Point Values

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Wow.
Umbro, Hawk, and KKR all said what I was going to say. :jaw:

I guess I can save some typing and avoid the sniping? (Though, Mr. Palphons does not read my stuff anyway.) ;)
I'd love to see him in a bar in America telling a group of Marines that they are no better than the average WWII Italian infantry. Or, in a German bar telling the Tiger crews that their tank was no better than a Stuart? :pullhair::kill::grin2:



RR :cheeky:

[umbro]

KKR:

Tripe and cake in the same paragraph - now that is a mixed message!

:-)

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

KKR:

Tripe and cake in the same paragraph - now that is a mixed message!

:-)

umbro

I thought he said striped cake? Maybe I don't agree with him. :rolleyes:

RR

[K K Rossokolski]

I would like to further discuss the VP value of the humble truck, which jumped, seemingly without any warning, from 1 to 3. In some discussion at the time, there was consideration that trucks could actually carry twice their SP of Inf.....which I thought then, and still do, was a bit of a red herring. I suggested that one result of this diktat was the instant alteration of the hundreds of scens in the Scenario DB. Now this might be a good thing...who knows the effect on a given scen until it has been played a few times.



Anyway, I can't get my head around 3 for a truck. 2 ...maybe.
If rarity is a factor..how about Romanian truck 8, Manchukuo 24, Ethiopia 250-300.......they only had a few. Gets very silly, very quickly, does it not?.
And should we have different values for different trucks?....let's see, is a 1942 Lancia better than a 1943 Fiat...or a 1941 Studebaker..or a 1930 Bedford?? How about a Renault vs a Merc? Is a Deuce and a half* better than a Two-tonner? What about a Moskvitch made under licence in Bulgaria?

There should be one criterion only for combat values...capability. Similarly for transport, any differentiation in VPs should reflect cargo capacity only. And, as far as I can see, pretty much all trucks in the game have the same carrying capacity. Which is fine for CS, an old, pretty simple, perhaps obsolete game now being asked to do things it can't with results that risk turning it into a farce..we have seen the imbecile "submarine" and the joke "bombers."
What next, I wonder?

Oh, BTW..Red Herring for entree, tripe for mains, cake for dessert. Make even the hardiest foodie throw up.

* And for those unaquainted with the idiom of the U.S.Army...a 2 1/2 ton truck.

[Mr. Guberman]

For scens, I acquire the force VP totals for each side, extrapolate relatively quantified VHexes (many of which, over time, appear to have been generated by a madman), relative to the force values and postulate what losses might occur achieving a modicum of the VHexes. Then play test them in odd sorts of ways and tweak as...I...see appropriate.

Many of you have seen how successful that has been. Some work; many do not.

Philosophically, I prefer to get the idea of a possible scen, generate the OB, map and scen files then deploy them, play them...offer them. For those of you who like tournament style scens, approach mine with caution. Sometimes I toil over deployments for hours. Sometimes generating the victory conditions is a pain in the arse. That's the kind of nut I am. Sometimes I don't do the above but do something else. Often the "nature" of an "historical" battle is the most important and difficult idea to translate into a scenario whatever one's efforts to "balance" a scen.

So...VPs for individual units do not really come into play for me at all. I, most often, do not even consider it when establishing victory conditions. Some work, some don't. Anybody wanna tweak mine, go for it..."don bother me at all". I already had my most fun with them...making them.

KKR: Re Dogface truck lingo ("2 and 1/2 ton")...rather..."deuce ana haf"

Cheers
Curt

[junk2drive]

I like Spam. Especially fried so it's cripy on the outside.

In DGVN the object as NVA/VC is to lose less of the 1-2 VP units while taking out the expensive USA units like helos. IOW making the USA player pay more for the Objective points than they are worth.

Somewhere in all of this banter there has to be a playable game for both H2H and vs AI players.

[Mr. Guberman]

...the most perplexing problem to reconcile amid H2H and vAI scens is that the current AI is not just stupid...it is soooooo stupid. It has the imagination of a stone. Best technology, I guess...but that's the way it is.

cheers

[umbro]

There should be one criterion only for combat values...capability. Similarly for transport, any differentiation in VPs should reflect cargo capacity only.

This has never been the case from the very inception of the game. For extremely simple examples check out leaders, HQs and 251/16s

As for transport, check out carriers vs trucks. Similar carrying capacity, similar attack values (1 vs HD has as much chance of inflicting losses as 0 vs HD; and 2 vs Soft against a typical infantry defstr of 7 again has as much chance of inflicting loss as 0 i.e. None!) Funnily enough, they are now both worth 3VPs per SP.

It seems that in the case of trucks your criterion is satisfied.

umbro

[K K Rossokolski]

What sort of "carriers" do you mean?

[umbro]

Sorry - I was referring to the Universal Carrier (Bren, ATR, 2lb mortar, etc.)

umbro