Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

VPs for destroyed aircraft

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> VPs for destroyed aircraft Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 8:07:52 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Are victory points for destroyed aircraft going to be reduced or the vps from other sources going to be increased?

I ask because I am getting into 1944 in my stock PBEM game, and right now we are probably running at a pace of 60-80 aircraft destroyed each tunr. Thats about 70 vps a day, and at 365 days in a year that comes out to about 23000 vps a year. To put that in perspective so far I have sunk about 560 allied ships worth about 9200 vps.

So at this pace the number of VPs from sunk ships is going to be dwarfed by the number of VPs coming from destroyed aircraft. The same for VPs for destroyed army units and bases that are controlled by either side or strategic bombing VPs.

So in the expansion can we get VPs just for 2 engined or larger aircraft? Or 1 point for every 3 destroyed aircraft or so?

Post #: 1
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 8:26:21 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		My understanding is that fewer aircraft will be flying in AE, so the daily losses should be substantially lower. If that's the case, then there's probably no need to adjust the VPS for aircraft losses...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 2
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 1:23:58 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		I agree that losing 8 Oscar and losing some 8-points AP leads to the same result always feels strange somewhat...

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 3
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 1:49:19 PM   
Uamaga

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/17/2008
From: Kraków, Poland
Status: offline 		Is it 60/day per side? If so then loss of 60 ac a day (about 1800/month) does not seem to be sustainable for very long for japanese player (unless his economy is *heavily* reduced in other aspects)?

I have somewhat realted question/wish regarding AE (hopefully related enough to not be thread hijacker)...
I was never able to understand why in terms of VPs single-engine, one-man figher is worth the same VP amount as heavy, multi-engine bomber with large crew team on board. After all it wouldn't be acceptable to grant same number of VPs for sinking Yamato or Indiana as for average destroyer... So what about assigning VPs based on number of engines, for example 1vp for 1E aircraft, 1.5vp for 2E plane and 2.5vps for 4E monsters. That could be of course scaled down if needed to balance with vps coming from other sources according to wish above.
I guess such change would technically be easy to implement (somewhat similar thing is done currently with army vps accounted differently for various nations) though it may be still a problem due to its "ideological" colour...?


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 4
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 2:41:19 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		I would go with .25 for single engine a/c, .5 for twin and 1 for a 4E bomber.

When you consider a DD is woth 10 VPs.....it costs alot more to build one than it does 10 Zeros!

(in reply to Uamaga)
Post #: 5
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 3:49:57 PM   
Uamaga

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/17/2008
From: Kraków, Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
I would go with .25 for single engine a/c, .5 for twin and 1 for a 4E bomber.

When you consider a DD is woth 10 VPs.....it costs alot more to build one than it does 10 Zeros!


Yep. I would be happy with it. Well, even something like 0.5:0.75:1.0 would make me quite happy

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 6
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 8:09:55 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Victory should be kept to taking and keeping land locations, other wize you may get some very strange victory conditions (what's next, you lost more tanks then me so I win ). 

(in reply to Uamaga)
Post #: 7
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 8:29:59 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I've felt for awhile the game was too weighted toward victory points for A/C. I agree that it's insane that a DD should be the same as 10 Zeros.

My understanding is that OPS losses will be higher in AE, and the primary way Airplanes will be lost. That is probably historical, but wouldn't you hate to see the single largest VP category to by OPS losses? Greater than ships or troops?

_____________________________


(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 8
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 8:33:23 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		Well. Just add one extra zero to troops and ship VP, then everything will look a little more logical already 

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 9
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 9:42:55 PM   
joey


Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I've felt for awhile the game was too weighted toward victory points for A/C. I agree that it's insane that a DD should be the same as 10 Zeros.

My understanding is that OPS losses will be higher in AE, and the primary way Airplanes will be lost. That is probably historical, but wouldn't you hate to see the single largest VP category to by OPS losses? Greater than ships or troops?


Wow OPS losses higher and the primary way to lose aircraft. Is that really historical? I really have to ask: could that actually be the highest VP category? That would really be different!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 10:01:49 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Consider the major impact that changing the VPs for aircraft has tho on auto-victory.  Players of Nik's mod, found that it was much easier to attain auto-victory for Japan, because the Allies couldn't "stay in the game" as well by scoring points vs. enemy AC.
That being said, it's obvious that you HAVE considered the impact of changing point percentages for AC (hense the point of this thread).  And I would certinly agree that taking down a 4e bomber should be worth more than 1e fighter, and that 10 fighters does NOT equal one destroyer.
If VPs are to be looked at, the ratio for ground squad/equpiment losses needs to be re-considered.  Just as AC are the point sponge for the Allies, so is ground losses the single largest point sponge for Japan.  And the ratios are significantly more lopsided on the order of 10:1 in favor of Japan, simply because the vp award be destroyed device favors them so highly.
I'm just agreeing that vps for AC losses needs to be re-worked, and suggesting that ground losses should be reconsidered as well (esp when considering the effect of re-working the vp for AC losses).
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to joey)
Post #: 11
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 11:45:06 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Indeed, there has to be a way to balance it so you don't hand Japan an easy auto-victory. But A/C are worth too much, most bases not quite enough.

_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 12
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/2/2008 11:50:17 PM   
joey


Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline 		I wonder if the financial cost of each item by each individual nation would be a better method to assess victory points. What a more accurate method: the actual cost paid by each nation for each asset. I am sure that information is available. Maybe then 3 bombers or 15 fighters are equal to a destroyer. It seems like a simple, yet accurate way to assess victory conditions.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 13
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/3/2008 2:55:02 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joey

I wonder if the financial cost of each item by each individual nation would be a better method to assess victory points. What a more accurate method: the actual cost paid by each nation for each asset. I am sure that information is available. Maybe then 3 bombers or 15 fighters are equal to a destroyer. It seems like a simple, yet accurate way to assess victory conditions.


While I see your point, it would bother me even in an electronic recreation to reduce these losses to just cost and materials. Ignoring humanitarian reasons, trained sailors, air crews, and etc. represent a significant investment all by themselves (and their loss weighs more heavily on their home nation than the loss of "stuff").

Of course, it's also true that other than pilots and captains the game does not know if air crew or sailors perish when their planes or ships go down, so that factor would have to be abstracted. But I would not like to see the human factor completely eliminated from consideration.

Or maybe I just spend way too much time thinking about non-existent people in what is after all just a computer simulation...

_____________________________


(in reply to joey)
Post #: 14
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/3/2008 3:49:29 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Along that line tho...

What "cost" is there in WitP terms, for a 1e fighter for Japan...  A 2e bomber...

Like it costs 6 Heavy Industry (made from 6 oil and 6 resources) or whatver...

Add up all the "pieces", to see what piles we get.

What is the aggregate cost of a 1e fighter in Manpower, Oil, Resources, Heavy Industry, Engine, Aiframe, and whatever other components.
What is the aggregate cost of a 2e bomber in Manpower, Oil, Resources, Heavy Industry, Engine, Aiframe, and whatever other components.
What is the aggregate cost of a ship in Manpower, Oil, Resources, Heavy Industry, shipbuilding points and whatever other components.

Just as a basis, to see what numbers -might- come up...  Is is actually cheaper to produce a 2e bomber than a Destroyer (boy would that be amusing)...?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 15
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/3/2008 4:23:08 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, I agree that its more than a bit much that a destroyer is worth the same number of VPs as 10 aircraft.

Economically, if you are Japan a 10 durability destroyer costs 1000 (10 points per day for 100 days) shipbuilding points.  Each shipbuilding point costs 3 industry to produce, so thats 3000 industry points.  An aircraft costs 18 points per engine to build plus each engine costs another 18 points.

So a destroyer costs 3000 industry to build and a 2 engine bomber costs 72 points to build.  10 two engine bombers costs 720 points to build.

Regarding my current game, I have used the Japanese production system to increase my current production capacity to about 2000 planes and about 2200 engines per month.  I'm headed higher than that :)


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 16
RE: VPs for destroyed aircraft - 6/3/2008 12:59:23 PM   
seydlitz_slith


Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline 		So, I guess in this case (The attack on the DD Laffey off Okinawa where she was hit by six kamikazes, shot down nine more, and lived to make it back) the allies would gain 15 vps (6+9). Better than a moral victory.

http://www.laffey.org/laffey_attacked_off_okinawa_wwii.htm

http://www.laffey.org/index.htm

My suggestion for a quick and dirty fix is to make each plane .1 vp instead of 1 vp.

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> VPs for destroyed aircraft Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.500