"Quantity has a quality all its own" - why the points system may not be enough

[surfimp]

Just wanted to share some recent experience I've encountered while running a Bloody April campaign using historically-inspired scenarios and the quasi-official WoG points values listed in this forum.

The motive behind this post is a concern that, based on experience, the points system may be insufficient for creating balanced mid-war engagements. Specifically, I'm talking about early 1917 scenarios which see the Germans flying Albatros D.II and D.IIIs versus the (per history) outdated Nieuport 11 and 17 as well as Airco DH.2

We've been playing with 2-3 players per side, with sufficient points that the German players - fielding Albatri - can fly one plane each. For the sake of discussion, let's say it's 250pts per side.

Also - as the specific players in my group are relatively inexperienced with WoG (some are playing for literally the first time), I have left off altitude rules and Ace Skills for simplicity. We are playing with Standard rules.

So, at 250pts, you can buy 3 A-deck / 14 HP Albatros D.IIIs and you'll face, hypothetically, anywhere from 4-5 British planes, all of which will have B deck damage output and anywhere from 10 - 13HP each.

What we're finding is that, despite the on-paper equivalence (based on the points values), the British planes are having their way against the Germans, who are simply outnumbered and overwhelmed by the greater number of shots they've got to endure - while also having less hitpoints to do so with. The A deck so far just hasn't made up the difference against such overwhelming numbers.

I can't be the only one to notice this, and I'm sure the Ace Skills and altitude rules may be a way forward, but - anyone else have some suggestions for how to balance this up? Our Bloody April, while plenty bloody, is turning decisively against the historical outcome and I'd like to see it at least be more of an even match, while still trying to stay within the foul lines set out by the rules and points values provided for the aircraft that were involved historically.

Your feedback most appreciated!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Points are just one aspect of the game, a starting parameter. Victory still requires the pilot (player) to demonstrate skill in execution. As the Rittmeister said it is the man not the machine that is most important to the outcome of the battle. Even an 'outdated' machine well flown can beat a better aircraft.

Are all sides fielding one aircraft per player? If a player controls more than one the perfect coordination this allows is also a massive advantage.

[Flying Helmut]

I have found this in many "points balanced" games - greater numbers of smaller, weaker units eventually overwhelm fewer, stronger ones.

It won't bother me, though; I don't use points with Wings games.

[Angiolillo]

This is very interesting, thank you. Need to investigate further.

The problem with historical outcome is that they did not use a point system back in WW!... Field the same number of A-firing Albatros D.II/III and of B-firing Nieuport 11/17 and Airco D.H.2... And you will get a too historical ourtcome!

[David Manley]

I have found this in many "points balanced" games - greater numbers of smaller, weaker units eventually overwhelm fewer, stronger ones.

Panthers and Shermans spring to mind

[Shadowcat]

Maybe we need a Basic/Advanced set of points. Seems ceiling, climb rate, ect can affect the game also. A lot of us tend to ignore alt and climb rules for a 2D type of fight. But if climb rate and alt are folded into the points not using those rules could change things a bit. Also for the outnumbered side, allow them to get one ace skill per plane they are outnumbered by to try and balance things (might work)

[horsepyre]

The reason Bloody April ended up so bloody, historically, is not just because of the supposed superiority of the Albatros over Allied types (by accounts, planes like the Pup and Nieuport could fight the Albatros on nearly equal terms, having an advantage in maneuverability but a decided disadvantage in firepower) - the Germans also had, at the time, much more experienced pilots, better developed combat tactics, and the advantage of fighting defensively, meaning they were almost never forced to engage on disadvantageous terms. These subtleties are obviously not reflected in the point system, so that's one possibility for your results not matching the historical outcome. Using ace abilities, and the optional rules for rookies for the Allied pilots, would make things very interesting!

I don't know how the points system was developed, but playing with altitude vs not playing with altitude is a pretty significant difference, as well.

All that being said, there's probably something to the "quantity" advantage not reflected in the points, especially if you are not playing with the altitude rules. No matter how well you fly, if your opponent uses their numbers to their advantage, you are going to take damage, and all it takes is a couple of lucky hits for the game to drastically swing out of control.

I would suggest playing around with ace abilities/rookie rules, and/or giving the Germans some other advantage, like allowing them to set up after the Allies deploy and anywhere on the board (so they are guaranteed a favorable angle of engagement on the first pass). Good luck!

[surfimp]

Thanks all for your input so far!

The challenge is to make something that's fun for my group of experienced gamers, who demand things like interesting and well-balanced scenarios, but who are relatively new to WoG (and approach it as something of a just-for-fun/casual game) and who do not necessarily have any particularly deep and abiding interest in either aviation or historical gaming.

I'm actually not at all opposed to the idea of "one person per plane," though in the context of the larger campaign as I've laid it out, having no NPCs at all means that keeping a player-character alive for even two missions is a minor miracle. It makes the whole idea of playing through a campaign and developing the pilot's skills a bit moot - very few if anyone will be able to enjoy it. Maybe that's "historically accurate," but a good gaming experience it is not.

Thus, I was hoping to leverage the points system to try to accommodate the larger campaign goal.

The solution I've proposed - and will test later tonight - is to give each of the German players a free ace skill for their pilot-character, and sufficient points on top of that to purchase an additional skill of their choosing. It's probably not an end-all, be-all fix, but I'm hoping it's a step in the right direction.

Thanks again for the all the feedback. Happy to read more on the subject!

[surfimp]

The problem with historical outcome is that they did not use a point system back in WW!... Field the same number of A-firing Albatros D.II/III and of B-firing Nieuport 11/17 and Airco D.H.2... And you will get a too historical ourtcome!

Haha, fair enough!

With that said, the points values as stated do (perhaps coincidentally) a very good job of reflecting the significant numeric advantage the British held at the outset of the Arras offensive.

If I remember correctly, British aircraft outnumbered German aircraft by a significant number - something like 2-to-1 if I'm not mistaken (perhaps more).

The idea - expressed separately - of giving the British pilots Rookie status is not necessarily a good thing - the -10pts deduction could mean, at some point values, that they simply have even more planes available to them by consequence. These planes - the N.11 & 17, and DH.2 - are already so slow, and turn well enough relatively to the Albatros, that missing a few shots after an Immelmann would be no great loss of capability.

Thank you for taking my comments as I intended them, that being sincere feedback on your excellent points system. I think in this middle war period, it will always be challenging to find the balance that is "just right" - because the reality was that, as you point out, things weren't balanced at all!!

[horsepyre]

Haha, fair enough!

The idea - expressed separately - of giving the British pilots Rookie status is not necessarily a good thing - the -10pts deduction could mean, at some point values, that they simply have even more planes available to them by consequence. These planes - the N.11 & 17, and DH.2 - are already so slow, and turn well enough relatively to the Albatros, that missing a few shots after an Immelmann would be no great loss of capability.

To be honest I didn't even remember what the rookie rule was, when I suggested that, because we have rarely used it. But yes, if that is indeed the penalty, it probably is not going to be productive at balancing the games!

[surfimp]

To be honest I didn't even remember what the rookie rule was, when I suggested that, because we have rarely used it. But yes, if that is indeed the penalty, it probably is not going to be productive at balancing the games!

Yes, the Rookie penalty is: no firing during Immelmann / Split-S reversal card, no firing during a Steep maneuver, and 4 jam tokens instead of three. For that, you get a -10pt deduction to the cost of the plane.

When applied to something like the Nieuport 11, it means that if you "buy" four, you get the fifth for free! And this would be against two Albatros, for example (i.e. at 200pts per side). No need for Immelmanns when you can surround them on all sides - and don't forget the Overwing Gun special rule, which lets you shoot during an overlap if the enemy is within your arc.

I do not mean that as negativity - it's just what a cold, hard, min-maxing approach can give you!

[csadn]

Anyone who played _OGRE_ way-back-when remembers the infamous "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" Incident; the way the rules were written, a force of GEVs would invariably defeat the OGRE, once it had lost its missiles, main gun, and third move-point. Even after the rewrite, a force of cheap "shreddermobiles" will still mop the floor against a few heavy units.

The only way to deal with the problem is: One plane per player; any leftover points have to be overcome by the other side. For ex.: The Germans have 200 pts. invested in 4 units; the British only have 150 pts. for 4 units; the Germans then have to destroy at least 50 pts. of British units, *and* take 0 pts. of losses, just to call it a draw....

[Teaticket]

I will repeat what Carl mentioned above. Having more than one plane coordinated by a player is a great advantage. If one side has one or more players with multiple planes and the other side does not, the side without is at a great disadvantage. Even if there are an equal number of planes per side, the side with coordinated planes by a single player has an edge.

[Oberst Hajj]

If it has not already been mentioned yet, added limited ammo to the game. From my campaigns of Knights of the Air, deal each plane 8 damage cards at the start of the game. These are kept face down and when a plane fires a shot, they pass one of their cards to the target plane. If they are shooting at close range, the second card comes from the "community" deck. Not only will this bring some balance back to your games (since the number of shots is limited to 8, the weaker planes cannot stay around all day peppering the Germans until they are shot down), it will also cut down on the number of "pop shots" people fire at a plane that just happens to pass in front of them while they are engaged with another plane.

[grumpybear]

I have always played with limited ammo ( 8 or 10 ) cards as in Knights of the Air. We match our planes to year and month , some times one side out numbers the other , well that happens so you better fly well.

[john snelling]

I have not ran into he same problem. I play points all the time. May favorite is Spad VIIs vs D.IIIs.

Do you play a jam card takes out both twin guns or just one?

Starting positions, are all the British players in one big formation if so divide them up!

What Flash says play limited ammo, I give the Brits 5 shots before they reload to keep track I use small chips or even pennies.

[Dawn Patrol]

Having no B gunned scouts yet (everything I have is post Bloody April, and I probably won't get into it until the Albatros DIIIS and Nieuport 17s arrive Junish), it's something I intend to experiment with when I can.

I do have some observations, though. The explosion card will play in the favor of the swarm. If one averages five cards to three (five B guns to three A guns), you are more likely to draw the explosion card in a 45 card deck than an explosion in a 35 card deck (one in nine as opposed to one in almost 12). Further, the explosion takes out one third of the German force, and only a fifth of the Entente force. Without access to ace abilities and basically using the raw rating of the plane - assuming I have copied down the latest point values correctly - three Albatros D.III will be 237 points (79 each) while five Nieuport 11s are 250. I would probably recommend avoiding the advantageous point break, or assign something more balanced. Let me see...50 for a N-11, 112 for two N-17, and 76 for a N-17 with A guns. 238 vs 237. Or a N-11, N-17, and two Sopwith Triplanes (238) (All B guns). Are you finding those kind of matchups favoring the Entente?

What would be telling would be four N-17, all B gun, being able to take out three A gunned Albatros D.III. That's only 224 points to 237. Will be trying that kind of thing when I get the planes.

While two guns was a distinct advantage, I'm not convinced it was as decisive an advantage in real life as it is in the game (given equal numbers) simply because so much of aerial combat was not about equal tactical position, but extremely unequal tactical position (surprise).

[gully_raker]

I have found this in many "points balanced" games - greater numbers of smaller, weaker units eventually overwhelm fewer, stronger ones.

It won't bother me, though; I don't use points with Wings games.

Me neither & we don't use Points at our Club Games.

If playing Historical Scenarios we just go for what would have been "real" at the time.
Sometimes the British are out gunned & outnumbered & sometimes (later in the War) the Allies have the numerical advantage & equal aircraft.

[Naharaht]

In this discussion people have overlooked the fact that the majority of Entente air losses in April 1917 were the obsolete two-seaters they were flying. However, since most of these aircraft are not available as Ares models, it is understandable.

[Stumptonian]

If I remember correctly, British aircraft outnumbered German aircraft by a significant number - something like 2-to-1 if I'm not mistaken (perhaps more).

A target-rich environment then ...


Don't forget one of the main points with rookies is that they fire last. If they are shot down their shots do not count.

[Angiolillo]

Very interesting thread.

In the meantime, a "scenario & campaign pack" is being assembled at Ares Games. It will include campaign rules, you can have a glimpise of them here:

http://www.aresgames.eu/15957

[Boreas]

a "scenario & campaign pack" is being assembled at Ares Games.

Andrea, music to my ears!

[john snelling]

Looks good!

[flash]

Me neither & we don't use Points at our Club Games.
If playing Historical Scenarios we just go for what would have been "real" at the time.
Sometimes the British are out gunned & outnumbered & sometimes (later in the War) the Allies have the numerical advantage & equal aircraft.

I'm with Baz & Tim on this but if you must use them it seems like you need to work out the points then reverse the answer
As David pointed out , the bulk of the RFC machines were obsolete two seat spotters, maybe you could use up some points on one or two of them, flown automatically, before allocating scout points for your pilots ? Use the RE8 for that.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Very interesting thread.

In the meantime, a "scenario & campaign pack" is being assembled at Ares Games. It will include campaign rules, you can have a glimpise of them here:

http://www.aresgames.eu/15957

This will take the game to the next level Andrea

[Ken at Sunrise]

Very interesting thread.

In the meantime, a "scenario & campaign pack" is being assembled at Ares Games. It will include campaign rules, you can have a glimpise of them here:

http://www.aresgames.eu/15957

This sounds great. I would love to see a scenario and campaign expansion pack. I found that with some players prefer missions over the head to head, which is fun too. Currently I have printed out all of the missions from the different expansions over the years and keep it in my kit. The players pick one and away we go, it really changes the game. I hope that it is formatted such that we have a choice of planes, like some of the existing missions allow. We don't all have multiples of everything or every plane.

I will very much look forward to this. Truly good news.

[surfimp]

Just a quick update to this thread - we played the 3rd mission of our campaign last night, and it went well, thanks in part to feedback received from this thread.

Mission Description: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post441993
Mission Debrief: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post442086

What I tried:
- Having multiple objectives for the British to accomplish
- Increasing the overall points available to 350 per side, so most players would be able to control 2 planes each
- Re-allowing the inclusion of the Halberstadt D.III for the Germans for some "cheap bodies"
- To prevent "spamming" the Halberstadts, I offered the incentive of a free Ace Skill for each Albatros selected

The net result was a 5 plane vs 5 plane engagement (with 2 two seaters on the British side), and a very close-won German victory of 9 to 7 points. The free Ace Skills didn't wind up playing any role in the game at all - one of them (Bullet Checker) didn't even trigger, and the other (Acrobatic Pilot) was used once in a non-game-changing situation.

The biggest difference seemed to come from the inclusion of the two Halberstadts. The additional shooting they provided - to say nothing of the ablative HP - wound up being a significant equalizer - but still didn't allow the theoretically superior Albatros fighters to run away with the game. Rather, they just brought it up to par.

In fairness, it was an objective-based game, so a straight-up dogfight might have been different.

I did mention to the players that I'd started this thread, and some of them had even read it. All were pleased at the positive reaction and responses the thread had received, including attention from the game's designer - you simply don't get that kind of personal response in virtually any other mass market game. It's quite cool, thanks Andrea!

One question that came up - presumably the points values take into account the climb rate and ceiling capabilities of each plane, so as we were not playing with altitude rules, it's possible that the points as written wind up causing a premium be applied to some planes which wasn't realized in our play. I didn't address the question at the time, but looking at the climb table (from the Ares site), based on the very close relative performance of the Albatros D.II and D.III versus the N.11, N.17 and Airco DH.2 - let's just say I think that this didn't account for much of a difference.

Another observation - I play with doubled damage decks, so as to ensure sufficient supply. As one of the astute players pointed out, this means that, although the probability of drawing any particular card remains the same, the variance within the course of the game can be higher than with a single deck. It certainly seemed to be the case for the Germans, who through a run of extremely good luck wound up with a significant number of the 0 cards in the B decks.

What this means is certainly up for debate, but I'd argue that had we played the exact same scenario and maneuvers through a second time, the game could have easily gone against the Germans - the extra shots output by the two seaters' back guns make for a significant (40%) increase on the Brit's total firepower, far surpassing - again, "quantity has a quality all its own" - the extra damage to be expected from the A deck Albatri.

So, if anything, my takeaway was that scouts with A decks - which accounts for a 20pt surcharge over the same plane with B deck - are probably a bit overcosted, and two seaters with B decks are, if anything, a bit undercosted. At least for these early/mid-war planes. That's my feeling anyways.

With all that said, next week we'll give the Germans a two seater mission and see how they go. Should be interesting!

[Angiolillo]

Thanks a lot for your kind words, but I did not do anything at all! Glad that you are enjoying the campaign.
Points do not include climb statistics nor any other altitude related factor.
I actually prefer to mix damage decks amo g them for larger battles... and once mixed, I use them together even in little duels. But with two decks you could even houserule to use one deck for Germans and the other for Entente, to reduce the luck factor. What do you think?

[Ken at Sunrise]

I've used two deck, but separately, one for each side. It just seemed to be a better distribution, and goes well with my tendency to keep thing separated/organized.

[Conall]

The problem with using just the point system to recreate Bloody April is that it can't replicate the nature of the battle. In particular, German formations were routinely larger (staffel plus) whereas the British and Commonwealth forces were still operating in flights. Additionally operating over their own lines the Germans almost entirely dictated the terms of most engagements. In many instances RFC scouts were escorting photo recce or artillery spotters again putting them in a positional disadvantage against the German scouts. And finally the British were under orders to prevent German recce flights from crossing the lines (adopting a forward defence) to prevent detection of Allied preparations for the Arras offensive.

Understandably the game doesn't capture surprise and the degree to which many victims were almost wholly unaware of their attackers (such a scenario wouldn't really make for a fun game) but, as said above, it might be worth considering the nature of the mission objectives and relative starting positions/relative height. Also you could impose a limit on Allied formation sizes.

Tom

[Flying Helmut]

The problem with using a points system at all is that the number of points assigned to a particular characteristic is entirely arbitrary, and subject to change when "imbalance" is discovered.

Most of the 'points-based' games I have played in the past have had subsequent editions published, in which some points values have been altered in response to player feedback. Does this mean that the "equal points" battles fought under the earlier edition were in fact not equal at all? Were my victories attributable to fielding a more powerful force than my opponent, instead of being down to superior tactics/luck on the day as I imagined?

The outstanding example I encountered was DBM, where Roman Legionaries were assigned the same 'points' as all other close-formation Regular troops, despite having a significantly higher combat value.
After much discussion, the next Version had their 'points' value increased, to be met with a storm of protest from the owners of Roman armies!!!!

How can you tell whether 1 extra Damage point is worth more or fewer 'points' than an extra machine gun, or an extra sideslip card each way, or a higher speed, or a better climb rate?
I'm glad I don't have the task of working it all out!

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Does the pilot fly the plane or does the plane fly the pilot? There are instances where outclassed aircraft flown by experienced aces do extremely well against better aircraft but flown by inferior pilots.

[Flying Helmut]

Neil - sent you a PM, but your box is full!

[TALLY HO]

I think the problem could be solved with some form of detection range , some kind of spotting role which means each side could only react when they see each other otherwise sticking to a preplanned patrol or objective route.
This is only the spark of an idea[coming to me while sitting on the throne] and i'm sure there are reasons that it wont work. What do we think? there could be pluses and minuses for aces and rookies, for range etc

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Does the pilot fly the plane or does the plane fly the pilot? There are instances where outclassed aircraft flown by experienced aces do extremely well against better aircraft but flown by inferior pilots.

As I said in an earlier post, victory requires the pilot (player) to demonstrate skill in execution. As the Rittmeister said it is the man not the machine that is most important to the outcome of the battle.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

The problem with using a points system at all is that the number of points assigned to a particular characteristic is entirely arbitrary, and subject to change when "imbalance" is discovered.

Like you Tim I don't use points. I have always applied historical parameters to my scenarios and find they work perfectly well in the provision of balanced games. However many players don't have that intrinsic knowledge of aerial warfare (with which I was indoctrinated from a very early age!), so points provides a reasonable guide. At the end of the day players and playing groups will use the elements of the system they consider useful. For some that may include a points system.

[Conall]

As I said in an earlier post, victory requires the pilot (player) to demonstrate skill in execution. As the Rittmeister said it is the man not the machine that is most important to the outcome of the battle.

Only up to a point. Look at how the (surviving ) pilots in 19 Sqn RFC performed once they switched from the excreble BE12 to the SPAD VII. I think it has to be a combination of both - the relative importance of which will depend on the specific context & the relative mismatch between pilots & machines.

Tom

[Conall]

I have always applied historical parameters to my scenarios and find they work perfectly well in the provision of balanced games.

I agree, for me it's the historical scenario & match up which matters to me and engages my interest. Points are useful for getting a relative sense of each side's potential fighting power but they're not the starting point or the be all or end all of setting up a game.

Tom

[flash]

As I said in an earlier post, victory requires the pilot (player) to demonstrate skill in execution. As the Rittmeister said it is the man not the machine that is most important to the outcome of the battle.

In this game victory also requires the targeted player to draw damage cards that count...!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

In this game victory also requires the targeted player to draw damage cards that count...!

Too true, the card (& chit) gods can be cruel. But if you can give yourself firing opportunities and also limit those of your opponent eventually they will fall your way.

[surfimp]

There are many abstractions necessary when translating the three dimensional movements of complex machines through a fluid airspace into a 2D turn-based game. The element of surprise is absent, the boundaries of the playing surface are limited, and the relative skill at performing flight maneuvers (as represented by the movement cards) is both equalized among all pilots and idealized. Deflection shooting is reduced from a complex skill to a simple random chance (flattering to the poor shot and insulting to the master). These are just a few examples of the abstraction but suffice to say there are many.

From that perspective, using points to roughly qualify the relative capability of one of these abstracted, idealized representations of the union of an aircraft and pilot's capability versus another is certainly appropriate within the context of the game. To the extent we all agree that the capabilities of each are reflected in their representative cards and mechanics, agreeing to a relative points value created by the same entity responsible for the primary representation is just one more small step asked of our suspension of disbelief. In light of all the abstraction in play, and in view of the goal of a game being that of providing an enjoyable experience, I do not mind the use of points to create a "balanced" scenario.

This is especially important when, as in my particular case, the vast majority of participants involved in my campaign have little to no background in aviation or WWI history. They are gamers who appreciate the mechanics of Wings of Glory as a game, first and last. Towards that end, the points are one of the tools - along with the historically-framed scenarios and aircraft matchups - that I've used to create evocative yet still competitive play experiences. And the feedback received in this thread has helped refine those scenarios to ensure that they continue to improve as such.

If nothing else, the challenge of putting on a fun event - be it a single scenario or a campaign - has proven itself to be one of the most significant in gaming that I've faced so far. I appreciate very much all the help put forward in this thread, and hope it is useful to others crafting their own scenarios and campaigns.

[flash]

There are some different methods to employ to set up a game to mix it up too. You can start in formation of choice or randomly selected. Have an AI, umpire, or player driven two seater being bounced that the players have to defend. The bouncing players can start within, or, close to gun range (depending on relative speed), they may also have to roll to see where in the o'clock the attack from (D12), same for those joining the fight; they can also be detained a turn or two before getting onto the table and you can decide how the two seater reacts - ie did he see it coming or was he oblivious until the first shot ? Obviously same can be applied to any attack. This represents aircraft being attracted to a fight from all directions & with a staggered entry you can arrive behind an enemy reinforcement... or vice versa
I also give each side its own double damage decks so chances are even.

[Conall]

J
I can't be the only one to notice this, and I'm sure the Ace Skills and altitude rules may be a way forward, but - anyone else have some suggestions for how to balance this up? Our Bloody April, while plenty bloody, is turning decisively against the historical outcome and I'd like to see it at least be more of an even match, while still trying to stay within the foul lines set out by the rules and points values provided for the aircraft that were involved historically.

Your feedback most appreciated!

I'd also suggest if you're using three mats that you could consider creating a system of German reinforcement aircraft which can enter on either of the German mats. It should be relatively straight forward to create a dice driven generator. And if you're using altitude rules you can always create one or two reinforcement options that have a significant altitude advantage. This would make it much more difficult for British and Dominion aircraft to return across the lines.

Tom