Ares Games
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 611

Thread: Point system for Wings of Glory

  1. #151

    Default

    Yep! thanks

  2. #152

    Default

    Bryan,

    great job, and thank you.

    But in my opinion B deck should be more expensive. I compared statistic values of A vs. B (see my post on this page, #109).

  3. #153

    Default

    The statistical work is excellent, but since the MG value is added and not multiplied to the rest of the value of the plane, actually proportions between the value of a B firing plane and an equivalent A firing plane are far closer to your statistical deductions than the pure value of machineguns woult make think.
    Sorry if I am unclear...
    I updated the list at the first post giving 28 points to B machineguns. I also gave a very slight point decrease to 161/180 km/h planes.
    Now you can buy three Pfalz D.III with 250 points. Please notice that the final disvantage (buy a plane with few damage points already inflicted before the start of the game session) could allow three planes costing basically more than 83 points each within 250 points. The same for rookie pilots of course. I can't find who asked for that, but rookie disvantages are not just that you do not get ace skills - there are several in the Rules & Accessories pack where they are inroduced. Rookies cannot fire immediately after executing a steep maneuver, an Immelmann turn, a Split-S or a climb. They unjam more slowly. They fire after all pilots have fired and their damage dealt. (if a rookie airplane is shot down, it does not get to return fire unless it is shot down by another rookie).
    I also added the other multi-engine planes, starting from the Felixstowe that has been asked for. Their points are made with the same system. They are not meant for mission with goals (bomb, retrieve downed crews, go acrosds the table) where the goals and victory points are the main balancing tools.

  4. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bcpravel View Post
    I've updated the [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqwb99vQhtsydEdQRnpBR0pIYkxydFRfSzdiWHNPbkE&usp=sharing]

    83: The most expensive Aircraft you can take 3 of in a 250 point list. This means that you can take 3 Albatross D.IIIs, D.Vas or Aviatik D.Is, but you can't take 3 Pfalz D.IIIs, SPAD XIIIs, or Fokker Dr.1s. To me, this feels right to me for everything except the Pfalz D.IIIs. I'd like to see the cost on the "B" maneuver deck decreased by 1 point so that you can take 3 Pfalz D.IIIs. Changing the price of the "B" machine guns to 30 or 28 doesn't really make much of a difference in this area because most of the aircraft close to this level are using "A" machine guns.
    Does the Pfalz D.III not use the "J" deck, the same one as the Albatros D.III?

  5. #155

    Default

    Yes true. And it's the I, J, K and such decks that I decreased since they are slower, given the above suggestions.

  6. #156

    bcpravel's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Bryan Pravel
    Location
    Texas
    Sorties Flown
    39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
    Does the Pfalz D.III not use the "J" deck, the same one as the Albatros D.III?
    Whoops. I must have written things down incorrectly. :embarass:

    Thanks for the catch! I will double check the stats on that spreadsheet again.

  7. #157

    bcpravel's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Bryan Pravel
    Location
    Texas
    Sorties Flown
    39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bcpravel
    The one Aircraft that jumps out at me as possibly being overpowered with the 28 or 30 "B" cost machine guns is the "B" firing S.E.5a.
    This weekend I flew 3 28 "B" firing S.E.5as against 5 Fokker E.IIIs. The Fokker E.IIIs won two out of three matches. The main reason for this success was special damage. With 5 aircraft on the map (I was using a single WOG playmat) there was not a ton of room for the S.E.5as to avoid taking hits on the "first pass" and inevitably, at least one of them would get smoke, fire, or a damaged rudder, etc. Since there were only 3 machine guns on the S.E.5as, they had less opportunity to place special damage markers on the Fokker E.IIIs and that special damage couldn't effect all of them. Overall, I never felt that it was unbalanced. If the objective is not really tournament play but more of a way to "use the planes you have and keep it balanced" I think it was very successful.

    I'll want to test the matchup again against 2 Sopwith Snipes. My gut feeling right now is that the Fokker E.IIIs may have the upper hand because of the special damage rules.

  8. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    ...since the MG value is added and not multiplied to the rest of the value of the plane, actually proportions between the value of a B firing plane and an equivalent A firing plane are far closer to your statistical deductions than the pure value of machineguns...
    You are right, it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification

  9. #159

    Default

    Bristol Fighter and Cl.II added (and Rolabd corrected). Anything still missing of your interest?
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 09-01-2013 at 20:51.

  10. #160

    Default

    A SHORT LIST OF PLANES (PLEASE)
    AEG GIV
    GOTHA G1
    BE2C
    VICKERS GUN BUS
    FE2
    FARMAN F40
    SOPWITH 11/2 STRUTTER
    CAUDRON RII
    SOPWITH DOLPHIN
    ANSALDO SVA5
    FOKKER D1
    HANSA BRANDENBERG C1
    PFALZ DXII
    JUNKERS D1
    FOKKER EV

  11. #161

    Default

    Um... none of those are official aircraft.

    I think it premature to ask Andrea to come up with stats for them. Now he may look at the ones from the Official Unofficial Stats committee and decide, based on his own extensive and independant research, to come up with stats very much like them. But... it's his game.

    It would be nice if he could tell us what the Halberstadt CL.II's official stats will be, including the characteristics of the maneuver deck, since he's now done the points value for it, and hopefully the unofficial version will be reasonably close. But Man proposes, God disposes.

  12. #162

    Default

    Ok, can anyone tell me the cost of the X decks XA, XB, XC, XD? And what speeds they represent? Thank you in advance.

  13. #163

    Default

    Non-X maneuver decks are rated 0-20 (if I remember correctly). X decks are certainly weaker than non-X decks. So, they should, under this circumstances, be sub-zero (which could, theoretically, raise some problems in point system - but I also believe this wouldn't be problem here).

  14. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Non-X maneuver decks are rated 0-20 (if I remember correctly). X decks are certainly weaker than non-X decks. So, they should, under this circumstances, be sub-zero (which could, theoretically, raise some problems in point system - but I also believe this wouldn't be problem here).
    D you mean a bit like this?



    Name:  uss-pargo-north-pole-1993.jpg
Views: 1464
Size:  31.6 KB

    Rob.

  15. #165

    Default

    I am reminded of the Royal Navy's Secret Weapon of 1943, the GP anti-submarine projector

    The GP projector would fire a number of cannisters that left a thick, viscous slick of Green Paint that adhered very well to glass. If a submarine was suspected to be in the area, GP was deployed. A submarine periscope lens would get coated with Green Paint, giving the impression to the captain that it was still submerged, and he'd order the boat to keep rising.

    Doctrine was to wait till it was at 200 ft altitude, then shoot it down with AA guns.

  16. #166

  17. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    I am reminded of the Royal Navy's Secret Weapon of 1943, the GP anti-submarine projector

    The GP projector would fire a number of cannisters that left a thick, viscous slick of Green Paint that adhered very well to glass. If a submarine was suspected to be in the area, GP was deployed. A submarine periscope lens would get coated with Green Paint, giving the impression to the captain that it was still submerged, and he'd order the boat to keep rising.

    Doctrine was to wait till it was at 200 ft altitude, then shoot it down with AA guns.

  18. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    D you mean a bit like this?

    Name:  uss-pargo-north-pole-1993.jpg
Views: 1464
Size:  31.6 KB

    Rob.
    Well, a bit more like that:

    Name:  maxresdefault.jpg
Views: 1453
Size:  110.5 KB

  19. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Well, a bit more like that:

    Name:  maxresdefault.jpg
Views: 1453
Size:  110.5 KB
    You are correct Heмaњa. That certainly would not raise any problem with me.
    Rob.

  20. #170

    Default

    on weekend we tried the point system. 2 camels and 2 se5a vs 2 drI and 2 albatros d5 . we played 4 matches at 180 points. only the germans used ace abilities.

    the result germans won 4 games of 4

    with not much testing i can say that some ace cards are way better than the rest and cost is too low

    for example sniper is 8 points a single card that can easily decide the battle. i really think this one should have a greater cost or another ace abilities as prerequisites.

    anyway we tested itchy finger it was ok
    sniper overpowered
    strong constitution was ok
    incendiary bullets was ok
    perfect aim was ok same cost as sniper but much more balanced
    daredevil was ok

    anyone else has tested the point system?

  21. #171

    Default

    Thanks a lot, really! I will give a serious tought to Sniper then.

  22. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Thanks a lot, really! I will give a serious tought to Sniper then.
    No problem at all, in fact with my gaming group we have been discussing the point system since we played on weekend. i like to share my wingmen comments so far.- We will keep the playtesting this weekend.

    1- Sniper should be a once per game abilitie the same as lucky, or,
    2- Sniper should have at least a 6 token refresh lapsus or,
    3- Sniper should have bigger cost, at least a cost of 14

    summarizing:

    ALWAYS IN EFFECT ACE ABILITIES ARE

    INCENDIARY BULLETS COST 6
    STRONG CONSTITUTION COST 5
    BULLET CHECKER COST 8
    ITCHIE FINGER COST 6
    GOOD AT ESCAPE COST 7

    ONCE PER GAME ARE
    LUCKY COST 7

    NEED REFRESH ACE ABILITIES ARE

    REFRESH EVERY 3 CARDS PLAYED
    PERFECT AIM COST 8

    REFRESH EVERY 4 CARDS PLAYED
    SNIPER COST 8
    TECK EYE COST 5
    DAREDEVIL COST 6

    REFRESH EVERY 5 CARDS PLAYED
    ACROBATIC COST 8

  23. #173

    Default

    I was wondering if we could get this thread stickied? I often find myself looking for it, and I can never remember what section it is in, which, if it were stickied, would make it much easier to find.
    Thanks!

  24. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbmacek View Post
    I was wondering if we could get this thread stickied? I often find myself looking for it, and I can never remember what section it is in, which, if it were stickied, would make it much easier to find.
    Thanks!
    Stuck.

  25. #175

  26. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Triplane fire A 86
    Triplane fire B 62
    Hi, Andrea. Is it a typo in the values of Triplane? Or is there some additional rule, that I didn't noticed, that handicape B-firing Tripe? Thanks.

  27. #177

    Default

    It was a typo, I corrected. Thanks a lot for noticing! The B firing one should be 66.

  28. #178

    Default

    Thanks, Andrea, for the updated values!

  29. #179

    Default

    Any point value for the Albatros D,II yet?

  30. #180

    Default

    You are right. Inserted.

  31. #181

    Default

    Thanks for update, Andrea.
    Looking at the values of Bristol fighter, I'm affraid its values are not well balanced. Only 2 more points than D.H.4? As I understand the point system, it's for one damage point more. But I expected some additional points for immelman turn. Am I wrong?

  32. #182

    Default

    Well, the DH4 has also some points charged for being a non-fighter two-seater with a speed of more than 180 km/h, that puts it on the same level of most fighter or even quicker.

  33. #183

    Default

    So do we have a standard points system to use now? If so, is it in PDF?

  34. #184

    Default

    Hi Guys

    Just popped back to the old 'Drome and saw this thread. I'm a bit puzzled at the numbers being chucked about. Is the intention to suggest players in tournaments can have a fixed points value in planes? This seems ok in theory but not so good in practice. I cant see any fun in an individual handling more than 2-3 planes tops

  35. #185

    chsic
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antabires View Post
    No problem at all, in fact with my gaming group we have been discussing the point system since we played on weekend. i like to share my wingmen comments so far.- We will keep the playtesting this weekend.

    1- Sniper should be a once per game abilitie the same as lucky, or,
    2- Sniper should have at least a 6 token refresh lapsus or,
    3- Sniper should have bigger cost, at least a cost of 14

    summarizing:

    ALWAYS IN EFFECT ACE ABILITIES ARE

    INCENDIARY BULLETS COST 6
    STRONG CONSTITUTION COST 5
    BULLET CHECKER COST 8
    ITCHIE FINGER COST 6
    GOOD AT ESCAPE COST 7

    ONCE PER GAME ARE
    LUCKY COST 7

    NEED REFRESH ACE ABILITIES ARE

    REFRESH EVERY 3 CARDS PLAYED
    PERFECT AIM COST 8

    REFRESH EVERY 4 CARDS PLAYED
    SNIPER COST 8
    TECK EYE COST 5
    DAREDEVIL COST 6

    REFRESH EVERY 5 CARDS PLAYED
    ACROBATIC COST 8
    Thank you to report it !
    Otherwise for abilities that are always in effects, it has a chance to happen 2 or 3 times with the entire deck (there are more special damage cards in the B deck but there are also more cards so it is a bit equal).
    These 2 or 3 cards are given to one as to the other player, divinding the chances by 2.
    So, for exemple, in single duels (2 planes), it happens once about every two games (a plane takes an average of 10 cards to be destroyed).
    While abilities as "lucky pilot" will serve in all games (normally) and with "recovery skills" are happen all 1 or 2 turn.
    So, I think abilities: strong constitution, incendiary bullets, bullet checker, but also: good at escape and itchie finger (which will not be used in all games), can not have a comparable cost to other abilities.
    (excuse my bad english, I hope that what I say is understandable )
    Last edited by chsic; 05-29-2014 at 10:55.

  36. #186

    Default

    I think it is not just a question of points but making Ace abilities a little rarer. It does not seem very reasonable to have 4 pilots in a dogfight all with the sniper ability, and that is where it is leading. I would prefer either a fixed points costs for an ace ability to be drawn at random, or a limit to the number of times an ability can be chosen - ie only one of each ability per side

  37. #187

    Default

    Perhaps we could split skills from ACE. Say campaign wise my super dooper PC goes out and shoots down only balloons he could in theory gain lots of ace skills. Perhaps 'Ace Skills' should be just 'Skills' and earned in a campaign setting or if a single game contained historical pilots (as has already been discussed in another thread). Then once a certain amount of 'experience' has been gained then a 'Skill' could be chosen/randomly selected etc. We tried Ace Skills in a campaign a while ago and one player was lucky to hit ace then double ace quite quickly. It became apparent that his two chosen skills made him unstoppable and no-one would fly against him. They can totally unbalance a game.

    Using points to balance out a game and making up point differences with ace skills is again, to me, unbalanced. I have tried many ways to balance ideas for competitions and although the points system has its merits its the inclusion of ace skills to even out the points that makes the system unbalanced.

    Back to the drawing board for me.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  38. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Using points to balance out a game and making up point differences with ace skills is again, to me, unbalanced. I have tried many ways to balance ideas for competitions and although the points system has its merits its the inclusion of ace skills to even out the points that makes the system unbalanced.

    Back to the drawing board for me.
    Nail struck fairly & squarely on the head there m8. Points systems are there in my mind to allow players to come up with reasonably balanced sides to play against each other. The inclusion of Ace Abilities at such low points costs mean we will see a plethora of aces, and also see the same "killer" abilities repeated. At least if they were random there would be no cherry picking

  39. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    We tried Ace Skills in a campaign a while ago and one player was lucky to hit ace then double ace quite quickly. It became apparent that his two chosen skills made him unstoppable and no-one would fly against him. They can totally unbalance a game.
    Agreed. I saw the same thing in OTT. I suppose I understand it in an historical sense: aces typically account for the vast majority of air combat victories. In pickup or convention games, however, these skills can tilt the table unfairly... so we tend not to use them unless part of a scenario.

  40. #190

    Default

    For competitions I would go with the points system worked out but try and limit the period in time. ie you may pick any aircraft that flew between July 1916 and Oct 1916 or March 1918 and July 1918. Of course the organiser should provide a list of official aircraft and points for the period so there can be no discrepancies nor anyone turning up with a 'Giant Elephant' claiming the competition rules stated no 'Giants' to be fielded!
    See you on the Dark Side......

  41. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Agreed. I saw the same thing in OTT. I suppose I understand it in an historical sense: aces typically account for the vast majority of air combat victories. In pickup or convention games, however, these skills can tilt the table unfairly... so we tend not to use them unless part of a scenario.
    Says the guy whose pilot has the most ace skills of the campaign by the halfway mark of OTT !!

  42. #192

    Default

    Fair point. The ace skills certainly have a "snowball" or "cascading" effect: each successive one makes the acquisition of the next more likely.

  43. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    For competitions I would go with the points system worked out but try and limit the period in time. ie you may pick any aircraft that flew between July 1916 and Oct 1916 or March 1918 and July 1918. Of course the organiser should provide a list of official aircraft and points for the period so there can be no discrepancies nor anyone turning up with a 'Giant Elephant' claiming the competition rules stated no 'Giants' to be fielded!
    Seems like good solution.

  44. #194

    Default

    OK I have tried the "Dark Side" ie X-wing and have returned. They have a very good points system that seems to give balanced games. Unlike the Wings version above the points for ace abilities (or at least their equivalents) is a significant element of the actual plane cost - anything up to 40%. The other factor that leaps out is that the variance between different "planes" points values is much less than the Wings version - so for instance the cheapest is 12 points with a rookie pilot, where the top end are around 25 points. These factors combine to make a very nicely balanced game - something I dont think the current Wings version achieves.

  45. #195

    Default

    Any suggestion is welcome. But please consider that even if they share many game mechanics, X-Wing has a different spirit IMHO. In Wings and Sails of Glory, you play with contsraints. You have both the challenge of the enemy and the challenge that you can not go everywhere anytime - you have limits in maneuvres availability, acceleration, wind, advance planning. X-Wing is far easier from this point of view, going somewhere and pointing somewhere never seems to be a big issue. I think that the system has been developed in X-Wing to make life far easier to any would-be pilot - not in terms of rules but in terms of planning your moves.
    With skills, this reflects in the fact that - as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong - all X-Wing skills are used at any time. You never have the challenge to choose if use them or save them fo the next turn. You just have them and apply the rule every turn. In Wings and Sails, choosing the correct moment is part of the game challenge since you can use them only a few times in the game - either for a total limit, or because you need to spend some turns between one use and the next. This explains why single skills are relatively cheaper - because their influence in the game is lower than in X-Wing.
    From another point of view, for balance reasons a skill that every now and then gives you the occasion to inflict or avoid a certain amount of damage must cost not only far less than a plane, but quite less than a single machinegun that inflict these damages every turn, or no more than the few damage points that can be saved that way. And that single machinegun, and that few damage points, are of course a monority part of the cost of a plane that has maybe two machineguns and surely far more damage points.
    This said, nothing prevents you to have a plane with a 40% cost in pilot skills. Take an average plane - let's say a B-firing Nieuport - and give the pilot 5 skills, 8 points each. Or a Sopwith Camel with 7 skills. The skills then cost more than 40% of the total cost of such planes. Realistic, if you think in terms of setting? Yes, 5 skills are the equivalent of experience of 25 victories, 7 skills of 35. Many aces had far more. In the game, even if you want to play "historical", you could have a 16 skills von Richthofen, a 15 skills Fonk, a 14 skills Bishop... The freedom you have in building your pilot in Wings of Glory allows for that. Of course, more skills will come to enhance this freedom and to allow you to simulate these aces even at the end of their very succesful careers.

    For the points variation between planes, please consider that during WW1 hundreds of different plane models were developed and many dozens of them had whide use, with a technical developement that has been amazing. X-Wing already run out of the few canon "fighter" starship after a very few issues. With Wings, we have to cope with machines that are so different from each other. Even in design terms, we have a set of templates for movement (the maneuvre deck) that changes from plane to plane, to allow the best variability and to feature the peculiar characteristic of each plane (think to the "curved stalls" that only the Fokker D.VII has) while X-Wing chosed to standardize giving an identical set of templates to everyone. Firing arcs can also vary from single plane to single plane (something that is actually more relevant with multi-engine planes, but you can see the Roland C.II for an example on small planes). All this explain the big difference between planes costs. Try flying a Fokker E.III against a Snipe and you will see how they are different. But that's pretty obvious if you look at the contest. Years of incredibly quick progress passed between the Fokker monoplane - even with revolutionarily modern when it appeared - and the Sopwith biplane of the end of the war. If you then decide to put on so different machines a rookie instead than a Manfred von Richthofen or William Bishop, you can see how these differences can whiden even far more.
    The math behind the points take into account all these differences - damage allowance, armament, maneuvrability, speed, number of crew... This explain the variation. Compared with X-Wing, we have to cope with a much more rich and variated setting for our game - reality. Not just with the few glimpises of a great and fabulous fantasy universe that a great director chosed to show us in some movies where "air" combat is just a small part of the footage.
    Besides, I again think that there has been some different spirit in X-Wing developement. With Wings, we are trying stronger to get some sort of "realism", even with the simplifications of the game, while X-Wing does not reflect these footage clips so strictly. Take the famed scene in which the Falcon is chased by TIE fighters and musst conceal itself to escape. In our game, based on historical and technical data, a Fokker Dr.I can never be quicker than a Camel - it will always be slower, even if von Richthofen will be put in the cockpit. On the opposite, X-Wing is not bothered at all to feature a Millennium Falcon that's quicker than the Imperial fighter that could chas it - no matter if in the movies it was not able to shake off them just accelerating and if in "making of" documentation its top speed is given as quite lower. No problem - in X-Wing the Falcon is treated as a mith, not a machine to be simulated, and that's what fans want after all. But we have a quite deeper work to do, to "simulate", and this reflects in far more planes differences IMHO.

    This, again, to explain the general proportions in the point system. Of course nothing is perfect, everything can be made better, and any further suggestion is very appreciated. But if you wonder about the variation between planes, or the weight of a single skill against the total of a plane, these are the reasons and I still think that they are quite sounds.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 07-11-2014 at 23:27.

  46. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Updated values. Original post quoted under for comparison and notes.

    PLANE
    SPAD XIII 85
    Camel 86
    Albatros D.Va 82
    Fokker Dr.I 85
    Bristol F2B Fighter B/B 91
    Bristol F2B Fighter A/B 111
    Bristol F2B Fighter B/A 111
    Bristol F2B Fighter AB/A 147
    Halberstadt CL.II 90
    Albatros D.II fire A 78
    Albatros D.II fire B 58
    Triplane fire A 86
    Triplane fire B 66
    SPAD VII fire A 82
    SPAD VII fire B 62
    Hanriot fire A 87
    Hanriot fire B 67
    SS D.III 93
    Se5a fire A 92
    Se5a fire B 72
    Aviatik D.I fire A 82
    Aviatik D.I fire B 62
    Fokker D.VII 100
    Snipe 97
    Albatros D.III 79
    Pfalz D.III 83
    Ufag C.I 83
    DH4 B/B 89
    DH4 B/A 109
    DH4 A/A 129
    DH4 AB/B 133
    Raf Re8 B/B 81
    Raf Re8 B/A 101
    Rumpler C.IV B/B 85
    Breguet XIV B2 B/B 90
    Breguet XIV B2 B/A 110
    Breguet XIV B2 A/A 130
    Roland fire B 64
    Roland fire B/B 92
    Nieuport 17/23 fire A 76
    Nieuport 17/23 fire B 56
    Nieuport 11 50
    Nieuport 16 47
    SS D.I 58
    Airco DH2 58
    Halbestadt D.III 60
    Fokker E.III 48
    Morane Saulnier Type N 46
    Caproni Ca.3 143
    Gotha G.V 142
    Curtiss H.16 179
    Felixstowe F.2.A 216
    Caproni Ca.4 fire B/B 169 (to upgrade front machinegun to A: 21 points)
    Staaken 239
    Friedrichshafen G.III 164
    O/400 fire B/B 157 (to upgrade up to 2 machineguns to A: 25 for one, 40 for two of them)

    SKILLS
    Acrobatic Pilot: 8
    Daredevil: 6
    Height control: 6
    Good at Escaping: 7
    Lucky Pilot: 7
    Chivalrous Aptitude: -5
    Strong Constitution: 5
    Super Ace: 8
    Bullet Checker: 8
    Incendiary Bullets: 6
    Technical Eye: 5
    Itchy Trigger Finger: 6
    Perfect Aim: 8
    Sniper: 8

    DISVANTAGES
    All the crew is rookie -10 (penalties as by the rules kit and no ace skills allowed)
    For each damage point that the plane starts with (max 3 if total Damage of the plane is up to 19, max 5 if 20+) -2
    awesome andrea!! thank you for all the hard work! i think this will go a long way toward balanced starting point for team play and scenarios. up to now ive been using a rough balancing system dividing up the A/C into "eras" such as "early war", "1st generation fighters", "2nd gen","3rd gen", and "final incarnation" based mostly on when the plane was introduced and technological advancement. it seems to equate fairly well to your point system (given allowances for plane availability as neither i, nor my friends have all the wow-wog planes that have been published.

    the way we most utilize this is a "grinder" scenario where we start out with a 1st tier A/C working our way up as we get shot down (like the invitational at origins this year was conducted). this keeps everyone in the game over the course of the night and (barring getting owned by the boom card) has led to some interesting anomalies (1 recent encounter had me facing sopwith camels and spad XIIIs in my fokker eIII).

    we havent used the ace abilities as we're still comparative newbies to the game (having been playing only a little over a year now) but im looking forward to introducing them when everybody feels were ready to.

  47. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Hello.

    I added Rumpler, Re8, Breguet and will add Nieuport 16.

    A/B machineguns are 48/24 points, I corrected two typos. There are some adjustments for broader field of fire (as with the Roland).

    2 points per damage point is the average (as you see from the "initial damage -2 per point" option), with some adjustment for very low or very high damage ratings (Caproni and Gotha), and for multiple emngines and more crew.

    Maneuvre decks are rated from 0 (standard two-seaters) to 20 (Fokker D.VII), at least at the moment, depending on how much the deck is agile if compared to a normal, non-Immelmann two-seater. Some adjustment are made for very slow or very quick ones. No change between U and D decks - at average speeds, I believe that trading some speed (that is an advantage) for tighter turns (that you get if you are slower) make for a balanced choice.

    No altitude considered. True, altitude changes relative strenghts. But this is true for other optional rules too. In a game so rich of rules options, it is pretty hard to do an universal points system that works anyway. Bsides, these points make sense for dogfights - not for a scenario with asymmetric goals as bombing or balloon busting or trench strafing or such. It is probably pointless to give a score for Caproni or Gotha.


    Well, this is a good starting point. And this is why, as fast.git notes, guns makes a large difference. But the second point is damage sustained.
    Oversimplifying: If two B-firing Entente planes deliver the same average damage of an A German one, firing each turn when each side will have delivered enough damage to eliminate a plane... The Germans will lose their only one and the Entente will have one plane eliminated and one surviving if all damage are concentrated on the same target, both damaged and siurviving if not. So having two planes instead than one is an advantage. Besides, special damages as fire, engine broken, jammings (including jammed machineguns) and so on will only affect half of the Entente firepower (another evidence that special rules - as special damages in use or not - affect relative value of factions).
    On the contrary, if the two Entente planes have half the points of the German one, and the German manages to concentrare all damage on the same target the German will eliminate a plane when his plane will be half damaged. After that, he will keep on delivering the same damage but the Entente firepower will be halved. In this case, having two planes instead than one is not an advantage.
    This is just theory. Anyway, as David did, I checked previous battles with these points and the first impression is that they work.
    For your curiosity, this was the skill-based system we playtested in Italian tournaments. Let's consider A firing planes only and let's divide them in levels:

    0 - Sopwith Snipe, Fokker D.VII
    1 - Se5a
    2 - SPAD XIII, Sopwith Camel, Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa, Albatros D.Va & Fokker Dr.I
    3 - Albatros D.III
    4 - Nieuport 17

    The difference in level is the number of ace skills required. A Fokker D.VII is as good as a Snipe, while a Fokker Dr.I suits well a Camel or
    a SPAD XIII. But if you have a Se5a against a Fokker Dr.I you must give 2 - 1 = 1 ace skill to the Fokker. A Fokker D.VII against a Camel
    need 2 - 0 = 2 ace skills to the Camel to balance the difference.
    You could also just decide that each plane comes with a number of skills equal to the level. So if everyone play with a Dr.I or a Camel,
    all have 2 skills.
    one quickk and dirty way to figure in altitude is to subtract the climb rate from the points total or for those purists who dont want to arbitrarily SUBTRACT points from the total is to subtract the climb rate from 10 then add it to the planes point value total.

  48. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    This, again, to explain the general proportions in the point system. Of course nothing is perfect, everything can be made better, and any further suggestion is very appreciated. But if you wonder about the variation between planes, or the weight of a single skill against the total of a plane, these are the reasons and I still think that they are quite sounds.
    I understand most of that, however the problem is that, to be honest, the current points system does not (in my experience) work to produce a game that is enjoyable OR usable in a competition format to produce balanced games. Partly the problem in my view is the costs of Ace skills and how multiples of these can dominate a build, and partly it is because the granularity of the points system is too fine to allow much variation - are we really saying that an Albatross II with an A deck is 95% as effective as an Albatross DVa?, because that is exactly what the points system is dictating? It is significantly slower, less maneuverable and in all cases except firepower inferior.

    The challenge with a points system is two fold. It has to be internally consistent and reflect the in game attributes and values. The current one may well achieve the first, but I don't think it gets close enough to the second to be of any real use.

  49. #199

    Default

    Well yes, actually in game terms an Albatros D.Va is not so much more efficient than an Albatros D.II. Quicker yes, and this is an advantage but it is paid (in the game at least) with the fact that this means that the D.II turn radio is shorter, and this is an advantage. The two things tend to compensate each other. Maneuvrability is quite similar. Sturdiness gives an advantage to the D.Va. But there is not so much gap IMHO.

  50. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Well yes, actually in game terms an Albatros D.Va is not so much more efficient than an Albatros D.II. Quicker yes, and this is an advantage but it is paid (in the game at least) with the fact that this means that the D.II turn radio is shorter, and this is an advantage. The two things tend to compensate each other. Maneuvrability is quite similar. Sturdiness gives an advantage to the D.Va. But there is not so much gap IMHO.
    A big thank you for posting the Points System. For me it has been very useful. It may not be perfect but it provides a good guide. If someone turns up with a Brisfit, you can quickly determine what may roughly match it - as opposed to just saying no it's too powerful or having a long debate about just how powerful it is.

Page 4 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
  •