Matrix Games Forums

Obviously to late to change now I presume that AE is well advanced.

However, it would have been nice if instead of every a/c = 1 pt regardless of size we could of had instead:

4E = 1 pt
2E = .5 pt
1E = .25 pt

When you consider that a large DD is worth 15 pts.....does the loss of 15 Nates = a Yugumo class DD???

Probably too late, but I feel the same way. If an airfield is bombed and 30 Nates die on the ground, that's the same as sinking a cruiser. Maybe the problem isn't how many points are awarded for planes, but how many are awarded for warships. DD's and Cruisers aren't worth much.

This type of change has defninitely been discussed - and might still make it - as it is pretty simple to do - but - more important is for us to get a sense of the overall VP balance as a result of our changes - which we have started to do - but have not finished. A variation of this suggestion is to have aircraft cost something like

(Engines+crew)/10

in terms of VP.

We have reworked ship VP a bit ... but base VP still needs a balancing that requires extensive work.

nevermind

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

This type of change has defninitely been discussed - and might still make it - as it is pretty simple to do - but - more important is for us to get a sense of the overall VP balance as a result of our changes - which we have started to do - but have not finished. A variation of this suggestion is to have aircraft cost something like

(Engines+crew)/10

in terms of VP.

We have reworked ship VP a bit ... but base VP still needs a balancing that requires extensive work.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Probably too late, but I feel the same way. If an airfield is bombed and 30 Nates die on the ground, that's the same as sinking a cruiser. Maybe the problem isn't how many points are awarded for planes, but how many are awarded for warships. DD's and Cruisers aren't worth much.

Ships are underrated--their crews are at least as well-trained as the same number of infantry. So scale them up.

Related point--when you scuttle a ship, you save the crew. Suddenly it makes sense.

Good to hear you are still considering a change to the points system.

Points are not an issue.....

We don't need no stink'in points .... Either we's wins, or else we loses ...... no points needed ... [;)]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Points are not an issue.....

We don't need no stink'in points .... Either we's wins, or else we loses ...... no points needed ... [;)]

Points are a nice refence though on how things are going.

Some people play to the bitter end, disregarding points and auto victories. Other people play solely by the auto victory system; ie. once you 'win', the game is over.

Its a matter of choice, and its nice to be able to choose how you play against the AI or via PBEM.

Great to hear that actual point values are being looked at though. Never agreed with their weight in stock WitP. How 10 C47's are worth as much as a fully crewed Fletcher DD is beyond me.

Chad

This is a bad idea for the following reasons.

1. Op losses - do you really want to give your opponent points for operational losses?

2. Right offs - my understanding of AE is, aircraft that fail repair checks will be scraped (right offs), planes scraped for spare parts. Do you want to give your opponent points for spare parts?

3. Winning a war has always been about taking and holding objectives at the end and not how much equipment lost! Capital ships are a different story, there were only a few hundered of capital ships in WWII and not thosands like aircraft.

ORIGINAL: pad152

This is a bad idea for the following reasons.

1. Op losses - do you really want to give your opponent points for operational losses?

2. Right offs - my understanding of AE is, aircraft that fail repair checks will be scraped (right offs), planes scraped for spare parts. Do you want to give your opponent points for spare parts?

3. Winning a war has always been about taking and holding objectives at the end and not how much equipment lost! Capital ships are a different story, there were only a few hundered of capital ships in WWII and not thosands like aircraft.

WitP and AE are not "wars" - they are games. [X(]

I'd hope that the vp for ships is changed as it's a shame that if you happen to lose a large AP liner like say the Aquitania or if it was in the game Queen Mary, that it'd only be like losing a dozen or so a/c [&:]. To lose ships like those would be major scores

ORIGINAL: pad152

This is a bad idea for the following reasons.

1. Op losses - do you really want to give your opponent points for operational losses?

2. Right offs - my understanding of AE is, aircraft that fail repair checks will be scraped (right offs), planes scraped for spare parts. Do you want to give your opponent points for spare parts?

3. Winning a war has always been about taking and holding objectives at the end and not how much equipment lost! Capital ships are a different story, there were only a few hundered of capital ships in WWII and not thosands like aircraft.

responses:
1. Op losses - they currently get points for op losses! This is not a change - in fact by reducing the points for aircraft they are getting (usually) LESS points for op losses...

2. Right offs - they get the points anyway, at least this way we get the spare parts!

3. No argument with this one. I think we all agree that planes are more 'disposable' than ships - thus the reason for reviewing the system in the first place.

I'm pretty sure any airforce would accept losing 10 planes if they sank a couple of destroyers or a transport loaded with supplies.  Not sure if losing 30 planes for a cruiser would be considered worth it, especially if their trained crews were lost as well though.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I'm pretty sure any airforce would accept losing 10 planes if they sank a couple of destroyers or a transport loaded with supplies.  Not sure if losing 30 planes for a cruiser would be considered worth it, especially if their trained crews were lost as well though.

The loss consists of a crew and a vehicle. The problem is that crews and vehicles are not fungible. At one point I tried to do an econometric model of WWII and got bogged down in the details. I did learn a few things.

Tanks lasted 4 months, required 50 tons of steel, cost about $50,000, and had five crew. POL was the major expense--6 pounds/mile.
Field guns lasted 36 months, required 6 tons of steel, cost about $25,000, and had about ten crew. Ammo was the major expense--50 pounds of steel and 5 pounds of energy per round. (The energy in one 105mm round required a ton of coal or a kilowatt year.)
Trucks lasted 12 months, required 1 pound POL/mile, 5 tons of steel, cost $5000, and had one crew.
A DD required about 4000 tons of steel, a crew of 100-200, and about 7000 tons/year of fuel.
A cruiser required about 20000 tons of steel and a crew of perhaps 1000.
An aircraft carrier required about 50000 tons of steel and a crew of perhaps 2000.
A BB required 70000-130000 tons of steel and a crew of about 2000.
A single-engined aircraft required perhaps 10 tons of metal and one or two crew. One ton of fuel a day plus ammo and bombs.
Two-engined aircraft required perhaps 20 tons of metal and six crew.
Four-engined aircraft required about 35 tons of metal and ten crew.

So shooting down ten attacking aircraft destroyed an investment of 20 well-trained crew and 100 tons of metal to protect an investment of 1000 men and 20000 tons of steel.
Sinking a 10,000 ton transport carrying a battalion of Marines destroyed an investment of about 1000 men and 20000 tons of steel.

Of course, that doesn't take in the psychological importance loss of ships on the homefront. If you lose ten aircraft in a raid, it usually doesn't even make the news. But you lose a capital ship, and the headlines splash it across everyone's consciousness ("Lady Lex goes down in Coral Sea"). While the economics is important when determining worth in regards to points, all the resources in the world doesn't get you anything if you do not have the public will to use them. I hope this is taken into account with points.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
We have reworked ship VP a bit ... but base VP still needs a balancing that requires extensive work.

And this balancing would be in a later patch to AE correct?

I hope changing the point assignments to help balance an artifical "win-loss" determination isn't part of what's holding up the release...

Nope AI testing for Allied AI - especially late war - is the critical path at this point - and we think to the finish line.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Nope AI testing for Allied AI - especially late war - is the critical path at this point - and we think to the finish line.

Hmmm. Sounds like an item that would be somewhat close to that finish line, too. [:)]