How you approach game balance is entirely a personal choice.
When starting out, as a relatively inexperienced Wings pilot, the points system may well prove helpful and reassuring.
Later, with more experience and a deeper understanding of the structure of the points system and the nuances of gameplay, I think the points system would prove less useful.
With the addition of altitude rules, the points system loses even more relevance.
Two-seaters are, as mentioned by Peter, impossible to take by surprise (unless complex House Rules are used).
The points system explicitly states that it takes no account of altitude - yet attacking a two-seater from below and behind, where it cannot shoot back, is both the most effective method in the game and also the most successful historical method.
I've gone on record several times with my personal belief that the points system is broken - indeed ALL points systems are.
Points rely on delivering "bang for buck", and they don't in this game; nor do they in most others (witness the constant changes to points values which accompany all new editions of existing games).
I do understand, though, that many players see points as a source of reassurance that they have an equal chance to win (even when, in fact, they sometimes don't), especially when there is incomplete knowledge of the capabilities of the enemy's hardware.
Opposing players who are not familiar with each other also gain comfort from a mathematical total which appears to match that of the enemy player.
I wouldn't want to see players prevented from using points - but I won't use them, for the reasons explained here.
A flexible few points plus or minus, rather than an exact equality, will produce an increased likelihood of an even fight.
Generally, two planes of equal guns, with equal speed, and equal damage points will produce a very even fight.
The problem arises when numbers differ on the two sides; in practically every game system, 5 units totalling 1000 points will almost always defeat a single 1000 point unit, and it's the same in Wings of War/Glory.
Any game which includes the entirely random possibility of a damage card draw varying from "zero" damage to "complete destruction" makes a nonsense of any mathematical comparison system.
Two seaters automatically pay more points for having a second crewman, and even more again if he has a machine gun, so will usually cost more points than a single-seat scout, but the combat capabilities of that second gun are widely variable - some have narrow arcs, others an arc approaching 300 degrees. A single rear gun, plus a single forward gun, can provide an inexperienced pilot with a shot on every manoeuvre card played, yet the twin guns of an 'A' mounting cost the same, but are far less likely to be able to fire card for card, and deliver less damage, manoeuvre card for manoeuvre card, when they do shoot, because of this inconsistency.
Extra manoeuvre cards also cost extra points, but if the player doesn't choose to use them turn by turn, then he is paying extra "bucks" for no extra "bang".
The Albatros D.II and D.III show this nicely - the only difference between the two planes is the 2 extra sideslip cards of the 'J' deck over the 'V' deck; the better climb rate of the D.III is ignored by the altitude-free points system. If the D.III player doesn't use all 3 sideslips in the same direction in a given turn, then he is paying extra points from which he gets no benefit at all.
Just my opinion, of course.
Bookmarks