Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 540

Thread: Point system for Wings of Glory

  1. #1

    Default Point system for Wings of Glory

    Updated values. Original post quoted under for comparison and notes.

    PLANE
    Albatros C.III 81
    Albatros D.II fire A 78
    Albatros D.II fire B 58
    Albatros D.III 79
    Albatros D.Va 82
    Bristol F2B Fighter B/B 91
    Bristol F2B Fighter A/B 111
    Bristol F2B Fighter B/A 111
    Bristol F2B Fighter AB/A 147
    Fokker Dr.I 85
    SPAD XIII 85
    Sopwith Camel 86
    Halberstadt CL.II 90
    Sopwith Triplane fire A 86
    Sopwith 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
    Sopwith Snipe 97
    Pfalz D.III 83
    Ufag C.I 83
    DH4 B/B 89
    DH4 A/B 109
    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
    Phönix D.I 84
    Sopwith 1 1/2 Stutter 86
    Sopwith 1 1/2 Stutter Comic 78
    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)
    Zeppelin Staaken 239
    Friedrichshafen G.III 164
    O/400 fire B/B 157
    O/400 fire B/A 182
    O/400 fire A/B 182
    O/400 fire A/A 197
    Macchi M.5 84
    Nieuport Ni.28 87
    Fokker E.V 89
    Hannover CL.IIIa 93


    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
    Fire control expert: 5
    Balloon buster: 6
    Sharp eye: 7
    Weapon specialist: 5
    Intuitive: 5
    Team cohordination: 5
    Double ace: 6

    TWO-SEATERS AND MULTI-ENGINE PLANES SKILLS
    Nimble pilot: 5
    Rookie pilot: 5
    Experienced pilot: 8
    Agile guy: 5
    Precision bomb aimer: 7
    Nimble gunner: 7

    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

    Since several of you seem to want it, here you have a draft - if you test it please let me know if it works. Even better if with extreme differencies: B planes angaist A ones, earky ones against late ones, different number of planes in the two opposing factions.

    Each plane has a cost (for weapon variants, different cost for each of course). Here you find all released miniatiures for WoW/WGF and some of the next ones (plus a couple more of planes as the Nieuport 11 that I calculated for comparison). Anyway I would avoid the Gotha/Caproni in tournament.
    Each skill added has a cost. But Chivalrous Aptitude has a negative one, being a disvantage (you do not need any more to get another two skills if you take that one, as by skill rules).
    Other disvantages are a rookie crew and starting with an already hit plane, that give a little reduction of cost. These disvantages are probably not so balanced but I prefer so - take them if in need, but if you can avoid them it's better.
    No points for rockets, bombs, AA guns/machineguns/trenches, balloons. These are dictated by the scenarios.

    Thanks a lot and all the best,

    Andrea

    - - -

    PLANE
    SPAD XIII 85
    Camel 86
    Albatros D.Va 82
    Fokker Dr.I & Triplane fire A 86
    Triplane fire B 62
    SPAD VII fire A 82
    SPAD VII fire B 58
    Hanriot fire A 87
    Hanriot fire B 63
    SS D.III 93
    Se5a fire A 92
    Se5a fire B 68
    Aviatik D.I fire A 82
    Aviatik D.I fire B 58
    Fokker D.VII 100
    Snipe 97
    Albatros D.III 80
    Pfalz D.III 84
    Ufag C.I 83
    DH4 B/B 81
    DH4 B/A 105
    DH4 A/A 129
    Raf Re8 B/B 74
    Raf Re8 B/A 98
    Rumpler C.IV B/B 78
    Breguet XIV B2 B/B 82
    Breguet XIV B2 B/A 106
    Breguet XIV B2 A/A 130
    Roland fire B 60
    Roland fire B/B 84
    Nieuport 17/23 fire A 77
    Nieuport 17/23 fire B 53
    Nieuport 11 46
    Nieuport 16 43
    SS D.I 54
    Airco DH2 54
    Halbestadt D.III 56
    Fokker E.III 44
    Morane Saulnier Type N 42
    Caproni Ca.3 133
    Gotha G.V 132

    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 (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

    Here the WW2 version:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...Wings-of-Glory
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 05-15-2018 at 22:50.

  2. #2

    Default

    Thanks Andrea, I am definitely going to test this.

    Could you give us more insight into how were the points calculated, please?

  3. #3

    Default

    I will look for my notes amd let you know!
    Basically it is an evolution of a system adopted for Italian tournaments where planes had "levels" whose difference were balanced with skills. A Se5a was 1 level above the Camel and a D.vii two, so in a scenario D.vii against Se5a the latter would get 1 skill. But here it is far more detailed.

  4. #4

    Default

    Great list Andrea, thank you for it.

    Have you these numbers for Breguets too?

  5. #5

    Default

    I've looked at some of my previous actions and applied the points system above to them; it feels just about right. Just what we need for a UK national tournament next year

  6. #6

    Default

    grea will test this at our next multi player free for all

  7. #7

    Default

    Great list, thanks. I'll compare it with my table of balanced squadrons.
    I'm missing Breguets, RE8, Rumpler and Nieuport 16 there.

  8. #8

    Default

    Thanks for this Andrea.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'm sure that this will iron out a lot of the problems that some members seem to have with the need to run balanced games Andrea.
    For tournaments it is a God send, and comes right in time for the U.K. Wing, with the plans that we are developing for our National one.
    I'm sure that it will alleviate the need to place even more work on the Unofficial Stats Committee, so they may be giving a sigh of relief too.
    Thank you for all your continued interest in our efforts here, and all the effort that you put into the game behind the scenes, which we never get to see.
    Rob.

  10. #10


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Sebastien
    Location
    Ile de France
    Sorties Flown
    17
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default


    Thanks a lot, Admiral Andrea
    I will test all of this very soon !

  11. #11

    Skafloc's Avatar Northern Command Squadron Leader.
    Colonel

    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    10
    Name
    Neil (Bullseye)
    Location
    Northumberland
    Sorties Flown
    11,381
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default

    Excellent data Andrea, much appreciated. I echo SQ LDR Kytes remarks :

    "For tournaments it is a God send, and comes right in time for the U.K. Wing, with the plans that we are developing for our National one."

  12. #12

    Skafloc's Avatar Northern Command Squadron Leader.
    Colonel

    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    10
    Name
    Neil (Bullseye)
    Location
    Northumberland
    Sorties Flown
    11,381
    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default

    Well I've just noted.... post number 401.....another milestone passed.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Fokker Dr.I and Sopwith Triplane fire A 85
    Sopwith Triplane fire B 62

    Hanriot fire A 87
    Hanriot fire B 63

    Se5a fire A 92
    Se5a fire B 68

    Aviatik D.I fire A 82
    Aviatik D.I fire B 60
    It seems a little odd to me that the price of a B gun isn't fixed. Here we have it fluctuating between 22 and 24.

    I'm going to assume the Sopwith Triplane is the old D-deck Tripe. What would the point value be for the U-deck Tripe.

    Of course, the thing we all want to know is how were these values derived?

    What I would really like to see are the point values for each maneuver deck.

    And... thanks!

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
    Could you give us more insight into how were the points calculated, please?
    Given the variable and known values, we could probably figure it out.

    Each HP - 2pts
    A gun - ~40pts
    B gun - ~20pts

    Plug those numbers in, find two planes that share the same maneuver deck, and solve for N. Keep doing that until you've figured out all the maneuver decks, etc. I'd give it a try, but I'm at work, and I hate math.

  15. #15

    Default

    "For tournaments it is a God send, and comes right in time for the U.K. Wing, with the plans that we are developing for our National one."

    of course this shouldn't be a surprise, as it has been the behind-the-scenes discussion with Andrea on apointd system for the UK tournment plans that has largely driven the release of this

  16. #16

    Default

    Thanks for this info, Andrea!

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    ...SPAD XIII 85...
    ...Hanriot fire A 87...
    Interesting little quirk of the rules (or real life?)... the Hanriot is superior, (marginally so) i.e. worth more than the SPAD XIII... which was to replace the SPAD VII in French service... which was chosen by the French instead of the Hanriot HD.1.
    Last edited by fast.git; 02-20-2013 at 05:48. Reason: Creative Use of the English Language

  17. #17

    Default

    I will answer all of you... But I need my notes, that are on my computer ar home. I will also supply ni16, brXIV and Rumpler.

  18. #18

    Default

    >which was to replace the SPAD VII in French service... which was chosen by the French instead of the Hanriot HD.1.

    According to aviation historian (and friend, and WoW consulent) Gregory Alegi, the HD.1 was not chosen because it was not ready, then it has been completed according to suggestions from Italian aces so to perfectly suit needs of Italian pilots. The result was "a butterfly", in the words of an Italian ace (quoted by another hostorian and friend, Paolo Varriale).

  19. #19

    Boney10's Avatar South Western Command Squadron Leader.
    Lt. Colonel

    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    1
    Name
    Chris
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Sorties Flown
    7,242
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default

    Thanks for this Andrea, as Dave M has said this will come in Handy for our National get together.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    >which was to replace the SPAD VII in French service... which was chosen by the French instead of the Hanriot HD.1.

    According to aviation historian (and friend, and WoW consulent) Gregory Alegi, the HD.1 was not chosen because it was not ready, then it has been completed according to suggestions from Italian aces so to perfectly suit needs of Italian pilots. The result was "a butterfly", in the words of an Italian ace (quoted by another hostorian and friend, Paolo Varriale).
    Jack Herris wrote that the Italians preferred the Hanriot to both the SPAD and the Nieuport as it was stronger than the Nieuport, and handled better than the SPAD.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenalfonzo View Post
    Jack Herris wrote that the Italians preferred the Hanriot to both the SPAD and the Nieuport as it was stronger than the Nieuport, and handled better than the SPAD.
    Oh, I have no doubt about this... and I am not doubting the points system. I don't have the knowledge set to even try. I just thought that it was interesting. If the Hanriot was the better ride, and considering the teething (and lingering engine) problems of the SPAD XIII, perhaps the Hanriot might have been a better path for the French to follow?

    Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

  22. #22

    Default

    Very nice system, Andrea! I can't wait to hear the feedback from it!

  23. #23

    Default

    Excellent system development. DEfinitely very useful, Andrea. Thank you.

  24. #24

    Default

    Next question. Are these point values based on using the altitude rules?

  25. #25

    Default

    Thanks for posting this Andrea. Several of us have taken a crack at this, so to have you wiegh in is great! Im glad to see some values associated with the skills, I never knew where to start with them.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Basically it is an evolution of a system adopted for Italian tournaments where planes had "levels" whose difference were balanced with skills. A Se5a was 1 level above the Camel and a D.vii two, so in a scenario D.vii against Se5a the latter would get 1 skill. But here it is far more detailed.
    That's very similar to the system I used at Ye Old Columbia Aerodrome the game before last. I normally use a point system, but there is something to be said for the "if you take this plane, you get a skill, or this, you get two" method.

  27. #27

    Default

    Thanks Andrea! This should prove quite handy.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Oh, I have no doubt about this... and I am not doubting the points system. I don't have the knowledge set to even try. I just thought that it was interesting. If the Hanriot was the better ride, and considering the teething (and lingering engine) problems of the SPAD XIII, perhaps the Hanriot might have been a better path for the French to follow?
    I keep trying to tell people this, and they *don't* *bloody* *listen*.... ;)

    The SPAD, as best I can tell, appears to be an overcorrection for the Nieuport -- a scream-and-leap from "decent handling, but slow and fragile" to "fast and sturdy, but handles like a brick". The Hanriot, conversely was a more-subtle change -- a bit more-solidly constructed, a bit faster, and maybe a bit weaker in handling for it; but not going whole-hog the other direction. Evolution, not Revolution. But since i can't find any data on the mindsets of the various designers, don't quote me on it.

    But the values do hammer home one point: A-draw is going-away superior to B-draw -- which means in pretty-much any fight, the Entente pilots are going in at a severe disadvantage. Until now, I've been "balancing" my games by "number of guns", which usually meant the Entente gets 2 units for every CP unit; the fights usually work out even. it will be interesting to see how the points system works out.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    The SPAD, as best I can tell, appears to be an overcorrection for the Nieuport -- a scream-and-leap from "decent handling, but slow and fragile" to "fast and sturdy, but handles like a brick". The Hanriot, conversely was a more-subtle change -- a bit more-solidly constructed, a bit faster, and maybe a bit weaker in handling for it; but not going whole-hog the other direction. Evolution, not Revolution. But since i can't find any data on the mindsets of the various designers, don't quote me on it.
    Solid theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    But the values do hammer home one point: A-draw is going-away superior to B-draw...
    Without a doubt... number of guns appears to be the defining characteristic. It results in the largest points differential, at the very least.

  30. #30

    Default

    Thank you for this list. It should be very useful. I too would be interested in learning how it was calculated.

  31. #31

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    But the values do hammer home one point: A-draw is going-away superior to B-draw -- which means in pretty-much any fight, the Entente pilots are going in at a severe disadvantage. Until now, I've been "balancing" my games by "number of guns", which usually meant the Entente gets 2 units for every CP unit; the fights usually work out even. it will be interesting to see how the points system works out.
    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.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 02-21-2013 at 00:11.

  32. #32

    Default

    If I want to make a squadrons of three or four planes on both sides, do you thing there is a tolerance in the total points (eg. 10%), or it's necessary to equal them?

  33. #33

    Default

    See Lanchester Equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws

    I'd use a system where ability-to-do-damage is multiplied, not added, to ability to take damage.
    Assuming a B shot has a factor of 3, an A shot should be about 5.
    So damage 10 + B shot = 10 x 3 = 30
    Damage 16 + A shot = 16 x 5 = 80
    Then either add or multiply by a factor including climb rate, maneuver deck etc.
    Then add or multiply by another factor for 2-seater, roland rule etc.

    Addition is preferred as its easier. Multiplication is more accurate though, or even raising to a fractional power.

    There's so many imponderables though that a simple system like Andrea's might be even more "accurate" as well as easier to use.

    Game and Simulation design is hard. Any fool can model a complicated situation in a complicated way, and many fools have. But a genius can model a complicated situation in a simple way. That's how they get to design award-winning games.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    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.
    Similar to what I had come up with. In mine, the middle planes were normal. The Snipe and D.VII had to have a rookie pilot. Lesser planes took an ace skill. And the real clunkers took two ace skills. It worked well, but the best part? It was fast! No math made it really easy to get the game going right away.

  35. #35

    Default

    This is a great quick resource for balancing dogfight type games as far as that plane level/ace skills goes and the full number layout will be good for scenarios to make sure you use the victory points to help balance out the goals and game. Thanks!

  36. #36

    Default

    Thanks, Andrea, this is fantastic.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    I'd use a system where ability-to-do-damage is multiplied, not added, to ability to take damage.
    Assuming a B shot has a factor of 3, an A shot should be about 5.
    So damage 10 + B shot = 10 x 3 = 30
    Damage 16 + A shot = 16 x 5 = 80
    Then either add or multiply by a factor including climb rate, maneuver deck etc.
    Then add or multiply by another factor for 2-seater, roland rule etc.
    I was thinking along these lines, that a movement deck give a plane more firing opportunities if matched up against a less maneuverable deck. So that would act as a multiplier to the guns value. Switching from a B gun to an A gun may increase the effectiveness of a Morane Saulnier, but the increase is greater when you upgrade the B gun of an SE5a to an A gun because the maneuver deck is so much better.

    I also wonder if climb rate is another multiplier.

  38. #38

    Default

    I agree about maneuver decks being force multipliers, but I am not sure about climb rate. It seems to be a positive and negative (sort of like straight speed). I know when I use altitude, the Dr.1 can be problematic as an immelman may bump me up a level. I realize that this is also a positive, but I think it can even out unless your climb rate is terrible, like 5+. As far as the low rates go, I might value a 3 or 4 over a 2. Granted, I haven't played much so this is barely founded opinion.

  39. #39

    Default

    The point system seems to me well balanced, with two exceptions based on my experiences:
    1- I don't think, that SE5 is so far weaker than D.VII
    2- I think, that bombers and Roland are much stronger (about 20-30 pts) due to wider fire arcs

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    But the second point is damage sustained.
    True -- once I have the guns balanced, I look at how many HPs each side has. For ex.: In a 1-on-1 where one side has 12 HP and the other has 15 HP, and both are using B deck, the 15 HP unit has to have at least 4 HP left after shooting down the 12 HP in order to "win". ("Pyrrhic victory" is just a fancy way of saying "losing". >:) )

    So, far, the only "perfectly balanced" game I've managed to run pitted a Nieuport and SPAD against a Gotha -- result: No-score draw (the Gotha was on the verge of shooting down one of the 1-holers when its second gunner was killed; both sides decided they'd seen enough :) ).

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kubajs View Post
    The point system seems to me well balanced, with two exceptions based on my experiences:
    1- I don't think, that SE5 is so far weaker than D.VII
    2- I think, that bombers and Roland are much stronger (about 20-30 pts) due to wider fire arcs
    1 - Let's see by further playtesting. The D.VII has these unique "turning stalls", a non-steep stall and two 90° per side allowing for a very quick 180° turn in two cards... Quite far more than the two boroadslips that the Se5a has over it. It seemed to me that all that was worth one skill of difference (or 8 points out of 100).
    2 - Do others have the same opinion? They are actually more costly, but not so much (and 20/30 points more would allow for another MG, not just for a somehow larger field of fire for an exhisting one). At the moment, the rear arc of the Roland is something like 15% broader than a regular rear MG, and the cost of the rear MG is something like 25% more costly (compare a B/B Roland with a Rumpler). Since there is an increase in arc but not in damage inflicted, it seemed quite a relevant increase.

  42. #42

    Default

    Nieuport 16 added.

  43. #43

    Default

    I don't think the fire arcs are that big a deal since a rear fire arc is harder to line up and you have the large blind spot potential (if they use that rule, which I use). Also, as you said, the damage isn't increased much due to the gun being weak. The larger arc may increase average damage a bit due to increased targeting, but not much since it sin't very maneuverable.

    I can't speak to the SE5a v. DVII from any experience, but it seems the DVII is the best plane by far. I do think the SE5a is very good from all its options, but others have notified me about all the steep moves it has.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    2 - Do others have the same opinion? They are actually more costly, but not so much (and 20/30 points more would allow for another MG, not just for a somehow larger field of fire for an exhisting one). At the moment, the rear arc of the Roland is something like 15% broader than a regular rear MG, and the cost of the rear MG is something like 25% more costly (compare a B/B Roland with a Rumpler). Since there is an increase in arc but not in damage inflicted, it seemed quite a relevant increase.
    I think it varies with the rules being used. Here, we use "center to center" targeting (red dots, or stems), which makes it possible for an Entente plane to slip into the very narrow blind spot between the Roland's arcs. From what I gather: Most folks use "center to mini", which makes it far easier for the Roland not only to hit, but to hit with both arcs (never mind giving a *huge* advantage to who's firing -- I suspect this is the source of the "two-seaters are overpowered" meme :) ).

  45. #45

    Default

    Very nice work on the points there Andrea. I think I will introduce it to my school club; the students are used to adding the points for their Warhammer games anyway. Might stop that one kid taking the Breuget A/A as 'his' plane every time

    Dave

  46. #46

    Default

    Sorrry guys but POINTS reminds me of two other game systems. Nothing wrong with them but This is the game I enjoy and don't feel the need for any change.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobP View Post
    Sorrry guys but POINTS reminds me of two other game systems. Nothing wrong with them but This is the game I enjoy and don't feel the need for any change.
    I tend to agree with you. I can see the value for them in things like tournaments, but the whole air war was based on one side getting the upper hand in aircraft technology. Clever scenarios can overcome non-parity in planes--sometimes, survival is its own reward!

  48. #48

    Default

    The first time I dealed with a point system in wargame was back in Spring 1980, when I played a real miniature wargame for the first time (after some self-designed toy soldiers game). It was a product by WRG - War Games Research Group:
    http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net.../wrgindex.html
    To be precise, the Fifth edition of the Ancient rules (3000 B.C. to 1250 A.D.), published in 1976:
    http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History...ncients005.pdf
    The point system is at page 8. After a few time a series of Army Lists appeared, with the composition of many ancient armies giving quantities and points for each type of troop and commander. I teached the game to Pier Giorgio Paglia too, and we played it a lot. We also tied the 6th and the 7th edition, but the 5th is the one still in my hearth.

    I know that many games after it, and I guess probably even some before it, used a similar point system and are reminescent of it. I played several of them. But for me, personally, the imprinting comes from there.

    I agree that a point system can not well take into account all the variety of rules of WoW/G: intriducing or not altitude, shoot at the real thing, special damages, optional rules for specific planes and more will change the relative strenght and weakness of planes. Let's say that it can work in tourmanents and be a guide to design homemade scenarios, but of course if it is not a pure dogfight the goal is even more important than the relative strenght. A bombing scenario can be balanced even changing the table size or the starting distance from the target/from each other of the different planes involved, that means both the time that fighters have to destroy the bombers before they drop their load and the time they have to shot them down before they are back to safety. Besides of course changing the points for damaging/destroying/let unharmed the tartegt(s). As you correctly notice, even an unbalanced fight can be interesting and have a different goal that being the owner of the table at the end...

    I put bombers for completeness' sake but I am not convinced that the heavier ones make sense in a dogfight. When the two sides have several planes each, however, a few B/B two-seaters in the mix could replace an A Series 1 fighter well. This was especially true in the few Largest Wings of War Games Ever I had the chance to take part in.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 02-22-2013 at 22:31.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobP View Post
    Sorrry guys but POINTS reminds me of two other game systems. Nothing wrong with them but This is the game I enjoy and don't feel the need for any change.
    Quote Originally Posted by somaliavet View Post
    I tend to agree with you. I can see the value for them in things like tournaments, but the whole air war was based on one side getting the upper hand in aircraft technology. Clever scenarios can overcome non-parity in planes--sometimes, survival is its own reward!
    +1.
    I own a game with those points. I like this game the way it is.

  50. #50

    Default

    While I appreciate the effort, I don't think I will be utilizing the point system, as I feel it detracts from the game. If I wanted to play a game with point systems included, I might consider it or one of the ancient systems out there. But I didn't like them in the 70's or the 80's or the 90's - why bother now? The game is fine as it is!

Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. WoW Point System...
    By Greywolf in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 05-14-2013, 04:12
  2. Svět deskových her - hraní Wings of Glory (Wings of War)
    By Ladinek in forum Czechoslovak Wing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-04-2013, 12:51
  3. WWI system vs WWII system question????
    By Propjockey53 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 15:14
  4. Point system?
    By LazyEyedPsycho in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 15:58
  5. DoW point system
    By DentedHead in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 12:40

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
  •