Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anyone interested in reviving the point system for unit values?
09-02-2013, 01:15 PM,
#11
RE: Anyone interested in reviving the point system for unit values?
You're spot on Vince, as one would expect from a person in your profession. Wait till you're 63 and losing it like me :-).
Reply
09-03-2013, 12:57 AM,
#12
RE: Anyone interested in reviving the point system for unit values?
Plloyd, you're spot on on the point totals of the original system. The book suggests building 1,000 point forces. That might work on a single map, but for a 3 mapper 4,500 point force levels are more appropriate. Plus of course there needs to be quantification of the value of minefields, dug in at start forces, entrenchments, pill boxes, and delayed reinforcements.
Reply
09-05-2013, 04:42 AM,
#13
Some numbers to chew on.
I put together a spreadsheet of Larry's PG1 numbers, applicable C&C values, and costs from Steel Panthers:WaW. I left out The PB/PL calculations, but I could add them if they are determined to be important enough. Each point list has advantages and short comings. The 2 PG lists are just there, but are incomplete in regards to the game system. SP:WaW has an example of nearly everything in the PG universe. It does have the obvious issue of being from a different system.

My notes are commented in the spreadsheet. Microsoft does (or did) have an open document plugin for MS-Office, if you don't have an open format suite installed. I also included the pdf output if you would rather just guess as what I was thinking.Angel


Attached Files
.ods   Point Values.ods (Size: 18.23 KB / Downloads: 10)
.pdf   Point Values.pdf (Size: 28.31 KB / Downloads: 16)
... More and more, people around the world are coming to realize that the world is flat! Winking
Reply
09-05-2013, 04:51 AM,
#14
RE: Some numbers to chew on.
Oh yeah, for those who don't know. C&C has non-AFV and AFV purchase points. So the tanks and such are not purchased with the same "money". Also artillery is provided as per battle type and size. Leaders are drawn based on the battle size and number of non-AFV combat units purchased.
... More and more, people around the world are coming to realize that the world is flat! Winking
Reply
09-07-2013, 08:08 AM,
#15
RE: Anyone interested in reviving the point system for unit values?
No point system is useful unless you can do something with it. Umpteen years ago, Panzerblitz Situation "X" appeared in the General. About 6 years later a somewhat improved version for Panzer Leader emerged. I've cleaned them up a bit for this post (I love good OCR software).

There are obvious issues with these DYO systems as they are. First is that the scenario points are for PB/PL games. But they make a fairly good relative guide. The second is maps. 3 PB/PL boards make a nice 22 x 28 map, PG boards do that so well. Critical terrain in each sector is less defined in PG.

A third, though more generic, consideration is that in most point systems units, especially AFV's are cheaper in early war scenarios. This usually means that purchase points need to be scaled. C&C looks more attractive when viewed through that lens.

Anyway, here they are. Maybe someone will get some ideas from them.


Attached Files
.pdf   PB SitX.pdf (Size: 843.35 KB / Downloads: 15)
.pdf   PL SitX.pdf (Size: 970.63 KB / Downloads: 14)
... More and more, people around the world are coming to realize that the world is flat! Winking
Reply
12-20-2013, 08:42 AM,
#16
RE: Anyone interested in reviving the point system for unit values?
(09-07-2013, 08:08 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: No point system is useful unless you can do something with it. Umpteen years ago, Panzerblitz Situation "X" appeared in the General. About 6 years later a somewhat improved version for Panzer Leader emerged. I've cleaned them up a bit for this post (I love good OCR software).

There are obvious issues with these DYO systems as they are. First is that the scenario points are for PB/PL games. But they make a fairly good relative guide. The second is maps. 3 PB/PL boards make a nice 22 x 28 map, PG boards do that so well. Critical terrain in each sector is less defined in PG.

A third, though more generic, consideration is that in most point systems units, especially AFV's are cheaper in early war scenarios. This usually means that purchase points need to be scaled. C&C looks more attractive when viewed through that lens.

Anyway, here they are. Maybe someone will get some ideas from them.

Gents,
I'm glad to have stumbled across your ideas. I was an admirer of Situation X for both PB and PL, and did many DYO games with buddies using their point system, flawed as it was. Larry, could you please explain in more detail the formula you are using because it does not seem to add up for me? I've also been playing with some of the factors like initiative and morale besides the issues you guys have raised (like diminishing returns at longer ranges for DF and AT, and DF vs. BF--especially range). I've already rebuilt the board layout rules and cobbled all the scenarios together and tweaked them to be more PG-friendly.

My plan is that AP can sell this as a book, with all the OBs included plus the game setup rules, even a deck of modified cards perhaps (rather than standard card decks).
Cheers,
John
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: