Points value question

[Torps]

I'm a little confused about how the points system for WaS works.
Compare the points cost of an Italian Motor Torpedo Boat to an Allied P.T. Boat. The P.T. Boat has better range and equal or better values in all categories and yet it is cheaper than the Italian.
Is this a mistake or am I missing something vital here?

If anyone can explain how the points system works I'll feel a lot better.:confused:

[doganpc]

Couple of things while neither can be accurately proven they have come up before here or in related products.

1. Some ships are intentionally designed to be better. Even among the commons you must have somthing that everyone will want over somthing else. Call it the Intentionally Broken system, where you have a combo everyone will want.

2. Historical relevance. The undamaged industrial power of the US applied to making ships creates more ships per capita(?). So yeah the US can field more ships for it's 100pts worth than anyone else.

Doganpc
the first one I think we have the designer quoted on saying in some D&DM chat.

[seahawk]

2. Historical relevance. The undamaged industrial power of the US applied to making ships creates more ships per capita(?). So yeah the US can field more ships for it's 100pts worth than anyone else
I hope this is not the case because if it is the case and US ships are undercosted why should we bother playing/buying any other Navy:rolleyes: I thought this is meant to a balanced game not one where you have to play Americans to the best chance to win.

[AKI]

THe US fleet is undercosted; it is a blatant piece of bias; that from what I've seen, the designers have held their hands up to and basically said "yeah, so what?" After all they're all Americans.

The simple expedient is to either allow any opposing fleet 10% more points in a game or give a US/mainly US fleet 10% less. This more or less fixes the problem.

That aside some vessels are better/worse than their points suggest in virtually every nation. Points allocation on these cards was clearly not a purely mathematical exercise. Someone on here did a very good number crunching exercise that showed the pointing of cards based on their stats and abilities varied across the board. In short, when you have a low baseline to work with (all DD class ships are between 4 and 12 points - mostly 6-9 for example) it is very hard to differentiate fairly in cost terms the similar vessels.

[Torps]

Our local club is thinking of starting up regular WaS sessions and perhaps a competition soon.
For the sake of fairness and to allow players a wider choice of options than 'USN vs losers' I raised this thread to sound out forum members about points balance.

Aki, I think you make a good point about using a 10% bonus.:cool: Any playtest feedback would be welcome. I agree with you that careful choice of which ships and aircraft you use has more effect on fighting ability that pure comparison of point values.

[LoneWolf]

I believe the MTB point cost was an oversight.

Points are always a game's way of trying to balance things out.

All games including PC games, use a mixture of Points, Costs, and production time, to balance a game out.

You want something good, you have to pay for it.

So I have come to think of the PT boat vs MTB an oversight. There is no historical explanation, no logical explanation either as to why in a game this would happen besides from maybe being an oversight.

Another example could clearly be the HMAS Canberra to support this. Unless historical limitations were calculated into the ship's point cost, but the ajax vs the sydney says otherwise. :/

[AKI]

Aki, I think you make a good point about using a 10% bonus.:cool: Any playtest feedback would be welcome. I agree with you that careful choice of which ships and aircraft you use has more effect on fighting ability that pure comparison of point values.

Our house rule is any force that has more than 33% US forces by points loses 10% of it's points limit; e.g:

Mixed 100 points with 33 points or less of US models = 100 points

Mixed 100 points with 34 points or more of US models = 90 points

All US fleet against 200 points opponent = 180 points

And so on for larger games.

We find the US still are a good choice, it tends to result in more even matches and it doesn't mean the US can swarm the enemy with lots of cheap quality kit.

["Sink the Bismark"]

Our house rule is any force that has more than 33% US forces by points loses 10% of it's points limit; e.g:

Mixed 100 points with 33 points or less of US models = 100 points

Mixed 100 points with 34 points or more of US models = 90 points

All US fleet against 200 points opponent = 180 points

And so on for larger games.

We find the US still are a good choice, it tends to result in more even matches and it doesn't mean the US can swarm the enemy with lots of cheap quality kit.

Yeah, US cruisers can swarm opposition too easily. I hate being outnumbered 2 to 1 all tthe time just because I'm fighting the USA.

[Vornargith]

If you play historically , the Americans' experience in battle was minimal compared to the Japanese and other nations who had been actively fighting for years. Why not penalize American fleets for the first 4 turns or so? Yeah, it's a bit weird for mechanics, but so is the Japanese night-fighting ability.

[Autarch]

It has been stated by the designers several times in A&AM that national production/industrial strength has no bearing on unit costing. I'm sure that extends to this game as well.

There is a difference between the MTB and PT boat. Look at the date of availability. If playing with year limits, this becomes a factor, though I disagree it should be reflected in set point cost for something that is more or less an optional rule.

[Jesse_James]

THe US fleet is undercosted; it is a blatant piece of bias; that from what I've seen, the designers have held their hands up to and basically said "yeah, so what?" After all they're all Americans.


WHO DEY!?

WHO DEY!? gonna beat dem Americans?

WHO DEY!? WHO DEY!?

No one!

Americas is number uno!

By sig. says it all.

[The_Lucky_Y]

WHO DEY!?

WHO DEY!? gonna beat dem Americans?

WHO DEY!? WHO DEY!?

No one!

Americas is number uno!

By sig. says it all.

but thats not set in stone, even the roman empire see the day of doom :D


other way use 1941 Units only the the odds became changed

[Jesse_James]

but thats not set in stone, even the roman empire see the day of doom :D


other way use 1941 Units only the the odds became changed

Ahhhh but we are not an empire.

We don't claim to be, no matter what other nations like to say about us.

WHO DEY!

[The_Lucky_Y]

Ahhhh but we are not an empire.

We don't claim to be, no matter what other nations like to say about us.

WHO DEY!

not now but your country have not already elected an austrian president , we germans already had one in the past..:D

and the border between a real empire and a empire in being is rarely thin

[Jesse_James]

not now but your country have not already elected an austrian president , we germans already had one in the past..:D

and the border between a real empire and a empire in being is rarely thin

Yeah well, ya can't change history, just learn from, not saying don't vote for an Austrian, just be careful for who you vote, and if you pick the wrong guy... shoot him. Don't come up with some fancy plan. Just walk up to the guy casually, smile... then POP. There country is out of his control, world saved.

[The_Lucky_Y]

Yeah well, ya can't change history, just learn from, not saying don't vote for an Austrian, just be careful for who you vote, and if you pick the wrong guy... shoot him. Don't come up with some fancy plan. Just walk up to the guy casually, smile... then POP. There country is out of his control, world saved.

and do that in time...do not wait to long...


but you agree that some USN Units in the game are to cheap or have to much valued stats and SA´s for e.g USS Baltimore on IJN Side you have no real counterpart or you move to Kongo class that was unsportmanslike on an other way...Myoko doenst fit due to the lack of ER 4 and TD 1 and the Longlance are nice but worthless depending on the sheer number of dice and luck....

now I must go to work...

[weedsrock2]

Back to the original thread. This has been discussed many times and the consensus is the USN should get 10% less points versus the IJN. I have only looked at the "US vs IJN" pairing. But I have played US vs Germany and just played Italian fleet vs my son's US fleet two days ago. My Italian fleet narrowly lost, but my son did not use a lot of airpower either. (I did allow myself the use of a couple of Stuka's). Actually, he swarmed me with five PT-Boats! They worked very well in our 'island infested' map. He got a lot of 'lucky' torpedo sixes too. 100 pt game. It was fun.

I will comment that the Japanese long-lance torpedoes are very powerful now that they can be launched in the gunnery phase. My experience is you can turn the game very quickly in your favor if you maneuver the IJN in close to the enemy to use those torpedoes.

[Jesse_James]

but you agree that some USN Units in the game are to cheap or have to much valued stats and SA´s

Game wise and balance of play, yup.

But I love my 6 fletcher, 4 sub, and 2 british fighter build. :D

[NimitsTexan]

I really think that torpedoes, especially Long Lances, were considered very valuable when the game was designed, and thus ships sporting them were got high point costs. Most American cruisers and all American battleships do not have torpedoes, and then torpedos on American DDs are mediocre, and I believe this fact accounts for the relative cheapness of US ships. And admittedly, with those Long Lances a couple of IJN CAs or DDs have a shot at blowing even an Iowa clean out of the water. Whether those torpedo abilites are woth those extra points is of course debatable. Before torpedo shots were moved to the surface attack phase they probably were not; now that they are, though, I would argue the IJN ships are (almost) worth the extra points.

[Torps]

It has been stated by the designers several times in A&AM that national production/industrial strength has no bearing on unit costing. I'm sure that extends to this game as well.

There is a difference between the MTB and PT boat. Look at the date of availability. If playing with year limits, this becomes a factor, though I disagree it should be reflected in set point cost for something that is more or less an optional rule.

Thanks for that, Autarch, my original question was about the rationale behind the points costs. Your point about inception date makes sense although that means that later built, more modern ships actually become cheaper.:confused:

By the way, I'm only interested in finding out what people's thoughts are on WaS points balance. We should not see this as a chance to complain about the USN.

[Torps]

I really think that torpedoes, especially Long Lances, were considered very valuable when the game was designed, and thus ships sporting them were got high point costs. Most American cruisers and all American battleships do not have torpedoes, and then torpedos on American DDs are mediocre, and I believe this fact accounts for the relative cheapness of US ships. And admittedly, with those Long Lances a couple of IJN CAs or DDs have a shot at blowing even an Iowa clean out of the water. Whether those torpedo abilites are woth those extra points is of course debatable. Before torpedo shots were moved to the surface attack phase they probably were not; now that they are, though, I would argue the IJN ships are (almost) worth the extra points.

A point well made, Nimitz. I suppose how lucky your torpedo dice were in any particular game will flavour your thoughts on the cost their effectiveness. My feelings about torpedoes changed direction by 180 degrees after I employed enough destroyers and PT boats to almost guarantee some hits.;)

[Sub Chaser Capt.]

hey i agree the americans have cheep good ships and it makes me mad but, playing the game straight up u can still win with japan i do on a regular baisis yeah i hate the atlantas AA and the iowas range 5 but there still beatable with smart movements..... i still hate seeing the iowa on the other side and not having my yamato.....gulp

[magister]

Add to the pro USA bias: the bias against the value of the Italian fleet and you get the Bolzano versus the Baltimore both at 18 points. I think that you need 3 Bolzanos to have a chance against the US ship. However, this being said, I recently won a small tournament with the following fleet.
2 X Duca D’ Aosta
2 X Luca Tarigo
4 X Ambra
3 X Kondor
1 X Zeke

My closest battle was against an Enterprise. Even the Rodney fell to the sub, smoke, and hid behind islands strategy of the RN.:D

So, even though the point system is ineffective the USA doesn’t always win.

[Torps]

Well done, Magister.:)
Of course, we hear alot about how expensive the Bolzano is but should remember that D'Aosta is very good value at 12 points. The two can balance each other out.

[Torps]

I finally had my first game using IJN vs USN.
We were using the Sealed Mission Orders system and I chose a carrier group for what promised to be an air mission.
My opponent drew night action and so I was stuck with groping in the dark with 1 Jintsu, 2 destroyers and a submarine against a Baltimore, 3 Fletchers and 2 DEs. :eek: On top of that I had to defend 2 Shohos and four merchantmen from the ravaging Americans.:mad:

Game ended with USA winning, having sunk the Jinstu, a DD and a merchantmen.
We damaged the Baltimore and a Fletcher, sunk 2 Fletchers and a DE. We still lost but the IJN went down fighting and certainly dished out the punishment.

At the end of the game one of the folks watching offered me a Myoko to round out my IJN forces. I happily accepted and gave him a USS George Washington for his trouble.

All in all I'd say that the IJN can be deadly if you choose your forces carefully and use them aggressively.

[swarbs]

WHO DEY!?

WHO DEY!? gonna beat dem Americans?

WHO DEY!? WHO DEY!?

No one!

Americas is number uno!

By sig. says it all.

Except for when it comes to the dollar. At this point we're officially tied with the Canadians. Not to mention any non-European currency. So when you figure in the comparative values of the dollar and the euro I guess Bolzano 18, Baltimore 18 might make sense.

[Vornargith]

It's a good thing Iceland's not in the game ... I'd be broke! Well ... I can forget about next year's vacation.

[dracos42]

I finally had my first game using IJN vs USN.
We were using the Sealed Mission Orders system and I chose a carrier group for what promised to be an air mission.
My opponent drew night action and so I was stuck with groping in the dark with 1 Jintsu, 2 destroyers and a submarine against a Baltimore, 3 Fletchers and 2 DEs. :eek: On top of that I had to defend 2 Shohos and four merchantmen from the ravaging Americans.:mad:

Game ended with USA winning, having sunk the Jinstu, a DD and a merchantmen.
We damaged the Baltimore and a Fletcher, sunk 2 Fletchers and a DE. We still lost but the IJN went down fighting and certainly dished out the punishment.

At the end of the game one of the folks watching offered me a Myoko to round out my IJN forces. I happily accepted and gave him a USS George Washington for his trouble.

All in all I'd say that the IJN can be deadly if you choose your forces carefully and use them aggressively.

Torps, I was originally going to respond about your misnaming of the USS Washington. Then it occurred to me you're correct on a technicality, since Washington state was named after Washington the president. Just to confuse things, there was a ballistic missile submarine named USS George Washington, and there may be (or already is?) a CVN by that name.

In one of the campaign battles, PTO 5 I think, I crippled the Iowa and Boise with torpedoes. 3 Bettys with a Zeke escort, plus 2 DDs jumped on the Iowa, Boise, plus one F4F. It didn't help that the US AA gunners were having a bad day. Iowa and Boise escaped to fight another day, and the USN lost that engagement.

Mike L.

[Torps]

Hmmmmmm.....George Washington, Washington State and Washington DC.
Rather than offend sensibilities I'll be careful from now on to check which one I refer to.
(Thinks to self; Governor Brisbane, City of Brisbane, Port of Brisbane, Brisbane River, or beautiful downtown Brisvegas ;) )

[PaulG]

Just to resurrect this thread in light of the "Best of WaS:..." polls conducted recently.

According to the various internet nerds who bothered to vote the US have:
#1 rated BB (Iowa)
#1 and #2 rated carrier aircraft. (Wildcat and Dauntless)
#1 and #2 rated CLs (Atlanta and Boise)
#2 rated land based aircraft (Catalina)
#1 rated CA (Baltimore)
#1 rated CV (Enterprise)
#2 rated DD (Fletcher) although it is very close between 2-4.

The only class where an American unit does not qualify as the #1 or #2 choice in the game is submarines, and by no means is the USS Barb a poor choice. And in a lot of the classes the US units are clear #1 choices.

I think it's pretty clear from the voting that the US fleet can be viewed as systemically undercosted. I must hasten to add that I do not consider this to be a deliberate bias or anything of that, just an honest mistake.

However, for tournament play to be fair the cost of US units should be increased by 10% across the board to even things up for all nations.

[doganpc]

Historical relevance, U.S. had untouched industrial base to build with. They got more and later more & better units fielded without anything other than supply and demand getting in the way. Result = cheap & effective ships.

Doganpc
nevermind the balance of the game

[Thalan]

Though I would agree USN ships may be under cost increasing the IJN or other fleets up by 10% to compensate for that is ridiculous. If you cant win with 100 pts of ships you arent going to win with 110 points so ships.

I have said it before and I will say it here. There is no SA in this game that cant be over come. That is the point of the game, to out maneuver and destroy you enemy. I have lost more games then I can count again IJN, British and German and none of the guys I lost to felt they needed more points to make up for my ships be undercosted.

We did try the whole 10% thing and all that ended up happening was that my IJN friend got few more DD's and got to fire about a dozen more torpedos at me at super long range and sank my ships before I could get into range to fight back.

No game is perfect but if you want to say there is a bias cause the designers are all American or some other nonsense then we will be having a conversation about IJN super destroyers and torpedos that kill you before you can kill them.

Both sides shouldnt be equal. If you want equal play chess.

Figure out how to use your advantages against the enemies weakness. That is how you win not making sure both sides have the same stats.

But according to eveyone on this board the IJN should never win a single game against USN.....that is BS. I lose just as much as I win. MY best Friend plays IJN and gets a great laugh out of all the rhetoric here about how "unbalanced" game of WAS. In our last game as my last BB was sinking below the weaves and I was left wondering how on 17 dice I could have missed 17 times he asked me......."shouldnt I have lost"?

[Bismarck]

Both sides shouldnt be equal. If you want equal play chess.


But, chess isn´t equal.

[Thalan]

Equal in that all pieces have the same abilities on either side.


But just as in WAS its the ability of the player that decides the game. NOT the Piece.

[PaulG]

Thalan,

As I said it isn't about bias, its about what makes an equal game. In this sort of system 10% isn't a huge advantage and the reason i suggested it is purely bevause I don't think that the US have a huge advantage in costing, just that they have a slight advantage and that advantage is systemic.

doganpc,
You suggestion defeats the entire purpose of having units costed for points in the first place. If the point of the exercise was to re-create history the units would just be allocated stats and no point system would be implemented and we'd all be playing historical scenarios.

[Thalan]

Ok, I will allow an IJN player to have an increase in points cause all my ships are undervalued.

But I get torpedo's that can fire three squares away.

That should make things equal.

[seahawk]

Maybe the US should get nukes and make the whole point null and void.

[Thalan]

Dang.....How many points would THAT cost? Probably not enough.......

:)

[Bismarck]

I think WotC possibly intended the year restrictions to play some part in balancing. The problem with that is that the Axis didn´t really build or develop that many ships as the war went along. The year restriction thing probably works better in the land game since Germany was pretty active in developing those tools of warfare right till the end.

I find the Axis to be pretty capable if they are combined, although I know many people feel awkward combining Japan and Germany. But in a tournament setting I imagine people would be bringing one Axis fleet and one Allied fleet so combined fleets would be fine in that environment.

If we look at the best combined Axis units we can probably find units in each category that are at least pretty close to their Allied counterpart:

Big battleships:
Yamato certainly holds its own here.

Medium battleships:
Bismarck and Vittorio Veneto are possibly slightly less solid than Washington, Rodney and Richelieu but at the same time they are less expensive. So, this category shouldn´t be too bothersome for the Axis.

Small battleships:
Scharnhorst and Kongo are both pretty good value for their points. The Allies have no comparable ships so this category gives the Axis an extra option of 30-something well spent points.

Large cruisers:
Graf Spee is slightly less attractive than the bargain Baltimore according to the current poll, but it´s still a good buy in this category.

Light cruisers:
Allies probably have more options in this category but it´s one of the less important ones in my opinion.

Destroyers:
Combining the Axis really helps with this category. Luca Tarigo for smoke and Galster for extra AA make up for the somewhat limiting cost of Yukikaze. Javelin and Fletcher remain slightly more solid for their price but combining the options makes the Axis competitive here.

Subs:
Axis get the edge here. Both U-510 and I-19 are very lethal, I personally love the range and SA of the I-19. The Truculent makes the Allies competitive her though. I personally wish they hadn´t made the Truculent quite so capable in the game so the sub advantage had been little more decisive for the Axis.

Planes:
Advantage Allies, but the Zeke gives the Axis solid defense and the Kondor and the Japanese bombers force the Allies to take some care with the AA. The Wildcat, Dauntless and Catalina remain an awfully strong and versatile team though.

So overall the Allies certainly have a slight edge in my opinion, but the Axis are certainly competitive. Since we were talking about chess previously you could say that Allies are like playing white and Axis black.
The thing I find slightly bothersome with the USN is that they have a number of units that are maybe too versatile and in general too good of a value for their cost. So, they pretty much show up in every build. Baltimore, Iowa and Wildcats are good examples. Maybe it´s only my personal problem but I find the USN slightly boring therefore; too many units that are too good and rounded to pass up on.

[PaulG]

The thing I find slightly bothersome with the USN is that they have a number of units that are maybe too versatile and in general too good of a value for their cost. So, they pretty much show up in every build. Baltimore, Iowa and Wildcats are good examples. Maybe it´s only my personal problem but I find the USN slightly boring therefore; too many units that are too good and rounded to pass up on.

Well that's the problem. Apart from the Javelin, and maybe the Truculennt, what other allied ships would fit into a US build for a tournament?

I also agree that part of the problem is that we have pretty much the cream of the US late war fleet, whilst other fleets are struggling with their pre war/early war designs. (e.g. The British don't have Fiji class CAs or Seafires) which is exacerbating the US points advantage. i.e. the US have the qualitative advantage to start with prior to factoring in any point advantage they have received.

[Thalan]

I wouldnt mind seeing some early war or prewar units. That might be interesting.

[HMAS Stuie]

Ok Guys I am going to wya in here at the risk of sounding dumb.

Axis are different to the allies......Just like they should be. I firmly believe that it is about the skilss of the player and the build of your fleet. Yopu need to know the strengths of your units and how best they should be used and against what. I really dont believe that there arent better ships as such but better options.

It would be nice to people play fleets that are purley german or British or American and not go to far out of the historic reality. Like Zeros supporting the Germnan fleet.

The Big problem with the americans is that there are too many options. Why pick ships that are versitile and can be used in multiple combat situation when chances are there is a specialist ship for all ocassions. Again that sfine f everyone else had such great options but if you are american going up against say germans or italians or french you know exactly wht your fighting against and you pick your fleet accordingly.

to me sometimes its like playing poker when your opponent can see your hand.

What do you guys think?