SPWaW Victory point calculation

[Colonel von Blitz]

Hi all!

I recently ended a PBEM game with a fellow wargamer and the result was somewhat strange in our opinon. Thus I'd like to know how the game exactly calculates victory points. This was the game setup:

10/1943 Rumania Defend & Soviet Union Assault. Purchase points were 3800 for Rumania and 8000 for SU.

Rumania had to retreat from the battlefield through retreat hex, leaving 551 casualties, lost 20 Artillery pieces, 2 soft vehicles and 7 APCs. The lost men and equipment were worth ~2494 points...as calculated directly from unit listing (sum of damage-values).

Soviet Union captured all victory flags (worth total of 2400 points and each was scoring points at the end of battle) and suffered 458 casualties, lost 5 soft vehicles, 24 APCs and 25 AFVs. The lost men and equipment were worth ~3076 points...as calculated directly from unit listing (sum of damage-values).

From these figures I calculated directly that Rumania should have had 3076 victory points (Soviet damage) and Soviet Union should have gathered totally 4894 victory points (Rumanian damage + all flags). But for some reason, Rumania got 6713 and Soviet Union got only 5168 points [X(] [X(]

Is there some special formula that modifies the results depending on the morale/experience factors of opposing countries? If so, is there anyone who "knows" the equation? Anyway, any explanation for this somewhat strange result would be more than welcome!

von Blitz

[minefield]

Point calculation is the holy grail of SP:WaW. So far no one has nailed it down. There are plenty of half-theories out there so feel free to do a search.

It is on my 'to-do' experiment list and I'm sure it is on some other's.

[Poopyhead]

I think that the best solution all around is to edit the VH's so that each hex is worth thousands of points. That way, whoever has taken their objectives wins a decisive victory and you don't need a Ouija board to figure the score. Besides, holding your objective is what it is all about.

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

I think that the best solution all around is to edit the VH's so that each hex is worth thousands of points. That way, whoever has taken their objectives wins a decisive victory and you don't need a Ouija board to figure the score. Besides, holding your objective is what it is all about.

The editor inside SPWaW allows VH to be worth 250 points max [:@] Maybe I just have to put four flags in one hex, that way that hex would be worth 1000 points [;)]

von Blitz

[Alexandra]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

I think that the best solution all around is to edit the VH's so that each hex is worth thousands of points. That way, whoever has taken their objectives wins a decisive victory and you don't need a Ouija board to figure the score. Besides, holding your objective is what it is all about.

That's not true.

In this example scenario, one can easily argue the Soviet's objective was not terrain but the Rumanian forces. And the Rumaians objective was to escape, which it sounds like they did. Not every battle is about land taken.

[Poopyhead]

Too bad that you cannot edit the editor. I am the author of one of those half-theories (well 90% theory actually) about scoring. I think that the scoring method is simply not simple, and thus will defy some gamer's ability or willingness to understand, even when described correctly. I also believe that the AI uses an arbitrary method to assign unit scores. If you are familiar with the demonic "steel.prf" file, then you know that you must periodically delete it or the AI will assign as much as a 1000%+ increase to some unit's armor and it won't show up on any screen. If this happens on a less perceptible level, say 50% increase, then the score for the unit might change as well (without any warning). You can always make a gentleman's agreement about the score, or ignore it and just have the most fun you can have with your clothes on!

P.S. Alexandra, one might say that the Russians failed to take the land where the Romanian exit hexes were, which allowed them to escape. But I see your point. It is possible to make a scenario in which the enemy is the goal, not the terrain.

[Colonel von Blitz]

So, looks like there is only one conclusion at the moment that I can draw about calculation of victory points: playing with inferior (in terms of experience, morale and leadership) troops gives you slight advantage when scoring victory points.

von Blitz

[Wild Bill]

Every scenario designer is obligated morally to test out his work THOROUGHLY. Otherwise he is not providing the best that he can for the players. I'm talking to myself here. That is my motivation. It is very easy for me to prepare a scenario and in my enthusiasm, play it once, let the AI play it once and send it out.

NOT GOOD![8|]

Testing, retesting by more than one person is absolutely essential for a successful, winnable scenario. I have a strong philosophy about that. Nothing more frustrating for a player than to know in his heart he has won and see results such as "draw." [:@]

I don't think this is too much to ask of any designer. Anyone who does not play and know how the game works should not do too much design except in an experimental sense until he feel comfortable with just how the game works. That is true of any game.

Sorry, did not mean to get on a soapbox! [:-] . The only way to know if a scenario is winnable, playable and enjoyable (3 vital elements), you gotta test, test, test. I hope all scenario designers will take these factors to heart when designing.

Now as to a random game chosen by the system, my only counsel is that no matter what the game tells you at the end of the scenario, if you know in your heart that you did well, pat yourself on the back and forget about it. If it is a two player game, and your opponent is fair and objective, he will have no problem admitting that you kicked his butt! If he won't, he is probably not a very good opponent with whom to have future engagements!

GOsh, it feels good to have the cast off my arm and "talk" again. I've missed visiting and commenting here immensely. I guess I might have gone overboard here but these are my own convictions on this subject!

Wild Bill

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill
Now as to a random game chosen by the system, my only counsel is that no matter what the game tells you at the end of the scenario, if you know in your heart that you did well, pat yourself on the back and forget about it. If it is a two player game, and your opponent is fair and objective, he will have no problem admitting that you kicked his butt! If he won't, he is probably not a very good opponent with whom to have future engagements!

Fairly good idea, problem is that this game that we're talking about...it is a ladder game and for ladder point calculation, the victory points are used as a part of equation. To have some sort of consistency, we're almost forced to use the final scores given by the game [8|]

von Blitz

[Wild Bill]

Now that is an exception to the rule. Are the scenarios you are using generated by the game or are they designed for the ladder competition? I would hope the latter, as that type of scenario can be tailor made to that kind of situation.

Wild Bill

[Riun T]

I got a question for u guys since we are on the topic of points, I'm playing a long camp. as the brits. at 10 battles into it now I have definately felt the almost mystical way the AI makes its own rules for scoring. In 6 of the 10 fights so far I've been getting draws when I have totally dominated the battlefield, usually double if not tripple? infliction of casualties,occupation of VH's and destruction of equipment,all at a cost very small to the core force{ do most of the hard work with the support points} and to slap me in the face after the battle when I'm pickin stuff for the next fight it gives me some exorbident amount for support purchase??? whats that about???RT

[Poopyhead]

If both of you agree, you could alternatively figure the score yourselves, using only VH value, damage point total (from the final screen) and printed cost for units that exit the map. This eliminates any "mystery points" and is usually the lion's share of the normal point score anyway. These points would be straight forward (although tediuos to calculate by hand) and verifiable.

Update: The manual says that in scenarios where one side is to retreat units, that side should get three times the printed score for those units and the other side gets half the printed score for the unit. This would involve a little more math, but is closer to what is in the manual.

[Riun T]

Hey bud, that works as the basic way I calculate the sum as well, but that doesn't give a real good explaination of things like the moral damage or HOW TOEXPLAIN words escape me[I'm an HQ killer in all these fights so far] why when all the military doctrine I've been taught in 15 years of service is it that the AI can't see that when I've singled out the area of your main advance and xradicated all the approching units by turn 5, found the enemy HQ by turn7-9(rovingLRC's),already got 3 or 4 counter battery strikes off as I kill the found HQ,and as an added bonas that I think the AI doesn't look at as seriously as I think the feat is to do all the main work in the battle with support!! Not enough credit is given in how quickly you manage to get your enemy force to the various states that make any fighting force less effective WHEN YOU KILL THEIR HQ BY TURN 7, ONLY HAVE 27 CASUALTIES TO 227 OF THEIRS i STILL HAD 14 TANKS ON THE FIELD FROM 29, TO 3 IMMOBILE TANKS LEFT TO THEM OUT OF 44,AND SO ON ,AND SO ON,my hope is to say when the hq is dead ther ain't no draw, I could ramble about the other five battles but you get the point. RT

[Wild Bill]

Good points, gentlemen! To be honest, I'm not totally aware of how the computer calculates points. I believe it uses the same system as was found originally in SP3, Brigade Command.

If I remember correctly, Michael Wood did do some changes to that system but I don't know if he corrected everything. It has on occasion appeared to be somewhat flawed.

I do know points are achieved by a number of things. Someone, such as Rockin' Harry or Major Destruction correct me here, please if I am amiss.

It considers objective points and casualties (yours and the enemy's). I can't say if it figures in percentage losses for a unit. By that I mean a squad of 10 loses four men. Are points deducted (or added) for that? I don't know.

And of course, we added in SPWAW different types of objectives, such as points per turn, points at the end of the game, exiting unit points both plus and minus (depending on how many units don't make it off the map in time), and objectives that only be taken once without the possibility of losing them.

All of these give the scenario designer some great possibilities for different battles, without the same old attack-defend situation. I love that.

One of my scenarios that comes to mind is the attack on St Nazaire with two types of objectives: (1) those where the first side there gets the objective (in this case it symbolizes reaching and objective and destroying it) and exit objectives (where you must withdraw as many units as possible while under fire.

Ultimately we will probably have to admit that there are flaws in the scoring system. I want to see "DECISIVE" as much as anyone. I can tell it to myself but its nice to get "official corroboration."

I cannot say with certainty just how the scoring system works in all its nuances, but we do have some folks around here who might be able to help us. Perhaps they'll see this and add their expertise.

Wild Bill

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

Now that is an exception to the rule. Are the scenarios you are using generated by the game or are they designed for the ladder competition? I would hope the latter, as that type of scenario can be tailor made to that kind of situation.

Wild Bill

We do not usually use ready-made scenarios...at least I don't use them. Most of my battles are fought on a semi-random maps...that means, that I take random map on the editor, then I'll make some adjustments and also deploy VHs according to my agreement with my opponent. In addition, I always agree with my opponent about the game preferences, such as purchase points, whether or not it's allowed to use paradrops or infiltrations etc.

I know however, that quite many players in our ladder usually play fully game-generated scenarios...unfortunately. This also leads us back to what I said previously: "the victory points are used as a part of equation. To have some sort of consistency, we're almost forced to use the final scores given by the game".

At the moment, this scoring issue is not a problem in our ladder. The question just raised because one of the results was somewhat odd. The result of the battle was a draw, so both players scored only small amount of points. Usually, if Decisive Victory or Marginal Victory is achieved, there is no debate about the result...one took the victory, and the other just ended up with a bloody nose

Colonel von Blitz

[Riun T]

OK, after applyin a good firm boot to my own ass,got a couple more questions and I apoligize,for not mentioning that I'm playing 8.2{hence maybe some of my scoring problems}But hows this grab u guys as results for the 11th battle. Bir Hachiem,7/21/42 British advance,german delay. Battle ended turn 17,visablity5 hexs clear calm night22:00hrs. German force morale broken by turn 12,HQ caught by two full platoons of brit and canadian commandos at turn ten,all VH's claimed on turn 15,stats as follows.
MEN 189 to 537
ARTY 0 to 13
SV's 1 to 0
APC's 2 to 0
AFV's 17 to25
GL 1 to 0
AIR 0 to 0
AI called this one a draw too the fight was listed as a 37 turn so you tell me if I took too many losses or if I wasn't fast enough?? What do you guys think?? RT

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: Riun T

OK, after applyin a good firm boot to my own ass,got a couple more questions and I apoligize,for not mentioning that I'm playing 8.2{hence maybe some of my scoring problems}But hows this grab u guys as results for the 11th battle. Bir Hachiem,7/21/42 British advance,german delay. Battle ended turn 17,visablity5 hexs clear calm night22:00hrs. German force morale broken by turn 12,HQ caught by two full platoons of brit and canadian commandos at turn ten,all VH's claimed on turn 15,stats as follows.
MEN 189 to 537
ARTY 0 to 13
SV's 1 to 0
APC's 2 to 0
AFV's 17 to25
GL 1 to 0
AIR 0 to 0
AI called this one a draw too the fight was listed as a 37 turn so you tell me if I took too many losses or if I wasn't fast enough?? What do you guys think?? RT

I'd say, that the main reason for Draw is 17 lost AFVs.

Would be easier to speculate the result, if you'd calculate the damage points for both parties from the unit listing. Also, would be good if you'd tell what kind of VHs were talking about...how many points per flag? and did they score "per turn" or "at the end of battle" ?

Colonel von Blitz

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill
If I remember correctly, Michael Wood did do some changes to that system but I don't know if he corrected everything. It has on occasion appeared to be somewhat flawed.

Any idea how to contact Michael Wood about this issue?

von Blitz

[Riun T]

Thanks Blitz, I make a mental note when I deploy,but didn't post the VH stats on this one.
I believe the north, south groups of 4 were a 70 points for end of battle and 3surrounding it at 7points per turn, the centre 5 were a150ppeob and 4 at 17 ppt . I just wanted to point out again that I can't see a draw being calculated when their force no matter how u look at it couldn't guard their command,this decision by points and turns in the VH vacinity,doesn't do a good job of portraying what I'd call the morale sway or pitch of Battle thats always a huge factor in how the overall objectives are gained, I don't feel that the computer gives those tank losses the credit of kicking the Italians off the VH's B4 they where wiped out ,I know its just a game but I hoped that when the historical preferences are turned on that any force would be considered lost when the King's been unhorsed, so to say. later RT

[Wild Bill]

I'm afraid Michael has moved on to other things. I'm not much on programming but I understand that he had to use an antiquated coder to do this and that he no longer has that piece of equipment. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it was something like that.

Michael is involved the last I heard with 2x3 games and is quite busy. I've had no correspondence with him in some time.

Wild Bill