Priority Level

[chaos0xomega]

PL cannot work.

Three conversations:

Let's play one point of War. I'll take my point in one War level ship.
Okay, I'll take mine as six Patrol level ships.

Hang on, let's make it two points of Battle. I'll take mine as one War level ship.
Okay, I'll take mine as eight Patrol level ships.

No, wait. Let's make it four points of Raid. I'll take mine as one War level ship.
Even better. I'll take 12 at Patrol.

Won't stop me playing, as I like the feel of the game, but even if all the ships within a PL were balanced (yeah right), the PL system is inherently flawed. Players who like bigs ships will want to play high PL, players who like destroyers and aircraft will want to play low PL.

From my understanding of this, the problem is that the prioirty conversion rates/factors are flawed, not the system itself.

 

[The Chauffeur]

From my understanding of this, the problem is that the prioirty conversion rates/factors are flawed, not the system itself.

i think you're exactly right. the conversion should be linear (is that the right term?) so that constant increases in quantity occur as you shift down levels.

or, just assign each PL a number, 1-5, and simply have a point total limit for battles. then there's no scaling issues.

(i thought about suggesting that each scale equal half of the next scale but one War level vs. sixteen Patrol levels wouldn't help!)

 

[chaos0xomega]

Currently I am designing my own naval wargame(don't worry, it wont compete with VAS or ACTA, it's set in the sky, not the sea or space) which has borrowed and refined upon mongoose's brilliant idea of Priority levels(of course to avoid copyright issues, they won't be called that, nor will my levels share the patrol, raid, skirmish, etc. levels).

From highest to lowest, the conversion factors are- A1:B3:C32:E3:F5 (I think, I don't have my stuff on hand), so , at a D3 level game(to avoid giving away to much, I am subbing in letters) can get you either 3 D level ships, 2 D level + 3 E level, 2 D level + 1 E level + 10 F level, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Soulmage]

Sorry, that has confused me.

If we play this hypothetical game at Raid, one side using War, the other using Patrol, it's 12 ships vs 1.
If we play this hypothetical game at War, one side using War, the other using Patrol, it's 6 ships vs 1.
So players with mainly smaller ships (like my russians) will always do poorly in high PL games, better at lower.

How can that be balanced? It may be historical, but it is nowhere near balanced. Tourneys are an absolute no-go for this ruleset.

Let me try to explain it this way. . . .

This probably isn't an official design rule, but it will illustrate the point. . . . .

Any ship more than 2 levels away from the scenario's assigned PL is considered "inappropriate" for that scenario. This is reflected by the fact that you can't buy a ship more than 2 levels higher.

However, even very big, powerful fleets have clusters of smaller escort vessels supporting them. So the game does not prohibit you from buying ships more than 2 levels LOWER than the PL you are playing at. . . even though those ships would be considered "inappropriate."

Instead, you simply get fewer of them than one might expect. That way, players can still buy their necessary escort ships fairly cheaply in large battle and war fleets. . . but it discourages the tactic of taking a 5 point war fleet and spending it ALL on destroyers, because it is a less efficient use of points for what you are getting.

I think this is an excellent and very necessary fleet design constraint!

Does that make any more sense?

 

[chaos0xomega]

This, just like abortion, all boils down to choice. Why are you complaining about it being unbalanced, if it is the players choice to take a single large ultra powerful ship, instead of a mix of various sized less powerful ships? That all boils down to the player who takes the single ship being an idiot who deserves the loss that is likely coming his way.

Now, on the other hand you have the player who takes a whole mess of the smaller craft. They will be balanced against just about anything BUT a single large ship, so really the problem lies with the 'single large ship' player. However, the problem that DOES lie with 'small-horde' player is that this is a rather mozzarella method to win, and it does not always lead to an enjoyable game. THis problem can be curbed by either a- boosting the strength of the larger ships a bit, b- limiting the strength of the smaller ships a bit, or c- both. I can't really see that hurting gameplay, as it would encourage players to take a mix of vessels if they hope to succeed, instead of loading up on 20 patrol level ships.

 

[hyndridge]

The PL system is flawed unless you are playing historical opponents within a set time period, even then its not as good as a well thought out points system!

Take the Bismarck v the Hood for instance, they are both the same priority value but the Bismarck is a far superior ship!

When you add in the Improved Rangefinders rule it is a totally unfair contest.

If it was a pts based system then you would be able to get the Hood plus something like a destroyer for the cost of the Hood.

Using the PL system you will end up with super-ships that are used by everyone and a lot of other ships will not be used at all.

Roland

 

[chaos0xomega]

That is faulty logic, as the same thing occurs in points driven systems.

The problem isn't the priority system, its the execution of the system and the rules associated with it. Fix that, and the priority system is an excellent and interesting concept. But it would NEVER work for ANYTHING but a naval wargame.

 

[Soulmage]

However, the problem that DOES lie with 'small-horde' player is that this is a rather mozzarella method to win, and it does not always lead to an enjoyable game.

PL discourages this approach. That's 'nuff said if you ask me.

But hey. . . no point really in talking about it a whole lot. The book is already written! I was just expressing my appreciation for the system. Obviously a few others don't appreciate it the way I do!

 

[lastbesthope]

Any ship more than 2 levels away from the scenario's assigned PL is considered "inappropriate" for that scenario. This is reflected by the fact that you can't buy a ship more than 2 levels higher.

Actually Armageddon has rules for buying ships up to and including 5 levels in either direction, see P. 7

LBH

 

[The Chauffeur]

i think they're referring specifically to VaS with that statement.

 

[lastbesthope]

i think they're referring specifically to VaS with that statement.

Sorry, didn't realise we were in the VaS forum, my apologies.

LBH

 

[MongooseMatt]

Tourneys are an absolute no-go for this ruleset.

And the challenge is made

Okay, guys, we are rearranging the office over the next couple of weeks. but after that, I'll set a date, and we'll have us a VaS tournament.

I'll show you how it can work

 

[MongooseMatt]

But it would NEVER work for ANYTHING but a naval wargame.

We have found one other type of game it works with. However, your point is right - it only works with games that have units in narrow spread clumps, and in low numbers.

 

[chaos0xomega]

Whats the other kind of game it works with? Dogfighting? Skirmish games?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

It could work for any game. Instead of a section of infantry costing X number of points, it gets a PL and costs 1 "force allocation point" (see what I did there? The abbreviation can stay the same) instead.

Or for bigger games, you'd get a platoon of men, or tanks, or whatever, at various PLs instead of paying points for them.

Only downside is, a British Army platoon has different capabilities to a US Army platoon, or a PLA platoon, so sticking them all into the same PL slot would cause the same moans ACtA experienced.

 

[BuShips]

Whats the other kind of game it works with? Dogfighting? Skirmish games?

Let me offer a wild guess. Methinks air combat for my single offering. How close did I get, Matt? :?:

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Tourneys are an absolute no-go for this ruleset.

And the challenge is made

Okay, guys, we are rearranging the office over the next couple of weeks. but after that, I'll set a date, and we'll have us a VaS tournament.

I'll show you how it can work

Aren`t you know contradicting your own words from the yamato topic where you said a long the lines that `priority system wasn`t designed for one-off games`... and a tourney is one off, nor feasible. Pacific fleets (the US and the IJN) rightly overclass the channel fleets (RN and KM) who then rightfully overclass the remainders (RM and FN)...

For example, the hiatus of no italian fighters is a major handicap as well... 1 point in patrol spend on fighters, and no italian spotter plain ever gets near a decent target to compensate long range targetting (for which others have radars, optics etc etc etc).

I do not believe VaS ia `ready` for tourney play yet...

 

[Soulmage]

I think he actually said its not good for one to one engagements because balance is achieved at the fleet level rather than the unit level.

Of course it is good for "one off" engagements if by that you mean throwing down some ships and blasting each other!

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

Aha, my misinterpretation that is, though the fighters still stand for me, we need planes, urgently hehe. Where are the Macchi, the Fiats, the Savoia Marchetti, the...

 

[The Chauffeur]

Aren`t you know contradicting your own words from the yamato topic where you said a long the lines that `priority system wasn`t designed for one-off games`... and a tourney is one off, nor feasible. Pacific fleets (the US and the IJN) rightly overclass the channel fleets (RN and KM) who then rightfully overclass the remainders (RM and FN)...

i dunno... i bet the littorio would have given the bismarck a run for it's money. that was a nice ship. sexy too.