Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

2 VPs per 4E?

 
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 >> 2 VPs per 4E? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 1:15:09 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
Is this true? I just read something to this effect on another thread.

If it is true, when did it start?

Someone's probably going to say "with Uncommon Valor" and I'll go crawl back under my rock.
Post #: 1
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 1:22:40 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Yes.

Can't recall the situation re classical WITP but page 263 of the AE manual lists the VP harvest.

Alfred

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 2
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:01:16 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Apologies for this partial hijack...

quote:

17.0 VICTORY CONDITIONS

Throughout the game, both sides are scoring victory
points (VPs). VPs are gained and lost as units are
destroyed. At the end of the game, these points are
totaled along with the points for bases controlled by
either side, and these points are then compared to
determine which side has won. Points are awarded
in the following ways:

Aircraft Destroyed (Japanese or Allied):
» 1 VP per plane destroyed
» 2 VP per Heavy Bomber destroyed

Ground Units Destroyed:
» Allied ground unit items (squads, vehicles, or guns):
» Philippine and Chinese: 1 VP for every 12 items destroyed
» Soviet: 1 VP for every 6 items destroyed
» All Other Allied: 1 VP for every 3 items destroyed
» Japanese ground unit items (squads, vehicles, or
guns): 1 VP for every 6 items destroyed

Ships Sunk - The VPs for sinking a ship is based on the durability and capacity of the ship:
» For CV and CVL ships, add 3 times the A/C capacity to the durability.
» For CVE ships, add 2 times the A/C capacity to the durability.
» For CS ships, add the A/C capacity to the durability.

For all ships, additional value is calculated based on the troop, cargo, and liquid carrying
capacity of the ship. A big transport or tanker are very valuable.

If a ship is scuttled, it will score 10% less than its standard VP’s.

Ships that are destroyed while under construction will score one half of the standard VPs.

Ships that are lost to marine casualties and other non-combat action (grounding, collision, etc)
score 75% of the standard VP

The minimum Victory Point value of any ship is 1.

Ship Damaged - In certain scenarios VP’s are awarded for ships that have system damage
at the end of the game but are not sunk. The points awarded are equal to the normal VPs for
sinking x 1/2 x system damage / 100). In scenarios allowing points for ship damage, ships may
not be sent home to Japan, Pearl Harbor, or any other off map location. In these scenarios the
Intel screen will list the total number of ships on each side that are damaged and the victory
points earned for these ships. A display showing data on ships sunk will appear at the end of a
scenario, and points scored from damaged ships is located in the player’s Intel screen.

Control of Base - Each base has a basic VP level for Allied ownership and one for Japanese
ownership. The final victory point value that is awarded to the controlling player at the end of
the game is figured by the following formula:

» Basic VP# x [ ( current size of port ) + ( current size of airfield x 2) ]
The basic VP and final VP numbers for each side are displayed for each base when the mouse
cursor is placed over a base (the basic VP number value is in parenthesis).

This full amount of the final VP value is only scored at the end of the game if the base has
supplies at least equal to its needed supplies. If supplies are lower than the required amount,
the VP’s scored will be less than this maximum, (the lower the supplies the lower the scored
VP’s). Bases with 0 supplies would score 25% of the full final points.

Example: Rabaul has a Basic Japanese VP level of 3. Assuming the size of the airfield is 8, and
the size of the port is 7, the Final VP level for Japanese ownership of Rabaul is 3 x [ (7) + (8 x
2) ] or 69. As long as Rabaul had more than its supplies needed, the Japanese player would
score 69. If Rabaul’s supplies were only equal to 30% of its needs, the Japanese player would
score only 33 VP’s.

Industry damage – Two VPs per point damaged, 20 VPs per point destroyed (an item destroyed
when damaged will yield 18 more VPs). Industry can only be destroyed by firestorms and
A-bombs, but can be damaged by any type of attack (including firestorms and A-bombs). VPs
scored by damaging industry is cumulative; if an industry hex is bombed, damaged, repaired,
then bombed again, the player keeps earning VPs as long as the industry hex keeps generating
value by repairing itself.

This is true for all industry types including manpower.

Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan, and by the
Japanese for bombing industry in North America, Australia, and/or Hawaii.


Been a looong time since I read that section. This bit surprised me:
quote:

For all ships, additional value is calculated based on the troop, cargo, and liquid carrying
capacity of the ship. A big transport or tanker are very valuable.

The above doesn't specify the formula for that. Anyone know if it has come out or been explained?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/21/2014 3:01:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:04:28 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25326
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Even though the Japanese considered the Betty a "heavy bomber", it didn't compare to Allied heavy bombers. Still, for the sake of VPs, are we correct in assuming that "heavy bomber" = Allied 4EB? What about Mavis or Emily flying boats with four engines? I dunno.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:21:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Even though the Japanese considered the Betty a "heavy bomber", it didn't compare to Allied heavy bombers. Still, for the sake of VPs, are we correct in assuming that "heavy bomber" = Allied 4EB? What about Mavis or Emily flying boats with four engines? I dunno.

Looking at the air group display in-game, there are filters across the top. I assume that anything displayed when the "HB" filter is the only one selected. IIRC the USN 4E flying boats do not appear with that filter.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:32:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Even though the Japanese considered the Betty a "heavy bomber", it didn't compare to Allied heavy bombers. Still, for the sake of VPs, are we correct in assuming that "heavy bomber" = Allied 4EB? What about Mavis or Emily flying boats with four engines? I dunno.

Looking at the air group display in-game, there are filters across the top. I assume that anything displayed when the "HB" filter is the only one selected. IIRC the USN 4E flying boats do not appear with that filter.


Just a guess, but I always assumed the VP distinction was crew count. Not engines or man-hours or materials in construction.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:45:50 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Even though the Japanese considered the Betty a "heavy bomber", it didn't compare to Allied heavy bombers. Still, for the sake of VPs, are we correct in assuming that "heavy bomber" = Allied 4EB? What about Mavis or Emily flying boats with four engines? I dunno.

Looking at the air group display in-game, there are filters across the top. I assume that anything displayed when the "HB" filter is the only one selected. IIRC the USN 4E flying boats do not appear with that filter.


Just a guess, but I always assumed the VP distinction was crew count. Not engines or man-hours or materials in construction.

AFAIK there is no accounting for crew count in the game. But there is a data item for what type a plane is, (there has to be) because that's what they need to use for 1) the display I mentioned and 2) the various functions that need to know the profile of the plane, like missions (what missions can be flown using what profile at what altitude, etc.).

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 7
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:52:00 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Even though the Japanese considered the Betty a "heavy bomber", it didn't compare to Allied heavy bombers. Still, for the sake of VPs, are we correct in assuming that "heavy bomber" = Allied 4EB? What about Mavis or Emily flying boats with four engines? I dunno.

Looking at the air group display in-game, there are filters across the top. I assume that anything displayed when the "HB" filter is the only one selected. IIRC the USN 4E flying boats do not appear with that filter.


Just a guess, but I always assumed the VP distinction was crew count. Not engines or man-hours or materials in construction.

AFAIK there is no accounting for crew count in the game. But there is a data item for what type a plane is, (there has to be) because that's what they need to use for 1) the display I mentioned and 2) the various functions that need to know the profile of the plane, like missions (what missions can be flown using what profile at what altitude, etc.).


There's no accounting for crew in the game, but there could be in GG's mind when the EXE was coded to give 4E bombers alone more VPs. And then translated into the HB DB code. That's what I meant. It was a human decision to not make 4E the break-point and then apply the VP hit to patrol planes. HB was made the break point.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 8
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:54:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Maybe that was his reasoning. If so, he missed the crews on large flying-boat patrol planes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 2:58:12 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3192
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Yes but those were no were near as costly as B17s and the like or as time consuming to make. Which is why the 4e Japanese planes are not HBs as well.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 10
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 3:26:01 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
cost - money and time - well anyone have idea how much money/time b-17, catalina, mavis, emily..etc costed ?

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 11
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 4:30:38 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe that was his reasoning. If so, he missed the crews on large flying-boat patrol planes.


I didn't think the crews were that large; maybe 4-5. I Wikied the Mavis (one model) and the Coronodo and was surprised to learn that Mavis type was a crew of 9 and the Coronado was 7-10.

Not consistently the B-17s ten, but a very large crew.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 12
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 4:59:59 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well, with a full campaign under my belt, I would say that it is a bit too easy for the Allies to amass VP. It would be a good idea to change it to VP per engine. Probably easily done. Of course, that then makes a B17 about as expensive as a old DD so perhaps not...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/21/2014 11:21:19 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Apologies for this partial hijack...

quote:

17.0 VICTORY CONDITIONS

Throughout the game, both sides are scoring victory
points (VPs). VPs are gained and lost as units are
destroyed. At the end of the game, these points are
totaled along with the points for bases controlled by
either side, and these points are then compared to
determine which side has won. Points are awarded
in the following ways:

Aircraft Destroyed (Japanese or Allied):
» 1 VP per plane destroyed
» 2 VP per Heavy Bomber destroyed

Ground Units Destroyed:
» Allied ground unit items (squads, vehicles, or guns):
» Philippine and Chinese: 1 VP for every 12 items destroyed
» Soviet: 1 VP for every 6 items destroyed
» All Other Allied: 1 VP for every 3 items destroyed
» Japanese ground unit items (squads, vehicles, or
guns): 1 VP for every 6 items destroyed

Ships Sunk - The VPs for sinking a ship is based on the durability and capacity of the ship:
» For CV and CVL ships, add 3 times the A/C capacity to the durability.
» For CVE ships, add 2 times the A/C capacity to the durability.
» For CS ships, add the A/C capacity to the durability.

For all ships, additional value is calculated based on the troop, cargo, and liquid carrying
capacity of the ship. A big transport or tanker are very valuable.

If a ship is scuttled, it will score 10% less than its standard VP’s.

Ships that are destroyed while under construction will score one half of the standard VPs.

Ships that are lost to marine casualties and other non-combat action (grounding, collision, etc)
score 75% of the standard VP

The minimum Victory Point value of any ship is 1.

Ship Damaged - In certain scenarios VP’s are awarded for ships that have system damage
at the end of the game but are not sunk. The points awarded are equal to the normal VPs for
sinking x 1/2 x system damage / 100). In scenarios allowing points for ship damage, ships may
not be sent home to Japan, Pearl Harbor, or any other off map location. In these scenarios the
Intel screen will list the total number of ships on each side that are damaged and the victory
points earned for these ships. A display showing data on ships sunk will appear at the end of a
scenario, and points scored from damaged ships is located in the player’s Intel screen.

Control of Base - Each base has a basic VP level for Allied ownership and one for Japanese
ownership. The final victory point value that is awarded to the controlling player at the end of
the game is figured by the following formula:

» Basic VP# x [ ( current size of port ) + ( current size of airfield x 2) ]
The basic VP and final VP numbers for each side are displayed for each base when the mouse
cursor is placed over a base (the basic VP number value is in parenthesis).

This full amount of the final VP value is only scored at the end of the game if the base has
supplies at least equal to its needed supplies. If supplies are lower than the required amount,
the VP’s scored will be less than this maximum, (the lower the supplies the lower the scored
VP’s). Bases with 0 supplies would score 25% of the full final points.

Example: Rabaul has a Basic Japanese VP level of 3. Assuming the size of the airfield is 8, and
the size of the port is 7, the Final VP level for Japanese ownership of Rabaul is 3 x [ (7) + (8 x
2) ] or 69. As long as Rabaul had more than its supplies needed, the Japanese player would
score 69. If Rabaul’s supplies were only equal to 30% of its needs, the Japanese player would
score only 33 VP’s.

Industry damage – Two VPs per point damaged, 20 VPs per point destroyed (an item destroyed
when damaged will yield 18 more VPs). Industry can only be destroyed by firestorms and
A-bombs, but can be damaged by any type of attack (including firestorms and A-bombs). VPs
scored by damaging industry is cumulative; if an industry hex is bombed, damaged, repaired,
then bombed again, the player keeps earning VPs as long as the industry hex keeps generating
value by repairing itself.

This is true for all industry types including manpower.

Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan, and by the
Japanese for bombing industry in North America, Australia, and/or Hawaii.


Been a looong time since I read that section. This bit surprised me:
quote:

For all ships, additional value is calculated based on the troop, cargo, and liquid carrying
capacity of the ship. A big transport or tanker are very valuable.

The above doesn't specify the formula for that. Anyone know if it has come out or been explained?


Wow! I've been playing for just about a full decade, and was operating under the assumption "1 plane, 1 VP" the whole time?!

While I'm at it, maybe you guys can answer a few other questions.

Has Columbus set sail for the East Indies yet? Has Australopithecus spread to S. Africa yet?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 14
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 12:06:28 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
It's a little known fact that Australopithecus set the sails for Columbus. He was short of crew.

_____________________________


(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 15
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 2:15:32 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25326
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Australopithecus was the first to land on Argleton too! True fact, dat.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 16
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 7:08:59 AM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
Shouldn't Ben Affleck be involved, somehow?

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 17
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 10:00:03 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5372
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?

< Message edited by spence -- 1/22/2014 11:00:17 PM >

(in reply to alanschu)
Post #: 18
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 10:08:13 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25902
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?

Because opinions vary. Mine is that none of those 4EB house rules is needed or helpful to a good game. Others disagree.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 19
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 10:12:54 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?


The Japanese don't have any heavy bombers. Even their medium bombers couldn't hold a candle to the allied medium bombers. That's probably why they're not counted as 2 VPs.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 20
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 10:22:58 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5372
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

The Japanese don't have any heavy bombers. Even their medium bombers couldn't hold a candle to the allied medium bombers. That's probably why they're not counted as 2 VPs.


Actually I don't care a hoot about Japanese bombers of any stripe. I get annoyed with whiners who think they have some right to say how their opponents employ their resources. I'm about twice as annoyed now.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 21
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/22/2014 11:34:20 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
4E carry twice the japanese bomber can, even more for B29. 4E are even able to defend themselfs too, what japanese bomber can't.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 22
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/23/2014 12:28:54 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3192
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?

Because opinions vary. Mine is that none of those 4EB house rules is needed or helpful to a good game. Others disagree.


Played two games as Japan and never used any HRs concerning bombers/fighter altitude, etc. for either side. If the game allowed it we 'allowed' it . Actually the only HR we started with was paying PP to cross borders. We did add one more in late '42, no night bombing, as both of us felt that it is not modeled correctly in the game engine. We just thought that was simpler than worring about percent of moonlight, max number of raids, etc. that some people use.

However, if some want to play with a lot of HRs, then good for them. Just not something I would want to do.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 23
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/23/2014 12:39:01 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5372
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Like I mentioned Japanese bomber capabilities and VPs don't matter to me at all.

I find the JFB whining about how mean the Allied Player is if he doesn't agree to their restrictions on how he employs his 4Es to be offensive.

"No 4E Naval Attack from less than 10000 or 15000 ft, only one squadron of 4E per base can be set to Naval Attack, etc, etc"

If the Allied Player wants to fly his B17s at the KB at 100 ft and has spent the time to train them up appropriately then he gets to choose if the losses he will surely take are worth it. I see no reason why the IJ Player should have anything to contribute to that decision. It never happened so you can't cite history to say that the results of such an attack are only possible because "the game did it".

< Message edited by spence -- 1/23/2014 1:40:53 AM >

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 24
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/23/2014 5:14:56 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9243
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Ask Bullwinkle what happened the last time he sent his B-17s against KB . Especially with the database updates from Andy and the DBB folk, shipboard flak will kill 4Es. Really demonstrates the silliness of such house rules.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 25
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/23/2014 7:07:17 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?



Spence, your 'evil JFB HR' rants start to sound like a broken paranoia record.

HRs are agreements between opponents. If an Allied player feels obliged to listen to 'JFBs specifying so many houserules' he is free to do so. If he does not want to, noone forces him.

The forum may act as support to form an opinion about specific houresules but not on all there is a consensus. The decision is still between the players themselves, and in case it turns out impossible to come to a common agreement this is usually an indication that the opponents don´t match. Period.


I suggest you get over it. Life is too short to ruin your health over a topic as boring as this one...


_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 26
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/23/2014 9:14:12 PM   
offenseman


Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied 4E bomber's now give the Japanese Player twice as many points as Japanese heavy bombers.
Fine.

So why does anyone feel an obligation to listen to the JFBs specifying so many "house rules" about their employment?



Spence, your 'evil JFB HR' rants start to sound like a broken paranoia record.

HRs are agreements between opponents. If an Allied player feels obliged to listen to 'JFBs specifying so many houserules' he is free to do so. If he does not want to, noone forces him.

The forum may act as support to form an opinion about specific houresules but not on all there is a consensus. The decision is still between the players themselves, and in case it turns out impossible to come to a common agreement this is usually an indication that the opponents don´t match. Period.


I suggest you get over it. Life is too short to ruin your health over a topic as boring as this one...



I agree 100% with that. Of course one of my long time opponents is LoBaron (along with RobBrennanUK) and I can safely say that our philosophies match very well. Starting a PBEM is a HUGE event and many fail because the players do not look at the game similarly enough. Doing your due diligence and homework prior to choosing an opponent is very important.

FYI- We do not even use VPs to determine who is winning/losing, or won/lost. We always seem to know the direction the wind is blowing without a numerical marker.

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 27
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/24/2014 5:43:50 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman
FYI- We do not even use VPs to determine who is winning/losing, or won/lost. We always seem to know the direction the wind is blowing without a numerical marker.


We don´t have a HR on that, do we?

Just kidding.

VPs are important in a way, because for me going beyond autovictory does not make sense. It marks the date of either the Allied capitulation (a clear defeat) or the Japanese capitulation (if it represents a victory or draw or defeat then depends on the date in relation to VJ day and might be quite subjective). In that sense I would say I play VP.

But Mike is correct, we do not need them. I don´t look at VPs, we don´t use VPs to determine who is currently winning or losing, I would not base tactical or strategic decisions on that, and I determine the wars´ progress solely by looking at the map and the units.

The interesting part though - and I wonder if Bullwinkle agrees with me here - is: It is not neccesary to 'play for VP'. Because the VP system is very well balanced, the effect is essentially the same. Playing VP or not playing VP is just a different mindset within the same environmet.


< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/24/2014 6:54:03 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to offenseman)
Post #: 28
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/24/2014 9:58:15 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

... Because the VP system is very well balanced, the effect is essentially the same. Playing VP or not playing VP is just a different mindset within the same environmet.


+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 29
RE: 2 VPs per 4E? - 1/24/2014 11:37:44 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman
FYI- We do not even use VPs to determine who is winning/losing, or won/lost. We always seem to know the direction the wind is blowing without a numerical marker.


We don´t have a HR on that, do we?

Just kidding.

VPs are important in a way, because for me going beyond autovictory does not make sense. It marks the date of either the Allied capitulation (a clear defeat) or the Japanese capitulation (if it represents a victory or draw or defeat then depends on the date in relation to VJ day and might be quite subjective). In that sense I would say I play VP.

But Mike is correct, we do not need them. I don´t look at VPs, we don´t use VPs to determine who is currently winning or losing, I would not base tactical or strategic decisions on that, and I determine the wars´ progress solely by looking at the map and the units.

The interesting part though - and I wonder if Bullwinkle agrees with me here - is: It is not neccesary to 'play for VP'. Because the VP system is very well balanced, the effect is essentially the same. Playing VP or not playing VP is just a different mindset within the same environmet.



Thanks for asking me. It's as if I were the leader of the Loyal Opposition.

Of course, I DO "play for VPs" as it is the metric in the core design. Underneath that I look at the map and OOB, and I think about decisions that put me in an advantageous position tomorrow, next month, and next year. But I find that the VPs impose an essential discipline on me that might otherwise be missing. Time becomes more valuable to save or spend when 1/1/43 is a real thing and not just another date. One more macro "resource" to be managed and ground into the decisions of today. When the AV tiger is chasing you in a real way--he gets a purchase in your hindparts and the game is over, realio trulio--I tend to wander about less and look at the pretty islands. I'm focused. I've been like that my whole life. I loved school. I would have liked it if there hadn't been grades. But I LOVED it when there was a chance I could beat Penny Burke and get the best one.

As you say, because the VP system is balanced by side, with the Allies getting bumped on 4E VPs for example, but let off the mat on the nationality ratios, and similarly Japan getting the boon of the excessive A-bomb rule and a few others, there is never a feeling that one side is pounding the other without recourse. Going for AV is a valid Japanese plan which changes the game in real ways, and the Allied player has no choice but to respond or die. Even figuring out if Japan IS going for it adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity. I will change my risk profile in the summer of 1942 if one way or the other. Against a very good Japan player there's no choice. If more players thought about VPs that way that there might be more Japan opponents.

I have two games going now and they couldn't be more different in how they've unfolded. Geographically, VP-wise, pace, interplay between the players, etc. But both are for VPs and AV. Both are engaging, tense, and complex. I have slightly different feelings right now about who is winning; on a VP basis there's no question though. (I'm losing both.) And VPs are driving strategy to a fairly high degree. They're letting me hang my goals on something concrete. For me, spending up to twenty hours a week on something has be more than a walk in the forest looking at the trees and bunnies. I need the yardstick. So, to respond to your last statement--for me it's not the same environment. It's a different, more complex, more challenging one.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/24/2014 3:15:02 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> 2 VPs per 4E? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.617