PLA might be coming into their own.

[xbowmen]

It is not uncomomn that points issus comes up in our game. I compare T-72 to MBT -99 to M1A2
The T-72 stats is as follow:
move/target/armor/kill/weapon/range/damage D/armor mod/ AOE/ tough
7" 8+ 3+ 11+ 125mm 60" D10+3 - 2 2"/2 fail rolls

This is the stats from a gamer named Pietis. The T -72. has if you notice that armor save is 3+ and tough is 2 fail rolls relate to its armor. And the armor mod -2 relates to its offensive effect. These 3 issues are different than
MBT -99
move/target/armor/kill/weapon/range/damage D/armor mod/ AOE/tough
7" 8+ 2+ 11+ 125mm 60" D10+3 - 3 2"/3 fail rolls

Notice I exclude the MG because they have no effect in tank vs. tank battle.

So the MBT - 99 is stronger and more powerful than T-72. And considering that there is not much room for different quality of armor and fire power due to the fact that BFE only use D10 and D6 as damage dice, those few distinctions are significant.

Also I was wondering how MP comes up with the points for the armor and infantry. Although I have not figure out how they come to the conclusion of the total number, I have figure out how they give the points difference between M1A2 to a MBT -99.Let look at the differences between the two tanks.
M1A2
move/target/armor/kill/weapon/range/damage D/armor mod/AOE/ tough
8"0 8+ 2+ 12+ 120mm 72" D10+4 - 4 2" 4 fail roll
50mg 36" 2D6+1 -1
mg 30" 3D6 -1

MBT -99
move/target/armor/kill/weapon/range/damage D/armor mod/ AOE/tough
7" 8+ 2+ 11+ 125mm 60" D10+3 - 3 2"/3 fail rolls
G 30" 3D6 -1
M1A2 cost 420 MBT -99 cost 350

As you can see that M1A2 on kill has 12+ compare to 11+ for 99 so let say that difference is worth 10 points because it deal with a D10 die to hit and there a 10% difference. so add 10 points to M1A2

There is a movement difference of 1" per action between the two tanks but I'm not sure that is worthy of any points

The range of 120mm compare to 125mm of the 99 is 12" but because most games is played on a 5' x 6' table this too is non significant as both weapon can range most of the board.

The Damage Die is significant as M1A2 has a 10% better chance to target or kill than the 99 so add another 10 points to M1A2.

The armor modifiers is also significant as M1A2 has a 17% chance of affecting the target save roll. (17% is use because of D6 or 1/6 of 100% is 16-17%) So let add 17 points to the M1A2

And the last value is 4 fail rolls for M1A2 to 3 fail rolls for the -99 This is a 33% difference because in a armor fight between the two tanks M1A2 would save on a 5 or 6 and MBT -99 would save on a 6. Since M1A2 would get an extra," life", at a 5 or 6 that would be a 33% chance save on a D6 So add 33 points to M1A2.
Now add all the points:
10 points for kill
10 points for damage dice
17 points for armor mod.
and 33 points for toughness and the total is 70 points. What the points difference for between the 2 tanks? 70 points.
Since M1A2 has an extra mg they could have gave it 5 more points to 75 points difference but since the Challenger 2 which is almost the same as the M1A2 in stats is at a cost of 425, they probably compare MBT -99 to the Challenger 2 and that's how they come up with 350 for the MBT-99

As for the total value being 425 pts for the Challie, 420 pts for M1A2 and 350 pts for MBT -99, I imagine they put the numbers that high so there would be plenty of room for point values of lesser vehicles.

As far as T-72 points compare to the MBT- 99 (T-72 is worth 280 points) My formula works pretty close to those two tanks point difference. MBT gets a +17 points for armor save,+17 point for armor mod and 33 points for 1 extra tough roll. difference 70 points which is the difference in point value of 350 of MBT- 99 to 280 points to T-72. (could have been 5 more points less as T-72 has 2 mg to MBT-99 1mg )

I hope this explain the cost difference in tanks. Any questions?

Now I hope to work on the infantry to explain their points difference in another postif possible.

Den

 

[Pietia]

Xbowmen, you were using some ancient T-72 card of mine.... BTW - it is Pietia, not Pietis

As for the tank costs and comparison, try this:

Abrams attacks Type-99
You have 40% chance to kill Type 99. Abrams kills it on 7+ roll (7,8,9,10). If you fail to kill it, you have 30% chance to jit it - Abrams hits Type 99 on 4+ (4,5,6, anything more is a kill), Type 99 saves on 6+.

40% chance to kill
25% chance to damage

Type-99 attacks Abrams
You have 20% chance to kill Abrams outright, as you do this on 9+ (9,10). If you fail to do this, you have 40% chance to hit it. Unfortunately, if you do, you have to beat Abrams armor save, you do this 66% of the time, as Abrams saves on 5+. This means, that your chance to damage Abrams is 26%.

20% chance to kill
26% chance to damage

What's more - Type 99 cannot kill Abrams in cover. Abrams can kill Type 99 in cover with 20% probability. And of course Abrams can fail more armor saves and live.

You suggest that the higher kill score and higher damage are worth 10 points each. Take a look above - you really need almost two Type-99s to have a 50% chance of winning (as in "there's anything left and the enemy is dead") fair fight against the Abrams. Unfortunately the Type 99 costs only 17% less than Abrams

And Challenger is not "almost identical" to Abrams. 13+ kill makes a BIG difference.

Edited - I forgot that Type 99 has 2+ save, not 3+...

 

[xbowmen]

Xbowmen, you were using some ancient T-72 card of mine.... BTW - it is Pietia, not Pietis

As for the tank costs and comparison, try this:

Abrams attacks Type-99
You have 40% chance to kill Type 99. Abrams kills it on 7+ roll (7,8,9,10). If you fail to kill it, you have 30% chance to damage it - Abrams hits Type 99 on 4+ (4,5,6, anything more is a kill) and removes its armor save completely.

40% chance to kill
30% chance to damage

Type-99 attacks Abrams

You have 20% chance to kill Abrams outright, as you do this on 9+ (9,10). If you fail to do this, you have 40% chance to hit it. Unfortunately, if you do, you have to beat Abrams armor save, you do this 66% of the time, as Abrams saves on 5+. This means, that your chance to damage Abrams is 26%.

20% chance to kill
26% chance to damage

What's more - Type 99 cannot kill Abrams in cover. Abrams can kill Type 99 in cover with 20% probability. And of course Abrams can fail more armor saves and live.

You suggest that the higher kill score and higher damage are worth 10 points each. Take a look above - you really need almost two Type-99s to have a 50% chance of winning (as in "there's anything left and the enemy is dead") fair fight against the Abrams. Unfortunately the Type 99 costs only 17% less than Abrams

And Challenger is not "almost identical" to Abrams. 13+ kill makes a BIG difference.

I'm well aware of the odds to hit and kill to be true between the 99 and the 72 as you have pointed out. And I must have an old card, for as of now you have giving tough to be 3 fail rolls instead of 2 fail rolls on the T-72.( Which some gamers would have a "Gentleman's" disagreement with you on that point, for a T-72 to have as many tough rolls as a 99.) Everything else that I have stated is per your card. My point is that there is a 70 point difference MP has given between the MBT - 99 with the Abrams and also with your point difference with the T-72 compare to the MBT-99. This is my attempt to explain how MP might have possibly come to these existing point values of these two tanks.

So let me ask this, with everything that you have pointed out, what does that have to do with MP assigning points to the tanks, other than fact the MBT assigned points is over rated?

As for you name, I must have accidentally mistype the name, so no offense was intended.
Den

 

[Pietia]

And I must have an old card, for as of now you have giving tough to be 3 fail rolls instead of 2 fail rolls on the T-72.( Which some gamers would have a "Gentleman's" disagreement with you on that point, for a T-72 to have as many tough rolls as a 99.)

Well, I have my reasons. One of them is that having a semi-modern MBT with as many toughness points as a pimped-out SUV (Shadow) seems silly... If I want my cards to be compatible with the MP cards I don't have much room to maneuver. And to be sure that T-99 should have more toughness than T-72 we would need to see it used in some sort of conflict. It is roughly T-80 level of technology and utilizes auto-loader, so there may be some problems with its survivalability.

Everything else that I have stated is per your card. My point is that there is a 70 point difference MP has given between the MBT - 99 with the Abrams and also with your point difference with the T-72 compare to the MBT-99. This is my attempt to explain how MP might have possibly come to these existing point values of these two tanks.
So let me ask this, with everything that you have pointed out, what does that have to do with MP assigning points to the tanks, other than fact the MBT assigned points is over rated?

Pointing out that 10 points for +1 kill or damage proposed in your post is rather silly, for starters. It is always possible to come up with some reverse-engineered formula that shows how the point values were achieved. It does not mean, however, that the point values make any sense....

As for you name, I must have accidentally mistype the name, so no offense was intended.
Den

No problem ;-)

 

[Mr Evil]

ive said it 100 times befor pla on average are 20-25% over costed in points.

nfantry fight between pla and any other force of infantry of equal value pla get owned !!! tank battles the same.