4E solution?!

[paladin333]

There is a new wave of 4E related threads on the board. So I just wanted propose some solution that could be useful or at least give some throughts for better one.
First of all, I am not the historian who knows all spec for all aircrafts and have handy theory for ingame implimentation of these specs. The only thing I know for sure is that 4E is quite deadly for the Japanese CAP. I played most of my PBEM games from Japanese side and only one from Allies side. When I was Allies I enjoyed almost complete freedom to smash anything insight with my 4E even in yearly 1942. As Japanese I am always had a nightmares when 4E came in. But its still fun to bring down the big bird. Even if its not a usual thing for Japanese side. Somebody on this board reported that massing about of 80 Japanese a/c against 30-40 4E does the magic. Never experienced it. I did try it, but I was crying seening my a/c damaging all, yes ALL 4E for multiple times, but not bringing it down. So the results was something like this: 40 of 40 4E damaged, 15 of 70(I am not speaking about 20+ damaged) Japanese a/c destroyed(Ohh, forget to say, including 3 aces with 5 to 9 kills each). But the point is, its fun to have such a challenge in the game. Personally I enjoy it.
The only BUT is:
Risk and return.
Yeah, that is risk and return.
I want to risk, but give me a return.
To make it simple give a victory point not for shooting down a/c, but numbers of engine on that a/c.
Fighter: 1 victory point
2E: 2 victory points
4E: 4 victory points
I think this will give a completly new dimentional to the game. Allies can and will mass 4E. Its ok, but they will think twice before fly mission without escort.
They will think twice before fly at 6000ft.
They will think twice before fly missions every day.
They will think twice to fly mission without prior recon.
For the first time the Allies will RISK. Because now, their are not. Yah, I know you will say, but look at replacement rates. High or low, it doesn matter. I know for sure in real life comander who losing like 100 of 4E will dismissed form the front and go to good warm rear HQ. Or maybe Canada front. But in this game Allies commander can do it. Lets make him pay. And yes, Japanese side which can produce more a/c than it was possible in real life will pay too. Because producing alot and losing alot will lead to soonest Allies victory.
The problem is that all a/c is equal, but its not a truth. Downing big bird not only kills a/c itself but also the whole crew. 4 victory ponits for the monster seems pretty fair to me. Oh, and I forget to say I am talking about both sides here. So Japanese side will also think twice before send green pilots in Sally to train bombing run in China. Because high operational loses(which leads to lost victory points 2 per Sally) will be too risky if thinking of return.

Sorry for crazy English. [8D] Thats all. Waiting for yours imput.

[invernomuto]

I think it is a great idea. 1 point for each engine. Sound good to me. I am also supporting the idea of different repair rate (1 engine faster repair - 4 engine slowest) and different AV support for each aircraft type (e.g. 100 fighters need 100 AV support, 100 2E bombers need 200 AV and 100 4E need 400). Obviously, I hope the devs will remove the 250 AV support max for A/F.

Bye

[NemRod]

Your interesting proposition seems very logical and 1 Pete=1B17 in point value is ridiculous in my opinion. But your solution would make worse something I find even more ridiculous: the relative point value of ships and planes in the game.
In the game 8/10 Petes= 1 DD( hundred crews, thousands tons material, months of building etc...).
Monthly air losses already cost you more points than losing several cruisers.I see this as a problem ( but may be I'm the only one[&:]) and your proposition would make it worse.

[Sneer]

1/4 point for fighter
half a point for 2e bomber and
full point for 4e
it was always strange to me that 5 petes or nates were worth as much as DD
with hundred+ crew and 1000 + tons of war material used

i like a concept of adjusting AV support

[Honda]

Please[:)]

[tsimmonds]

This fine idea is not a new one, but the powers that be just do not think there is a problem.

[Sneer]

I know it is not new but certailny it is worth bringing it back once more

[invernomuto]

1/4 point for fighter
half a point for 2e bomber and
full point for 4e
it was always strange to me that 5 petes or nates were worth as much as DD
with hundred+ crew and 1000 + tons of war material used

Well, it seems even more logical, but could be difficult to implement in game if WITP treats VPs as integers.

[Feinder]

If you want to dinker with the point values of aircraft (which I think would be an excellent idea), you have to dinker with the value of LCU losses. Army losses are the sinle largest deficit that the Allies take (in huge lop-sidedness). Point from aircraft are their major way to stay in the game.

-F-

[kkoovvoo]

You get 1 victory point for 12 destroyed chinese squads for example.
So 1 VP for 1 4E AC / 2 2E ACs / 4 1E ACs shouldnt be problem.

[paladin333]

I am completely agree with entire VP score reevaluation and looks like there is other people who thinks so. The question is:
Are Devs going to put it in the patch?
Is VP hardcoded? If not is it possible to change it under frame of VP Reevaluation project and make it possible to download
like other mods. Or better as one part of CHS. Yeah, I am fun of that mod! [;)]

[Tom Hunter]

Nemrod and Feinder are on the right track, if your going to play with one victory point value you must play with all of them.

Changing the value of planes without considering the value of ships and LCUs is not going to fix this game, it is just going to change the problem from one thing to another.

Too often people propose solutions to a percived problem as if this whole game was about only that problem. So if there is a percived problem with 4 engine bombers they propose a solution that is appropraite for a game titled: "4 Engine Bombers in the Pacific" but inappropriate for WitP. We get the same kind of proposals for "Submarines and ASW in the Pacific" and for "Land Units in the Pacific" it is not going to work.

I do think the VP schedule could use a good look, as ADavidB points out it may be impossible for Allied players to achieve victory in an evenly matched game. It may aslo be impossible for Japanese players to do the same thing.

Also I think discussion of the 4 engine "problem" needs more serious analysis of cause and effect. 4 engine planes operate in many dimensions, moral, bomb load, range, replacement rate, air to air combat value, supply consumption, and more. When some one says "4 engine planes are too powerful, they need to be nerfed." We learn very little, other than one persons opinion.

One might argue that 4 engine planes are very effective at low atlitude, and don't suffer heavy enough losses to flak or moral when flying low. That offers the potential for a solution, would the game play better if the moral effects and low altitude flak effects were made more severe?

The problems with any given system in the game need to be closely defined before we attempt any solution. The solution needs to be considerd in the context of the game as whole. Otherwise we will be trading one problem for a different problem that we will discover after the first problem is fixed.

[DFalcon]

What he said! <points at Tom>

[mc3744]

Nedless to say I agree with Tom and I also agree with most of what has been said.

I'd like to add one additional problem to the list.

Base values

Why is Noumea worth 1.500 point when fully developed, and Luganville only approx 30?
Becuase we know that for the Allies it was a main HUB. Ok, but what if I choose another base as main HUB? Why can't it be as valuable?

The value of a base (aside for capital cities like Manila) should be determined by the size of the port/airfiled/fortification and by her distance from the enemy's heart.

Timor can be critical to both players, yet its whole value is one tenth of Noumea, about which I don't you give a damn. To me, as Allies, it's only important for the points. I can easily live without it.

There shoud also be a cumulative value for areas. Like, New Caledonia, Fiji, Burma. Timor, ....
Example: owning the entire New Caledonia should be more importnat than owning only Efate or Luganville. If you have it all you become much harder to be kicked out, if you have a part of it, the danger is higher and the value is lower.

Just my two cents

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

This fine idea is not a new one, but the powers that be just do not think there is a problem.

Old idea which is so obvious it hurts.[8|]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Nedless to say I agree with Tom and I also agree with most of what has been said.

I'd like to add one additional problem to the list.

Base values

Why is Noumea worth 1.500 point when fully developed, and Luganville only approx 30?
Becuase we know that for the Allies it was a main HUB. Ok, but what if I choose another base as main HUB? Why can't it be as valuable?

The value of a base (aside for capital cities like Manila) should be determined by the size of the port/airfiled/fortification and by her distance from the enemy's heart.

Timor can be critical to both players, yet its whole value is one tenth of Noumea, about which I don't you give a damn. To me, as Allies, it's only important for the points. I can easily live without it.

There shoud also be a cumulative value for areas. Like, New Caledonia, Fiji, Burma. Timor, ....
Example: owning the entire New Caledonia should be more importnat than owning only Efate or Luganville. If you have it all you become much harder to be kicked out, if you have a part of it, the danger is higher and the value is lower.

Just my two cents

Hum,

For me MCs ideas above kind of ask a new question. "What is a victory point" ??

Is it some measure of the strategic military value of the spot or the item in question - in which case perhaps merely the possesion or loss of the spot or item in question is sufficient to represent the having or not having of the value of the item.

Or is a VP a measure of the POLITICAL impact of capturing or losing the spot in question. A way of tallying up the political will of the two sides to continue the struggle or settle for a negotiated peace. Well only the original desginer(s) know what they intended. But if we are to propose making changes - we should provide a definition as the basis of those changes.

And the only way I could rationalize Noumea being more of more value than Timor is if I assume the value represents political will. The Australians might be assumed to be more worried about losing Noumea than Timor, since loss of Noumea represents significant risk of total cutoff from America. Just as Chungking represents political loss of face for China, etc.

So if I have to guess, I will guess VP more represents political will than military value. But in this case loss of military units should perhaps be rated mostly by the cost in manpower lost, at least for the Allies. If Roosevelt had to explain the loss of 5 BBs and the 7000+ crewmen to the American Public we might have had a different pres. in 1944 ... same argument for having aircraft cost more. Losing 400 B17s ( out of the 278 that were sent historically ) with their crews, should cause a serious re-examination of the air war in the Pacific ( read that Hap is replaced !!! ).

So, I certainly can't devine what the original designers intended. When I look at the military equipment I'd guess maybe they meant military value for VP, but when I look at the bases, it seems to make more sense if I explain it as political value.

Any one else think this line of query makes any sense ?

[Ron Saueracker]

Placing higher VP for certain bases also tends to gravitate players towards them, mimicking activity in the locale of what the designers feel is the more conventional theatres of conflict.

Agreed, some sort of basis for VP might be in order but I'll bet the overall response will polarize. Some will say VPs are a good way and others will denounce VP as some useless throwback.

When VPs are used I am always frustrated by the arbitrary values placed on various things. Like, are nine 1E fighters and nine men really worth say 1 DD and 200 men?[&:]

[denisonh]

Tom is dead on.

Changes to the game mechanics or victory points in isloation based on "limited" feedback on a specific aspect of the game can be far more damaging than productive.

A "holistic" approach that addresses impacts of individual aspects to overall game play, with the approriate testing on the second and thrird order effects seems best.

There is room for improvement. But that will always be the case, no matter the numkber of changes. By focusing on overall effects in a more thoughtful manner will benefit the community as a whole.

[spence]

Just sorta musing here.
I like the idea of a B-17 and crew being worth more a single engine float plane as far as victory points are concerned.
I guess the way to balance the effect would be to make the other things in the game worth more as well: multiply the values of all ships by 4 for example, apply some multiple to base values and army pts too.

Assuming that the VP counter in the program allows for 5 digits it would seem possible. Maybe have the game end when one player gets 99999 VP with victory level determined by the ratio between player totals

[AmiralLaurent]

The base points were OK in UV (which was a part of the war and where VP showed the military situation) but in WITP my own view of the VP are that they show the political situation. ie losing an empty atoll is bothering no boady and worth almsot nothing but an Australian city or PH or Chungking or Manila is serious and worth a lot of point.

But in this optic I can't understand why the size of the base should change its political value. The value of a base should depend of its industry, ressources, population and political importance, not of the size of the airfield.

As for the VP for ships and aircraft I would like to see VP given only for crew losses, except for the biggest ships that also have a "political" value (their loss will influence the morale of their side).

By the way, the point system currently available is not perfect but is equilibrated enough so that a good part of the PBEM are dealing with the 4:1 automatic condition but few are really achieving it on 1st January 1943 (the difficulty is not to have 4:1 in 1942 but to keep this ratio in the last months of 1942). And most of the games going on later will not see the Allied player score an automatic victory before 1945. So it is working IMOO. The biggest problem I saw in it is the huge value of Noumea, that has absolutely no reason. Better to put these points in New Zealand and Australia.