VP - cost vs playability - ideas needed

[Tazak]

I'm putting together an early 1981/82 battle from the soviets perspective but struggling with VPs, as the soviets are working on a 55% VP cost per unit while NATO are 140% or 150% VP costs per unit.

Issue is that using standard VP cost/locations I cannot give the AI enough NATO forces to really threaten a Soviet player without skewing the winning VP calculations unless I do one of the following:

1. adjust VP costs of both NATO & WP to 'normalise' their respective costs
Does this messes around with how the AI handles threat assessments

2. balance the VP difference with a large VP location that is cut off from the AI & player
I know this does mess with the AI as it will try sending a suitable portion of its forces to 'hold' the VP location

I'm erring on the adjusting the VP costs myself but wondering if I've missing something, are there any other options that I could use?

[CapnDarwin]

Just left alone, what is the VP ratio?

[Tazak]

Starting VPs are 12582 (NATO) vs 9714 (WP) with total of 5150 VP locations (4000 of which are 2 locations that the player should struggle to capture), but by the time you take into account the NATO losses I cannot get less than a decisive victory

I've attached the scenario if you want to view it (anyone is welcome to give it a play through although I have some work left to do to make it pretty)

[CapnDarwin]

I'll look into it over the weekend.

[Mad Russian]

Make as many of the objectives unowned as possible at the start of the game. Even if they are in your setup zones and you will move onto them on turn 1.

Any objectives that are assigned to a side at the start of a scenario count towards that sides points during the entire game. Those that are neutral at start do not.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

Thanks MR, that's done the trick to give me a way forward