Point Values

[Huib Versloot]

Perhaps I should have added that right now it is hardly an option to change the old Talonsoft values because of backward compatibility of existing scenarios. It could be however for the new OOBs Jason is creating.
Right now we are stuck with some poor subjective choices and some lack of historical knowledge of the original makers.
My personal opinion is that I would prefer almost or completely equal values for unit types and let the designer do the math to get the victory conditions right and fair, taking quality/effectiveness differences into account.
On a scenario scale there is no reason why US infantry should be less vp than a Volksgrenadier. Just makes things more complicated to balance. Same with tanks, even if one type was better than the other.

[Mike Abberton]

Being an engineer by profession, a mathematical approach to point values appeals to me, but it could be debated what goes into the equation - firepower, number of men per squad/platoon, effective firing range, firing rate, rarity, armor values, production/training costs, etc. Some of these are fairly easy to quantify (men per squad), others are much more subjective.

Morale is even trickier, because while there is a default morale, the scenario designer can change it afterwards. So one US infantry squad could have a different value than another in the same scenario.

As far as scenarios go, I can see where it might help to have similar units have similar VP costs, but I would think that any scenario is going to need some tweaking to get the VP hexes assigned correctly.

[Jason Petho]

While having infantry and tanks being equal across the board would make scenario design easier, I don't think quality scenario design should be easy.

In principle, I do not think they should be equal. While that works for chess, the Campaign Series is significantly more complex than chess.

The value of a Russian Rifle platoon circa 1941 in terms of rarity, weapon ratings, firepower, trainging, abilties and expendability (among other values) is significantly lower than that of an American Rifle platoon circa 1944. Both of these platoons should not be worth 3VP each.

Same for tanks. A Panzer II and a Panzer VI are not created equal on any level and should not be given an equal value.

Quality scenario design takes into consideration the various victory point levels of the units in play when creating victory conditions. Were losses considered important in the battle? Was the capture of terrain more important?

If yes or no, there are methods of adjusting the victory conditions to represent either answer, or a variation of both.

Jason Petho

[RADO]

Jason,

I am in complete agreement with you and is why I initially posted my question. As I understand it now in the rules, a German infantry unit is the same "point cost" or VP value as a Soviet infantry unit, strength point to strength point. If so, in that respect, "it is broken", which is not a slam on the game (as it is a great game) but rather a term we use to descibe something that either does not work, or is in need of repair.

Not knowing or having all the statistical data in my possession (or at least not knowing how to get at it if I do) does not allow me to address the issue, and that is why I asked about it.

Now, the advantages of a good point system is it allows for unven scenarios to be drawn up (sort of like in real life) but the scenario is balanced. There is absolutely NO point system for historical battles that I know of that is 100% fair across the board; it just does not happen. A point system does however allow one to take the inherant values of each type of unit in the game and use it to produce a value. Some variables have already been named. Another value is effective range of weaponry, and I know there are others.

Such an analysis would be easy if I still had SAS and a unix platform, and of course, the data, but I don't, and it has been 10 years now since I used SAS. Even a program like Excel can be used to list the variables by troop types and value, and once summed up gives a point value in the game. Then it is time to put it down, play it, and see if the point values "are broken" or not.

For years, I absolutely hated point systems but found that in the market place, people want a game where they can "buy an army", put it down and know that their opponent's army is of equal "point size". I am of the opinion that a point system such as this, and the means for players to "build" an army of "x" points that they can put down on a randomly generated map against an opponent who has also "built" and army of "x" points would greatly increase the marlketability of the game. Players would not just be limited to pre-drawn scenarios, which after you have played several hundred games, means you are playing the same old scenarios again and again.

Just food for thought.

- Greg

:stir:

[Jason Petho]

Players would not just be limited to pre-drawn scenarios, which after you have played several hundred games, means you are playing the same old scenarios again and again.

While a simpler method would be nice, but one could take the time to calculate the VP for any given formation.

All the cost data is there for all of the platoons, you can find that information using the Unit Viewer or by opening the platoon files in a text editor - the VP value per SP is the first number after the second "PXXXXX" number.

Looking at a particular company oob file, you can calculate what it is worth.

For example: (From East Front Germans, two organizations, one Green, one Veteran)

39 12 40 10 C0102332 5 Type 6 Schützenkompanie c.(mot) 40 (Green)(K.St.N. 1115)[Krupp Protze]
39 12 40 10 P01859 I. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01859 II. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01859 III. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01213 Hv MG Zug .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01289 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP

Total = 18+18+18+12+9+9+9+12 = 105 VP

39 12 40 10 C0102333 7 Type 6 Schützenkompanie c.(mot) 40 (Veteran)(K.St.N. 1115)[Krupp Protze]
39 12 40 10 P01407 Haupt. .... is worth 6VPx2SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 I. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 II. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 III. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01213 Hv MG Zug .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01289 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP

Total = 12+24+24+24+12+9+9+9+12 = 135 VP for the company.

Of course, one can calculate what each organization is worth from Company -- Army.

It just takes time to do the calculations.

Jason Petho

[Huib Versloot]

While having infantry and tanks being equal across the board would make scenario design easier, I don't think quality scenario design should be easy.

There is also no reason to make it more complicated with things that add nothing to the game.

The value of a Russian Rifle platoon circa 1941 in terms of rarity, weapon ratings, firepower, trainging, abilties and expendability (among other values) is significantly lower than that of an American Rifle platoon circa 1944. Both of these platoons should not be worth 3VP each.

While true, it is entirely irrelevant in scenario designing. These units don't fight eachother.

Same for tanks. A Panzer II and a Panzer VI are not created equal on any level and should not be given an equal value.

Just as irrelevant. A tank is a tank. If one was more expendable on the battlefield than the other, no officer would admit it. Both have crews.

Quality scenario design takes into consideration the various victory point levels of the units in play when creating victory conditions. Were losses considered important in the battle? Was the capture of terrain more important?

Precisely, so there is no reason to force the designer to do all kinds of extra calculations after the first test, because American infantry is "cheaper" than German Volksgrenadiers. Losses still are important since I never said that units should have no value.

If yes or no, there are methods of adjusting the victory conditions to represent either answer, or a variation of both.

It is a variation, but the more different values the more difficult it becomes to do the calculations. I'd rather say for example: in my scenario the Germans need to kill 25% more than the Americans to win, given they reach and capture objective X, than: in my scenario the Germans need to kill 25% more than the Americans given they reach and capture objective X AND I have to substract 100 points from the victory conditions, because they will PROBABLY lose about 50 sp Volksgrenadiers which are 2vp worth more than the American infantry for some irrelevant reason.

Huib

[Jason Petho]

There is also no reason to make it more complicated with things that add nothing to the game.

I don't see it as being complicated.

The value of a Russian Rifle platoon circa 1941 in terms of rarity, weapon ratings, firepower, trainging, abilties and expendability (among other values) is significantly lower than that of an American Rifle platoon circa 1944. Both of these platoons should not be worth 3VP each.

While true, it is entirely irrelevant in scenario designing. These units don't fight eachother.

No, that is true, although they can for those that choose to do so.

Regardless, as above, a veteran German Rifle Platoon circa 44 may have years of combat experience under it's that a regular American Rifle Platoon circa 1944 may not have. Disregarding the difference in weapons, training, squad size, etc.

While both pawns, they are not created equal.

Just as irrelevant. A tank is a tank. If one was more expendable on the battlefield than the other, no officer would admit it. Both have crews.

Both have crews, yes. One has a crew of two, one has a crew of five.

Which has more value in training alone?

Precisely, so there is no reason to force the designer to do all kinds of extra calculations after the first test, because American infantry is "cheaper" than German Volksgrenadiers. Losses still are important since I never said that units should have no value.

I disagree. These are calculations a designer should be doing.

Jason Petho

[umbro]

It seems to me that this debate is complicated because unit VPs are being used for two distinct (and radically different) uses.

1) As a measure of relative combat effectiveness, and
2) as a measure of "value".

In the original game these were conflated, which, though inaccurate did not have as many side effects as JTCS as there were fewer units where the two uses produced radically different values.

The classic debate that brings up this difference is that over the VP assignment of non-combat transport vehicles. By 1) they should have a value of 0 (unless you allow them to be used to cut off retreat paths), by 2) they should have a much larger.

One would expect early war British infantry platoons to have the same VP value as their late war counterparts by model 1) and a radically increased value under 2) as lack of manpower pressures became more pronounced.

As you can see we have a very mixed model right now. Were the game engine to allow free-form unit selection ala DBM a new value (PP - purchase price) would have to be added.

Luckily, the game engine provides a solution - the Scenario Designer! The SD can change VP conditions (objectives, starting forces, victory levels, etc.) to accommodate all the above. However, the SD will need to be able to use Excel. Perhaps the best thing that the game can do to help the SD is to provide tools that allow the SD to look up data readily and make those calculations easily.

umbro

[Hawk Kriegsman]

because they will PROBABLY lose about 50 sp Volksgrenadiers which are 2vp worth more than the American infantry for some irrelevant reason.

Your kidding right?
Volksgrenadiers start appearing in 1944?
Each German soldier was worth more than his American counter part due to the fact the Germans had severe manpower issues.

The Germans could not afford losses like the Americans could.

That is not an irrelevant reason.

Thanx!

Hawk

[K K Rossokolski]

Just as irrelevant. A tank is a tank. If one was more expendable on the battlefield than the other, no officer would admit it. Both have crews.

Huib

What an ABSURD statement!!!!! That is tantamount to saying that NO officer, or indeed any soldier, has or had ANY conception of his enemy strengths or his own limitations. Such knowledge is fundamental to the military profession. For example, the Americans were well aware of the limitations of the Sherman, hence the various nicknames alluding to its vulnerability. VADM Holland was well aware of the vulnerability of HMS HOOD to the steeper trajectory of long range fire, and chose to approach BISMARK and PRINZ EUGEN as quickly as possible, at the cost of masking half the firepower of his own force at a critical time. He was wrong.

Do you have any basis for that ridiculous and offensive statement?
I have seen some tripe written this forum in the last 10 or so years, and indeed have contributed my share. But that one, to mix a metaphor, takes the cake.