Priority Level

[Soulmage]

I'd just like to say that I think whoever thought up the priority level system is brilliant!

PL is better than a point system for a few reasons:

1. It produces more realistic fleets. Under a point system people would just load up on battleships and battlecruisers for the most part (or whatever their favorite type of ship is) and take 1 or 2 destroyers to use up some extra points. With the multiple ships per point rule, you get proportional numbers of smaller ships to the larger ones for the most part.

2. Point systems accuracy is overrated. I've never seen a point system that REALLY appropriately priced all the units. The system pretends to be accurate by getting down to subtle distinctions in the point costs of units, but in reality, its not any more accurate than the general groupings offered by the priority level system.

Anyway, I just wanted to post my thoughts on the subject b/c I saw on another forum where somebody was griping about not having a "true" point system. I say "good riddance!"

 

[Makoto]

1. It produces more realistic fleets. Under a point system people would just load up on battleships and battlecruisers for the most part (or whatever their favorite type of ship is) and take 1 or 2 destroyers to use up some extra points.

Only for the first battle. Then all the quirks and details would force them into diversification (try fighting off some destroyers and subs with pure-battleship squadron ^^)

 

[MongooseMatt]

2. Point systems accuracy is overrated. I've never seen a point system that REALLY appropriately priced all the units.

I have certainly seen some that are very close. However, I noticed a trend with ship-based games (both naval and space-based) whereby classes of ships clumped around certain points values _unless_ there was a concious effort to create vessels that intentionaly broke into new values. Then they would clump.

What you ended up with was Battleship A being worth 600 points and Battleship B being worth 610 points. Given the relatively low number of models on the table, is this really a) a measureably difference and b) worth tracking anyway.

Hence the PLs, grouped around the points value clusters (CTA was, originally, a points-based game).

The only real downside is that one-on-one duels can easily be one-sided, which makes it a fleet level game. The balance comes across the entire fleet list, not individual ships. However, that is more a function of the number of models used, rather than the scoring system - remember Battleships A and B. Will B always win? Will it be a more or lessa 50/50 split? Or will Battleship A claim more victories, if its weapons are geared towards blatting other battleships, while B is dedicated to a more global role?

Just a bit of design philosophy Wouldn't work for, say, BF Evo. Works for these games.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

You can still get silly fleets with the PL system. Someone will always take a war ship and a pair of skirmish ships to a 5 point raid game, or thirty odd patrol ships to a 5 point battle game.

Either system is open to abuse, you just have to hope the players have the sense to build balanced fleets and play intelligently.

 

[MongooseMatt]

You can still get silly fleets with the PL system. Someone will always take a war ship and a pair of skirmish ships to a 5 point raid game, or thirty odd patrol ships to a 5 point battle game.

You can take all Gretchin in an Ork army (first example that sprang to mind!). The balance is not built into every army/fleet a player creates, but into the fleet list entire.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I'm not sure you can take all Gretchin any more, but your point is taken. The PL system or more "traditional" points systems are just two ways of doing the same thing - regulating the size of a game and placing some limits on what a player can and can't have in a "typical" force for their army, race or whatever. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is perfect.

No offence intended, Matt.

 

[weasel_fierce]

paraphrased from the venerable warhammer 40.000 Rogue Trader "any points system can only be a rough estimate and no stand-in for decent scenario writing"

 

[Larac]

paraphrased from the venerable warhammer 40.000 Rogue Trader "any points system can only be a rough estimate and no stand-in for decent scenario writing"

Three Cheers for that!

Lee

 

[Kadorak]

I will actually say, I found the PL system in ACTA seriously problematic (my reasons for which have been elaborated elsewhere), but I think it's much better in VaS. I don't know if others who didn't like the ACTA PL system would agree with me, but I like the VaS PL system better for the following reasons:

1. "In Service Dates" in ACTA were almost never used, and with good reason. Many fleets have very few ships at certain dates, if any, and there's a gigantic spread. While many players may know B5 history on a larger scale, the history of B5 ship design is only known (to the extent it's known at all) to some tiny set of people who played and read all the old B5Wars stuff, all the fan things that came out for it, all the RPG stuff and so on =p On the other hand, the dates various ships came into service in VaS work very well, and likely will work even better with more classes modeled via S&P, as they emulate a historical progression. Historically, of course, there was a lot of pressure to have semi-'balanced' fleets in service at a particular date due to the fact you wouldn't want to get invaded, vs. just the pressure of a book writer looking over a set of dates and trying to compare them

2. The ships are generally of the same basic class and purpose and were often *designed* to supplant eachother. Why would you take a Colorado class battleship over an Iowa class if both are available? They cost the same and the Iowa outmatches the Colorado in every discernable manner. But this makes sense because historically, given the choice, why would you take the Colorado? No sane commander would have, surely! Whereas in ACTA certain ships are literally superior in every way, while the inferior ship is supposed to be the primary ship of the fleet and in constant production!

3. VaS is designed to be a simulation, though not an incredibly detailed one. No space combat game is truly a 'simulation' in the same sense; it captures a certain 'feel' of combat, but doesn't aim to simulate exact ships that are carved in stone. Nobody would howl if you changed the weapons on the Centauri ships (as you are doing I believe), at least not because it violates 'realism'. If you altered the armament on the Bismark (other than in a hypothetical variant), I think people would be a bit annoyed Because of this, you also don't seem completely constrained by the PLs and thus don't need to try and absolutely balance the ships and thus pidgeonhole all ship abilities into one of 5 exact levels. Historical realism is an obvious excuse.

4. You have many more readily available scenarios or basis for scenarios with specific rosters of participants to replace a simple point battle system.

The other big advantage is that most people drawn to VaS are probably going to want to recreate things that are vaguely historical, and have some sort of attachment to history. Thus I suspect you will see 'inferior' ship classes still appearing quite frequently, even outside scenarios where they are mandatory. Nonetheless for any PL system to work, I think it relies (even more than a point system, though obviously this is IMO) on the two players wanting to have fun and be semi-faithful to reality. If you don't specify a date and just powergame, many highly prolific and well decorated ship classes will likely never leave their harbors.

But all that was rambling on and on as a distraction from...bravo Matthew Sprange & Mongoose! The PL system works very well in this game.

 

[weasel_fierce]

that, and sometimes its fun to play with the underdogs

A while ago, a friend of mine and I played a game of Crossfire (WW2 mini's game). I was fielding a company of polish "volunteers" for the Red Army, while his force consisted of Luftwaffe crew given rifles.

After the initial bursts of machine gun fire, everything was pretty much hiding in the dirt, and it became a fun game trying to motivate some troops to resume the attack, and try to win a few yards of ground somewhere.


Sometimes, using the piddly stuff makes for a fun change.

 

[Court Jester]

We played some games today... 5 point raids... and yes in one of the the USN player took an Iowa-class Battleship. Needless to say it gave a good drubbing to the IJN. Surviving 9-10 Torpedo attacks it singlehandedly sunk the entire Japanese fleet. As far as we could see the IJN could not have stopped the Iowa without resorting to their own heavy guns...

 

[Jammybee]

The PL system is all good untill you get to the battle/war levels, Hood versus Iowa/Yamoto anyone?

 

[Poi]

We played some games today... a 5 point raids... and yes in one of the the USN player took an Iowa-class Battleship. Needless to say it gave a good drubbing to the IJN. Surviving 9-10 Torpedo attacks it singlehandedly sunk the entire Japanese fleet. As far as we could see the IJN could not have stopped the Iowa without resorting to their own heavy guns...

The Iowa was only taken down to 30 damage left. The Fletcher was lost, my 6 fighters held off the Japs.
It was fun, but a little too one sided.

 

[Court Jester]

The PL system is all good untill you get to the battle/war levels, Hood versus Iowa/Yamoto anyone?

Aye that seems to be the way of it... the Yamoto bests the Iwoa which in turn bests the Hood...

 

[BuShips]

Aye that seems to be the way of it... the Yamoto bests the Iwoa which in turn bests the Hood...

Well, as Adm. Halsey didn't make use of TF34 at Leyte (off Samar), we'll never know will we? It would have been interesting to find out what Yamato could have really done to an armor belt designed to stop 18.6" projectiles. For those that don't know, the Yamato's primary armament mounted 18.1" guns. I'll grant that a lucky hit by any BB on another can do some nasty things, especially in the superstructure area. For a dual lesson on that, read up on the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The Kirishima put some rounds into the superstructure of the South Dakota and then the Washington returned the favor but a bit more permanently. If kept at long ranges, plunging fire dominates then and deck armor becomes the primary factor.

This is as close as we'll ever know, but is an interesting little story. The armor plate below was a "yard item" found in Japan post-war. It just happens to be 26" of front plate turret armor (same as what was on Yamato) and was most likely (my guess) taken from the Yamato's sister Shinano which was completed as a carrier. The armor was test shot at a simulated range of 30,000 yards and obviously penetrated. The gun was a 16"/45 that was removed from the South Dakota when it was repaired (from the battle above). It was relined and used as a test gun at Dahlgren, Virginia. Keep in mind that although the 2,700 AP projectile is the same that is used in the Iowa class, the Iowa had an improved 16"/50 cal. gun. I like to call it a 16" magnum. :wink:

 

[Poi]

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.

 

[Soulmage]

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.

I've got no problem with this. The PL level as established encourages you to take ships appropriate for the Priority Level you are playing at.

You get less bang for your buck by trying to load up on swarms of little ships from low priority levels than you do by taking ships closer to the actual priority level of the scenario.

That, IMO, is a good built in control against "zerg rushing" somebody's War fleet with 1 million and a half destroyers!

 

[Poi]

:?: The 12 destroyers vs one War level battleship has everything closer to Raid than playing it all at War, the exact reverse of what you said.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

No, because at Raid, both sides' choices are two PLs away from the game PL. At Battle, the War choice is more appropriate than the Patrol choices, and at War the Patrol choices are at the other end of the scale.

 

[Poi]

No, because at Raid, both sides' choices are two PLs away from the game PL. At Battle, the War choice is more appropriate than the Patrol choices, and at War the Patrol choices are at the other end of the scale.

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.