Should we bin the PL system in VAS

[Court Jester]

I'll still play it however it works out...

Glad to hear it, as I'll be using one against you tonight.

No, you will play John... The Japanese actually have a chance against your raid level Battleships... :wink:

THen maybe I'll play...

 

[Poi]

John would also like to try out his new Vree, so bring some spaceships as well.

 

[Burger]

John would also like to try out his new Vree, so bring some spaceships as well.

A Yamato can take out the Vree, no problem.

 

[tneva82]

In the end doesn't matter much. Both points and priority levels are flawed in core as far as balance is concerned and give invariably unbalanced values...

PL however has additional features point system cannot duplicate...

So it's choise between 2 flawed system, one that has extra features.

 

[Soulmage]

Been thinking a lot about this. . .

The PL system is not inherently flawed. . . its just not fine enough in its distinctions.

It would work beautifully if they just went to a PL system that had 7 classifications rather than 5. For instance, I have no problem grouping the Iowa and the Yamato at the same PL level. But I agree that it doesn't fit to match them against he King George V or Bismarck.

It should be acceptable that some navies will just not have an entry at a given level. If they didn't build something historically within a given power bracket, so be it. But the PL system won't penalize them because their less (or more) powerful ships will be appropriately priced for how powerful they are.

A point system OTOH for a game of this type is inherently flawed. When you only have a half dozen or so units, you will ALWAYS have unusued points. So the people who support a system where a few points is a meaningful difference, are overlooking the fact that one side or the other will always be down a few points. It doesn't really offer any advantage over the current PL system either!

Increasing the point cost of ships doesn't really help either as you're just adding extra digits, but the problem of coming in at the exact point level is still an issue.

PL is definitely the better option, it just needs to have a little finer level of granularity!

 

[tneva82]

The PL system is not inherently flawed. . . its just not fine enough in its distinctions.

Point values are flawed. PL is just another type of point value system. Consequently it too is flawed.

 

[Burger]

A point system OTOH for a game of this type is inherently flawed. When you only have a half dozen or so units, you will ALWAYS have unusued points. So the people who support a system where a few points is a meaningful difference, are overlooking the fact that one side or the other will always be down a few points.

For some example figures... say the Yamato is 50 points, and we are going to play a 50 point game. The King George V is 30 points, Queen Elizabeth is 15 points, and J/K/L is 5 points. Surely that is a much fairer fight than a Yamato vs a George V?

The point is that patrol and skirmish ships would be bought with the "leftover" points. So you'd have one good BB, versus a poor BB with some small extras to make up for it.

 

[Court Jester]

For some example figures... say the Yamato is 50 points, and we are going to play a 50 point game. The King George V is 30 points, Queen Elizabeth is 15 points, and J/K/L is 5 points. Surely that is a much fairer fight than a Yamato vs a George V?

The point is that patrol and skirmish ships would be bought with the "leftover" points. So you'd have one good BB, versus a poor BB with some small extras to make up for it.

Thats how I see it but it appears the PL is loved by too many...

Indeed to balance th PL system you would need 9-10PL's instead of 5. All VaS has shown is how inflexable the PL system is.

So it's choise between 2 flawed system, one that has extra features.

I'd like to aks what bonuses the PL system has that a points system does not, regarding that statement...

It should be acceptable that some navies will just not have an entry at a given level. If they didn't build something historically within a given power bracket, so be it. But the PL system won't penalize them because their less (or more) powerful ships will be appropriately priced for how powerful they are.

That is all perfectly fine and dandy but the fact is that PL is penalizing them. British Battleships are lumped in with the US and IJN battleships that are much more powerful. If anything a points system would not penalize them as they would be less points...

The problem with adding multiple PL's to the game is that it then becomes an overly complicated way of picking a fleet as the Armageddon point splitting prooved by just adding an extra PL.

 

[Soulmage]

[/quote]I'd like to aks what bonuses the PL system has that a points system does not, regarding that statement... [/quote]

1. Under a point system, you will ALWAYS have leftover points that won't get used when you are talking about a small number of units with fixed point values. A PL system ensures that each side uses all the points allocated to them.

2. A PL system tends to promote more realistic fleet distribution. Under a point system you could buy a bunch of battleships and then 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer to take up excess points.

Under a PL system, if you are playing a high PL and spend ANY points on destroyers, you are going to get a whole squadron.

3. PL system is faster than a point system.

That is all perfectly fine and dandy but the fact is that PL is penalizing them. British Battleships are lumped in with the US and IJN battleships that are much more powerful. If anything a points system would not penalize them as they would be less points...

My statement had to do with a PL system with more PL classifications in it. A 7 PL system for instance.

The Brittish are not being penalized if their top battleships are War level and the Yamato is an Apocalypse level and the Brittish get 2 or 3 King George's for every Yamato.

I am just saying that it is ok under that situation if the Brittish don't have an Apocalypse level entry. Its a historically based game. If they didn't build one that powerful, so be it.

The problem with adding multiple PL's to the game is that it then becomes an overly complicated way of picking a fleet as the Armageddon point splitting prooved by just adding an extra PL.

Well, I haven't played ACTA so I don't know what you are referring to. But I would say whatever they came up with doesn't necessarily have to apply to VaS. A lot of ACTA players seem to be unable to get past that.

As far as point splitting goes. . . I think its a bad idea and wouldn't include it in VaS.

 

[Locutus9956]

The PL system was a nice idea when ACTA started out but as more and more ships were added to the system, it simply becomes too limiting having to fit them into only 5 or 6 slots. Ships end up getting luped to together when theyre clearly NOT equivalent to each other or end up getting designed for the PL rather than trying to make them good or realistic designs.

Points is not a magic solution but it simply allows you to asign a ship a TRUE value rather than a very general rating. If a ship is clearly better than another same PL ship but not so much so as to be worth 2 of them just increase its points cost etc etc.

It's not perfect but there IS a reason for so many games using points......

 

[Court Jester]

1. Under a point system, you will ALWAYS have leftover points that won't get used when you are talking about a small number of units with fixed point values. A PL system ensures that each side uses all the points allocated to them.

Not true... a PL system just hides those untidy excess points...

2. A PL system tends to promote more realistic fleet distribution. Under a point system you could buy a bunch of battleships and then 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer to take up excess points.

Again this is just not true. If you want you can abuse the PL system in just the same way.

Under a PL system, if you are playing a high PL and spend ANY points on destroyers, you are going to get a whole squadron.

Here you have a point, however a points system can be made to work in the same way. You cannot have more or one type pf ship than another and so on.

3. PL system is faster than a point system.

I'll let you have this one even though it really doesn't matter one bit if a points system takes an extra minute or two to work out or whatever...

That is all perfectly fine and dandy but the fact is that PL is penalizing them. British Battleships are lumped in with the US and IJN battleships that are much more powerful. If anything a points system would not penalize them as they would be less points...

I am just saying that it is ok under that situation if the Brittish don't have an Apocalypse level entry. Its a historically based game. If they didn't build one that powerful, so be it.

Not arguing with you there, in fact I don't thnik this was ever really a point in contention.

As far as point splitting goes. . . I think its a bad idea and wouldn't include it in VaS.

So in fact you do know what I was talking about... :wink:

Indeed it is a bad idea as it takes a relativly simple idea and makes it slightly too complicated to be worth it.

I think we can all agree that even if PL stay or whatever happens the CURRENT system is not working and no matter what we decide or argue over players will always have theor favourite system.

 

[Soulmage]

Not true... a PL system just hides those untidy excess points...

I will conceed that you are right on that one.

Soulmage wrote:
Under a PL system, if you are playing a high PL and spend ANY points on destroyers, you are going to get a whole squadron.

Here you have a point, however a points system can be made to work in the same way. You cannot have more or one type pf ship than another and so on.

You could do that. But now you've got a point system with all kinds of "validation rules" cluttering it up.

I'll let you have this one even though it really doesn't matter one bit if a points system takes an extra minute or two to work out or whatever...

My time is incredibly valuable dammit! LOL!!!

Its really a moot point anyway. We won't see any type of revision until VaS 2E is released. Probably 3 years away at a minimum!

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Well, I personally like the PL system much better then a points based system. Even a simple points based system will get complicated quickly, not to mention that there will always be leftover points.

I do agree that the Yamato and Iowa's need to be a higher priority level. KGV's don't match up very well against those ships.

It is a new game, there is bound to be issues with it. Take a look at the original ACTA rules. Stealth was rediculous, EA ships were horribly underpowered and the league didn't have any selection. This changed over time.

With Victory at Sea I would say that a Sky Full of Stars style update is pretty much guaranteed. An armaggeddon PL should also be added and some of the Late war ships added to the rosters such as the Indomitable, Indefagitable, Taiho, and Vanguard class ships. Also some Early war ships such as the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu class ships. The USN needs some of there 8" gun cruisers for the Raid level.

Japanesse Cruisers bearing the slow-loading torpedos shouls get bumped up a priority level. 8 inch guns that have 2 barrels on the turret should get the twin-linked option (just to show how much better it was then the 6" gun) and the 6" gun should lose the weak trait (they weren't that bad). The Illustrious should have the Armoured Deck (it was known for it) trait. The Yamato should have a pair of 8" turrets added to the ship (C and X turrets).

As for historical bearing, its a game so matching the ships up perfectly (Damage and Crew scores) is going to prove difficult. After all the Brooklyn was a light cruiser not a heavy cruiser, yet it has more damage capacity then most some heavies.

 

[Reaverman]

Its really a moot point anyway. We won't see any type of revision until VaS 2E is released. Probably 3 years away at a minimum!

You think?

Going by Mongoose's record, I'd say 6 months before they bring out a book with amendments to the current rules to rectify errors.