...
Score was 6 : 4 for B-3-skiller (100 : 84 points inflicted).
...
I hope this was helpful
But far more, I wonder how the results would be with just two skills.
I agree. Also, it would be nice to play control specimen (A : B without any skills or improvements).
Btw, Sniper is very strong skill. You may have good insight in opponents damage (special too). So, it maybe should be taken in account when calculating point values.
Last edited by Пилот; 02-28-2013 at 00:10.
The game is great and fine. But who wants to play against the guy with the AA/A double seater that blows everything out of the sky just because he has the miniature and the official card that lets him. We all like a challenge but the points system is good for the tournament style game where the winner would be the person who is allowed to use that miniature and there is no balance. I try and balance friendly games at the club so everyone has a fair crack, not withstanding the individual who will always field the best plane because he can. Or organise the game where anyone can fly whatever plane they wish put they are put into a hat for everyone to draw from. So you can bring your best plane to the game but you might not be flying it. There are loads of ways to balance games but for a tournament everyone has to have an equal chance of winning and points plus ace abilities is a fair way of balancing out this. Well done Andrea for working all this out for us.
The times when an up gunned aircraft comes into its own is if you are playing an historical scenario. ie. against a Giant Bomber. It is the case that most actions against either the Giants or Zeps involved a single aircraft or at most two, usually at different times from each other. the mass concerted attacks that we go in for just did not happen over England. For a one on one with a Gotha for instance, you get a very good game with an AB/A Biff. That is one of the only times that it would be justified. Home defence seems to be the only time that aircraft were up gunned to this extent, except for a few experimental aircraft such as the Sopwith Dolphin.
Rob.
As promised, new (and a bit bizarre) results (but this time without report of special damage):
B 2-skiller vs. A 0-skiller (10 games)
3 : 6 (A won), 1 game was draw
B inflicted 82, A inflicted 107
-----------------------------------------------
B 0-skiller vs. A 0 skiller (Terribly bad cards in the beginnings drawn by A in almost every game made this score true):
5 : 4 (Yes, B won, making point-difference of 91:82 ). One game was draw.
But, I must say, it was an interesting experience
Even more interesting.
So the total progression of B 2-skiller vs. A 0-skiller (20 games) is:
3:2 after 5 games
6:4 after 10 games
9:10+1 after 20 games.
(I remembred a partial result you published).
It looks balanced. Did you always play against the same opponent?
>B 0-skiller vs. A 0 skiller
Very interesting indeed.
It would be maybe interesting to see what would happen with average hits too (A cards calculated at 1,6 and B ones at 0,8).
And with a different number of planes. As with three A firers (77 x 3 = 231) against 4 B fires (53 x 4 = 212) with three skils distributed among them and 2/3 initial points of damages to one of them, or 5 Nieuport 11 (46 x 5 = 230).
Yes, always against the same opponent, and always changing planes after every 5 games. And always with 2 Nieuports 23.
So there were 3 different situations:
B3 vs. A0 6:4 (100:84) - 3:2 on halftime; Skills were Acrobatic Pilot, Sniper, and Perfect Aim.
B2 vs. A0 3,5:6,5 (82:107) - 2,5:2,5 on halftime; Skills were Daredevil (pretty poorly used) and Perfect Aim.
B0 vs. A0 5,5:4,5 (91:82) - 4:1 on halftime (Lady Fortune was very nasty to A player - but it's regular, too
About the skills used:
I must say that Daredevil is great thing when you have engine damage, but becomes quite useless with Wounded pilot. Also, It is not skill to be used widely during the game, but on few occasions (which even might not occur). On the other hand, Perfect Aim and Sniper are very strong and often used skills. Both give you boosted machine gun and insight in opponents damage (Sniper even bigger insight). So, I strongly believe that re-evaluation of point values for those three skills should be taken into consideration.
If I manage to group few players interested in such play testing, I would gladly do so.
I will surely reconsider skill values. In the meantime, I edited the first post to add a couple more skills that were not included initially.
thanks, I do hate competitive "points armies or games, but a points system is very helpful in a campaign aa well as a tool to use when setting up scenarios. Happy to give this a go...Thanks again for all your efforts.
I love this thread. I think the points system will be very helpful in creating a more competitive “tournament” style game option ala “X-Wing Miniatures” for Wings of Glory that just doesn’t exist today. I think that if we can figure out the official formula, we might be able to develop more “Ace Abilities” that can allow for more customization in squads and allow players to use the planes they have without feeling imbalanced when they fight players that have more powerful aircraft.
I ran through the formula that Andrea provided and came up with the following. I’d like your feedback to see if I’m on track:
• “A” Deck Cost: 48 points
• “B” Deck Cost: 24 points
• Hit Points: 2*# of Hit Points (i.e; 16 hit points = 32 point cost)
• Ace Skills:
o Acrobatic Pilot: 8I created a spreadsheet in Excel to subtract these points from the total cost of each aircraft to find the cost for each Maneuver Deck. In some cases, the math didn’t come out exactly, so there might be other things going on here. Also, some of the maneuver decks seemed to be priced a little higher than I expected, so maybe there are some calculations for climb rate as well? Here’s how things came out:
o Daredevil: 6
o Height control: 6
o Good at Escaping: 7
o Lucky Pilot: 7
o Chivalrous Aptitude: -5
o Strong Constitution: 5
o Super Ace: 8
o Bullet Checker: 8
o Incendiary Bullets: 6
o Technical Eye: 5
o Itchy Trigger Finger: 6
o Perfect Aim: 8
o Sniper: 8
o Rookie (No Ace Skills): -10
Maneuver Deck:
• A Deck: 5 (Spad XIII)
• B Deck: 4 (Albatross D.Va)
• C Deck: 8 (Sopwith Camel)
• D Deck: 12 (Fokker Dr.1)
• F Deck: 11 (Hanriot HD.1)
• H Deck: 3 (Ufag C.I, DH4)
• I Deck: 5 (Nieuport 17/23)
• J Deck: 4 (Albatross D.III, Pfalz D.III)
• K Deck: 0 (RE8, Rumpler C.IV, Breguet XIV,L.F.G. Roland C.II)
• L Deck: 20 (Fokker D.VII)
• M Deck: 17 (Sopwith Snipe)
• N Deck: 12 (Se5a)
• O Deck: 17 (Siemens-Schuckert D.III)
• P Deck: 4 (Airco DH2, Halberstadt D.III)
• Q Deck: 6 (Aviatik D.I)
• R Deck: 1 (Nieuport 16)
• T Deck: 0 (Fokker E.III, Morane Saulnier Type N)
• U Deck: 12 (Sopwith Triplane)
I think the next step in testing the balance of these maneuver decks would be to take planes and swap maneuver decks to see if there is an increase in the performance by making this change. Theoreitcally, if I were to give an Albatross D.III (80 points) an “L” Deck like the Fokker D.VII, it should be worth 96 points (80 +20 for the “L” deck, minus 4 for the “J” Deck) and basically be on part with a Sopwith Snipe (97 points). Obviously this would be ahistorical and I’d never do this in a real game, but it would be an interesting exercise to see how balanced the decks really are.
At a glance, a few of these decks seem to be priced a bit oddly. For example, are the “R” and “T” decks so bad that you should be given points for taking them? If I gave the Fokker D.VII a “T” Deck, it would be worth 78 points (100, minus 20 for the “L” deck, minus 2 for the “T” deck). That puts it in the ballpark of the Nieuport 17 and slightly less effective than the Albatross D.III or D.Va. Does that sound right? What if you gave the Fokker D.VII the “K” deck used by the RE8. In most cases it looks like that would be a “0” point option, so the Fokker would cost 80 points. Would an 80 point “K” deck Fokker D.VII be more effective than a 78 point “T” deck Fokker D.VII? My gut says that they “T” deck Fokker would consistently be better.
Finally, I’ve toyed around with 300 point limit lists using this point system. The question I have is this: If your objective was to win a tournament and using any squad possible within the rules was allowed, would you rather take the list with 3 Fokker D.VIIs , or with 7 Morane Saulnier Type Ns? I realize that’s an absurd matchup and if I were doing a tournament, I’d probably limit to “early war”, “mid war” and “late war” scenarios, but at the same time, I want people to be able to use what they own. If such a matchup were allowed, which of the above two lists would you expect to win? I think my money would be on the player who brought 7 aircraft.
I love the concept and would like to work through it a bit more to see if it’s something I could adopt for a tournament environment. I’d love to hear you guy’s thoughts!
Last edited by bcpravel; 04-10-2013 at 05:39. Reason: Updated maneuver deck costs based on Andrea's feedback, thanks Andrea!
Looks great!
Any chance you could put the excell doc in the files section so I could peruse it, please?
I've uploaded the Excel document. It's currently pending moderation. I'll put a link to it on this thread once it's been approved.
Just a word of caution, it's *very* draft and hasn't been proofed by anyone else. I literally just took the values in the thread and entered them into a spreadsheet. If you notice any errors, please let me know! Hopefully they will be of use for some people and aid in playtesting. I'd really like to see what could happen with an official points system for Wings of Glory!
Both are bad-slow, and not terribly maneuverable, so....
One can get away with negative point values here, as eventually one will end up with a unit worth at least 1 point, thus avoiding the "infinite orcs" glitch.
Thanks for the deep analisys! The points take into account single maneuvres in the deck but there is also a very little bonus for top speeds and a very little minus for very slow decks, so a negative is possible if the deck has nothing special and the speed is very scarce. Besides there is a little minus of -2 if the plane has 12 or less damage points. This is the real reason why Nieuport 16, Morane Saulnier and Fokker E.III are cheaper.
I am not sure that all your calculations match mine - when I will see your spreadsheet I can tell you more.
Because of the far larger rear field of fire, that's not a little advantage IMHO.• K Deck: 0 (RE8, Rumpler C.IV, Breguet XIV)
• K Deck: 6 (L.F.G. Roland C.II) - Why is this priced 6 points more than other K Deck aircraft?
I too would like people to be able to use anything that they want. No matter if in a tournament, a campaign or a friendly match - the points should help everybody to make interesting and unbalanced games. The aim is not just to start tournament nor to push people to buy 7 Morane Saulniers instead than just a few D.VIIs...I want people to be able to use what they own. If such a matchup were allowed, which of the above two lists would you expect to win? I think my money would be on the player who brought 7 aircraft.
Last time I played, we choosed a quite absurd match on purpose to test an extreme difference. Not so extreme, but one player had three D.VII (300 points) and his two opponents fielded a Morane Saulnier with two DH2 (150 points) and two A-firing Nieuport 17, one of which with a chivalrous aptitude (149 points). Yes, the larger team won. But more testing is needed to be sure that points must really be adjusted.
Andrea, thanks for the clarification. that makes a lot of sense! I agree with you that the points system should help with creating balanced asymmetrical scenarios in addition to pick-up-and-play and tournament styles games. I'm really looking forward to this system and plan to test this as much as I can. Wings of Glory is far and away my favorite miniatures game and I think this will help take it to the next level. I appreciate all of the work you have put into (and continue) making this system so much fun!
For everyone else, I've created a Google Doc spreadsheet with my data. This may be an easier way to update the spreadsheet until it is a more finalized version. The spreadsheet can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...kE&usp=sharing
I'd appreciate getting more eyes on this since I probably have math errors, stats errors, etc. Also, this is my first time sharing a Google Doc this way let me know if you have problems accessing it!
Finally, I've edited my original post in this thread to include the updated cost based on Andrea's feedback.
Has anyone else tried any games with drastically disparate aircraft balanced using the points in this thread? I'm really curious about how things will balance out. In particular, I'm curious about whether it would be better to load up on Ace abilities and skills, or if it is better to take lower cost aircraft. In my experience with other game systems, it's almost always better to take more aircraft so I'm looking forward to testing this out.
I suspect the weight of the gun and mountings would reduce the climb rate, making the B deck version more agile and maneuverable.
@Andrea
number of planes is important. So, maybe some points should be given for teams:
2 planes 10 pts (2x5),
3 planes 20 pts (3х5+5),
4 planes 30 pts (4х5+10),
5 planes 40 pts (5х5+15)...
It's just an idea...
Last edited by Пилот; 04-09-2013 at 11:25.
But that's just it. In Wings of Glory they appear to have identical climb rate statistics, so from a gameplay standpoint alone, it seems odd that they would be priced differently. I'm guessing this one is either an error in my spreadsheet, or maybe just a typo on the points cost.
Yes, we simplified and did not consider the weight of the additional gun as hindering so much the plane to make his meneuver deck worse. After all the twin machineguns Sopwith Triplanes were pretty successful machines, as Collishaw's Black Maria. And while the Belgian ace Coppens was persuaded by his colleagues (especially André De Meulemeester) to avoid putting a second machinegun on his Hanriot for fear that it would make it far less manouvrable, our second scoring ace Silvio Scaroni put a second MG on his SN 7517 HD.1. From the 21th of june to the 12th of july, in just 3 weeks, he scored 9 victories on it (a lot, on the Italian front). The last two the same day, in which he was shot down and wounded. After his success, several other Italian aces followed Scaroni's example and even Coppens tried adding a second MG to his Hanriot, from the 23rd to the 25th of october 1917, even if he immediately replaced both with a 11mm Vickers MG to use some incendiary bullets he got from France (he wanted them since he was a balloon buster).
So a second MG could be often quite a nice idea... Of course this is not true for every plane.
In general, about the Excel sheet: great work, useful to try alternative mixes and such. Part of the cost of Caproni and Gotha are due to larger fields of fire again, as the Roland (no exact formula but close to that - it depends on the broadth of each single arc), part for a little bonus for having more than 16 hp, and part too are due to a bonus for extra engines and crew (making them more sturdy). But for all that they are exceptions, not the rule.
A Camel has 15 hits, not 16.
For Dr.I and Triplane you spotted a mistake, thanks a lot! Their maneuvrability is worth 12 but I did the maths wrong, the cost for their A firing versions is 86. I corrected the original post.
To Пилот: nice idea, but in case I prefer to include that overprice in the cost of each single plane (let's say, +5 to each plane so your scale becomes 20, 30, 40, 50...). Number of planes is important, but let's see if this correction is needed. Actually, letting alone maneuvrability and small minus/bonuses, you basically pay for firepower and damage points. If the global number of damages and the global firepower are the same, you have roughly balanced teams - Let's then see how the number of planes affects the game.
Let's say we take less agile planes: two 8 points B firing planes cost as a single 16 points A firing plane. If the two 8/B planes are matched against the 16/A one, they are in advantage for being a team; the global firepower of teams is the same, and overall both the teams need 16 points to be eliminated.
The two planes have several advantages, as:
- jammings affect only one of the two planes (but are more frequent firing with both);
- a special damage affects only one of the two planes (if in use);
- there can be some waste of points when you eliminate a plane (if one of the two planes received 7 damages and the enemy deals 3 of them, it is shot down but the two over 8 are wasted while everything dealt to the 16/A plane is useful).
But the A firing plane has a strong advantage: if it concentrates its fire on the same enemy, after 8 damages are dealt to each side one of the two 8/B planes is shot down and its team drops its firepower to B, while the 16/A plane with 8 damages is still as efficient as at the start. For the rest of the match, its firepower is double than the one of the opponent. This is a big advantage - if the 16/A pilot manages to use it well.
Thanks a lot to bcpravel, and to everybody for any playtesting you will do! Let me know please.
Last edited by Angiolillo; 04-09-2013 at 21:08.
Thanks again Andrea!
I have updated the Google spreadsheet and my original post with the update costs. If anyone else notices any errors, please let me know. I think I have enough information to start testing. I'll let you know what I find out. I'm looking forward to this!
@ Andrea
we share similar view on issue, but I must notice that, in my opinion and experience (and even statistically), A-gun isn't twice stronger than B. And that strength, together with maneuverability, toughness etc. is already taken into account in basic points. But team with more guns has advantage over team with less guns (can fire more times). That's why my vote goes to predetermined extra points for multiplane teams.
I think the people knocking the points are getting away from, for me personally, what the benefit is....Competitions/Tournaments et al. Why should I turn up with my DH2 and fly against a DVII? The points even things out, gives everyone a fair chance of winning, otherwise everyone would fly the best plane and it would be boring! For friendlies and club games I don't think it is of use but for competitions and tournaments it comes into its own.
Don't generally use a points system but went to the Wings of War day in Cardiff a year or so ago when most of us turned up with single seat fighters but one player turned up with a Breuget two seater and surprise surprise did quite well in the competition.
Where does the "U" deck come from? I thought Sopwith Triplanes weren't available yet... (I'm currently using an extra C deck with the plane card form my Famous Aces set, along with a scratchbuilt Triplane miniature.) Is the U deck available somewhere?
Not currently available Bill but will be in about a Months time. The Nexus card for the Sopwith Triplane id currently a D deck.
Rob.
As Skafloc quite rightly says this is where the points system comes into its own.
Rob.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks