Aircraft point losses

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

Aircraft point losses

Post by Miller »

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???
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by 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.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by 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.

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
User avatar
Splinterhead
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Splinterhead »

nevermind
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by castor troy »

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.

herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by herwin »

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.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Miller »

Good to hear you are still considering a change to the points system.
User avatar
scout1
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: South Bend, In

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by 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 ... [;)]
User avatar
Chad Harrison
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: Boise, ID - USA

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Chad Harrison »

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
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by 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.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Yamato hugger »

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(]
jcjordan
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by jcjordan »

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
Flying Tiger
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:45 pm
Location: ummmm... i HATE that question!

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Flying Tiger »

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.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by 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.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by herwin »

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.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
ColFrost
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:49 am
Location: South St Paul, MN

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by ColFrost »

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.
...the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out and meet it.

-Thucydides
User avatar
rhohltjr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by rhohltjr »

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?
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
User avatar
Yank
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 12:05 am
Location: Boston, MA

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by Yank »

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

User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by jwilkerson »

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

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Aircraft point losses

Post by witpqs »

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. [:)]
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”