Target AC point values for next FSO

[Viper61]

Just an FYI to all to review the point values of the AC you fly and the ground targets you defend or attack.  (See the current point values for this FSO)

In short the Point Values are high for the AC and very low for the ground targets.  In fact in some cases the lose of a two AC can negate the points gained by the distruction of a single hanger.  Example:  Point value of a 2 X AR234 (50) or 2 X B-26's (40) vs. a hanger (25)

So sending in waves of high value AC will probably end in a loss of the frame for that side.  And that "landing" AC and saving them can net as many points as the complete distruction of some targets.  So CIC's plan wisely.  Squad CO's fly wisely.   

So the name of the game will be to save AC and pilots "if" you want to win the frame.  Suiside attacks to a target can result in more points lost than gained.  Likewise suicide defense's of a low value target can result in a loss as well.  So know the "value" of your squad before you engage.  And know the "value" of your target you attack or defend before you decide to say "follow me" or "all for one and one for all".

Personally I like this point method myself something I know Stoney started pushing a few years ago to stop a more MA style of human wave assaults in the FSO.  Which is further highlighted by the higher turnouts we are seeing within the FSO.  Personally I like the higher point value on the AC vs. the ground targets and hope we see more of it.

As a squad level planner (325th VFG) I would like to see a stabilization to the FSO point system if possible.  There can be a pretty wide tolerance from FSO scenario to FSO scenario dependent upon who plans it or controls it from what I see.  It would be nice to stabilize the point values if possible.  One less issue to deal with as a planner going into missions.

Viper 61
Operations Officer
325th VFG 

[Squire]

Appreciate the feedback and interest in this. The bottom line is; its hard to have a "standardized pt" system for FSO and the reason is very simple. No two FSOs are the same. The a/c types, side ratios, terrains, objectives, ect, can vary widely. Each design the Admins have to look at and try to find a balance in the mix and I can tell you its not easy. If we had an established pt system, what would happen would be that certain setups would beclome inherently "unfair" and then players would complain, and rughtfully so, that their side had zero chance of winning a frame. A "customized pt" approach ensures we can have free reign on designs and try as wide an area as we possibly can, from 8th AF over Germany in 1944, to Burma 1942, to the Med in 1941, to Okinawa in 1945, to the BoB 1940, to the Ardennes in 1944.

That being said, I try to keep my pt system "familiar" if not "standardized".

 

[AKKuya]

Just to express a certain point in the idea of putting high value on select aircraft to discourage the MA mentality of 'suicide waves and everyman for themself', would be the players of the high value aircraft may decide to turn back and not engage should the tactical situation be more at thier disadvantage.  This would happen on a rare occasions.

I like the idea of a point system that would place more points on higher performance aircraft and less points on lower performance aircraft.  The ENY rating system in the MA for the aircraft is a great example (ex. Spitfire 16 vs A6M2).  Bombers should always have a much higher value than fighters.  This would put more emphasis on escorting and protecting in which the FSO's are based on.

Point system for ground targets are always extra icing for the cake. 

Just my 2 cents.  

[Stoney]

A troop factory will be worth a total of 192.5 potential points to the Allies, if they destroy every single object.  That means the Allies can only lose 9 B-26s attacking it, or else they get zero net gain for that objective.  This doesn't count any escorts they might lose defending the bombers.

A small airfield will be worth a total of 187.4 potential points to the Allies.
A med airfield will be worth 259.1 points
A large airfield will be worth 371.7 points
A city will be worth 390.5 points (and has 135 objects to destroy)

Historically, an outstanding mission against a strat target in FSO results in about 65% destruction of the target (not counting follow-on strafing attacks)

[MachNix]

You could also consider moral values when assigning point values.  The Japanese attitude during WWII was that it was better to die in battle than to fail.  A pilot who was wounded or in a damage aircraft would look for a target to ram rather then try to return back to base.  Where as on the Allied side, the pilot with his newly acquired skills and experience -- regardless if that experience was in success or failure -- was considered important and worth saving.  Not to mention the pilot wanting to survive and go home after the war.

Setting up the point values in the Rangoon Sunrise event for example should have reflected these attitudes and made the point value for the Axis rides very cheap and the Allied rides and objects very expensive.  The Axis should have gotten their points by a combination of air kills and objects destroyed whereas the Allies should have gotten their points by objects protected and less on kills.   If you consider this past Rangoon event as being an "average" result, you could then play with the point values for the aircraft and objects so that average event would be a draw and then use those values the next time Rangoon Sunrise is used again.

As a side note, I flew for the Allied side and felt that the Allies where at the disadvantage.  We did not have the fire power to kill them fast enough to keep them away from the targets and the Axis should have gotten big points for hitting the targets.  In the final frame, the Axis did a great job of getting their D3As and B-25s to A7 at the same time and the outcome should not have looked so one-sided for the Allies.

In FSO the point system is supposed to be the incentive to perform a mission -- other than rules like having to hit a target with a creditable-size force within 60 minuets of start of frame -- but there are two sides to the point system.  One side is directly earning points by shooting down the enemy, destroying object, successfully completing a recon mission, surviving, etc.  The other side is preventing the enemy form earning points by shooting them down before they can shoot you down, destroy objects, complete a recon mission, or land successfully.  Bomber and attack aircraft should have the potential to earn more points in destroyed objects then the cost of the pilots and airframes lost in getting bombs on the target.  It is the only way to create the incentive to attack.  For example, let’s say in an "average" bomber mission you loose 30% of your bombers getting to the target and loose another 30% on the trip home, the 70% of the bombers that dropped (plus the 40% that land successfully) should have the potential -- if they bomb with "average" accuracy -- to earn enough point to break even.  Otherwise, there is no reason to attack.

The frame's outcome should, IMO, be decided by objects destroyed for Attack/Defend scenarios and not on air kills.  The bomber escorts are there to try and get more bombers (and bombs) to the target to destroy objects.  The defenders are there not so mush to earn points by shooting down bombers, but to keep the bombers from destroying objects and earning points.  Killing a bomber before it gets its bombs off is a huge win for the defenders.  Killing a bomber after it has dropped its bomb should not automatically put the defender on the plus side of the equation.

The only reason the system has worked thus far is, typically, both sides have to attack and defend.  When the setup is only one side attacks and the other defends, the scoring system favors the defenders and you get outcomes like we saw in Rangoon Sunrise.  The point system did not give the Axis any incentive to attack.  But attack they did.  Was it because of their MA Mentality to commit suicide or because they knew that is what it takes to get to the FSO's Happy Hunting Grounds?

<S>
MachNix

[Squire]

Im not critiquing Rangoon or any other FSO but:

We have had FSOs where just one side attacked, its nothing new. Pt systems exist because the players want a winner and a loser, and they ask for a way to score the frames. Its human nature, we score everything, even golf. Thats why we do it.

Designing an overly complicated system about bombers is not required. If you shoot down a B-25 on its way to the target, not only do you get the pts for the bomber, but you ensure that its side gets less grnd pts. Thats why hitting them before they drop is always a better idea, and mirrors real life cosequences as well. Pts systems vary to have the possibility that one side or the other can win the frame. Sometimes it works, sometimes it might be harder than the designer thought. Those things happen.

Incentive to attack? because this isnt a game about Grand Diplomacy, its a conflict. Your sides CiC isnt asking you to attack, they are ordering you to. That, and its why you showed up? and your squadmates are expecting you to be there, not sitting on a virtual beach in "2nd Life" drinking a virtual pina-colada  

[DrDea]

 Ive found that if Im worried about points I forget all about that whole fun side to it when a good fight is had and we have a good time with it. Thats when everyone wins.

[FiLtH]

     I think alot of us view the mission success by how hard we tried to accomplish it. If a target is worth 10 points, and you send in 20, 1 point aircraft to destroy it, why even go?

     Really though, it doesnt matter that much. The idea is, that is YOUR mission. The fun in this for our squad is being given the mission and trying to pull it off.

     The way I look at it is if the target was too cheap compared to the potential losses...dont send them there.

[daddog]

Was watching this thread. Kinda waiting to see what ideas might pop up.

As a squad level planner (325th VFG) I would like to see a stabilization to the FSO point system if possible.  There can be a pretty wide tolerance from FSO scenario to FSO scenario dependent upon who plans it or controls it from what I see.  It would be nice to stabilize the point values if possible.  One less issue to deal with as a planner going into missions.

I would too. In the 9 or so years FSO has been in existence I can go back and find at least three threads concerning that in the CM forums. It has been something I have wanted for a long time, but it is inherently problematic since we don't have standard setup's.

To have a standard point scoring system in FSO we would have to have a standard setup system. I don't think we will ever have that as Squire pointed out. Each Admin CM will put a different emphasis on their design. One design might highlight the importance of ground targets while others may make survival in the air paramount. Still other designs might want players to simply to experience combat between certain AC or even ground vehicles. Photo missions, specific ground targets, level bombing strat, trains, trucks, shipping, CV battles, destroyer groups, fighter sweeps and a host of others ideas contribute to designs in FSO and depending on the spin an Admin CM wants on his design the point value of targets will shift.

I go back and forth on having a standard point scoring system for FSO, but IMHO that would ultimately hamstring designs, despite the consistency it would bring and many of us would appreciate.

[Krusty]

On the other hand, points for planes also leads to negative aspects of gameplay, as well. Back in the day the goal was the point of flying. For example, I recall one mission where the goal was to engage enemy fighters over France while bombers got through. Our SpitVs ran into 190As, 109Fs, etc... We let folks go that were "out of the fight" and at times they did too.

You add points and 300+ more players and the end result is that any side that gets even a slight advantage over the other dogpiles and relentlessly chases them down for the "glory" of padding their scores and their kills.

Adding points to planes only serves to penalize the losing side. IMO it only is useful in a battle that has NO ground targets and NO bombers/attackers in it. Only in pure fighters-v-fighters should it be used IMO.

Otherwise you should focus the points on objectives that don't reward the side already winning. Make it based on attack craft success, bomber survival, target destruction, etc.... But don't just make it "kill X planes to win" -- that's a bad thing in FSO IMO.

[Spikes]

The thing that was brought up during TFB was points vs objectives. For instance, the special weapon for Germany was being transported from Denmark to Norway. The Allies never attacked it, or attempted to. This weapon reached Norway and could blow up half of england, etc.

Now if it were objective based, more resources would have been committed to finding the high priority objective rather than deacking every base on Denmark and Norway for points. Now, if both sides accomplish objectives somehow (ie if there are a defense and attack role for both), it could fall back to possibly planes killed or something. If the allies bomb their target and save one of their fields. That is two objectives completed for them. If the Axis complete two objectives, it is a draw.

It would require some extra thought, but I'm sure it would help out this situation.

I also think that it might be possible that if one side is totally defense, they get extra points for bringing down the opposing side's prized plane, such as bombers. This would open the door for dweeby, attack NOE at 59 minute mark, but it also might invite some tactical planning into it. Such as saving a squadron or two for that expected attack late in the t+60 area. This also invites a healthy, huge air battle. It would be interesting to see this, so there would have to be only one of two objectives very near each other.

[Squire]

"I also think that it might be possible that if one side is totally defense, they get extra points for bringing down the opposing side's prized plane, such as bombers."

Its been done. Otherwise the defenders have no chance to win a frame.

"This would open the door for dweeby, attack NOE at 59 minute mark"

I have not seen this happen too often, the bottom line is the targets are known ahead of time, NOE attacks usually result in extremely high bomber losses as well as escorts.

"so there would have to be only one of two objectives very near each other."

With the usual threads of " we flew for an hour and saw no planes, we are bored, how come nobody attacked us?". Been there done that. Im fine with it but are you guys ok with maybe CAPing a target that gets bypassed?  

"Our SpitVs ran into 190As, 109Fs, etc... We let folks go that were "out of the fight" and at times they did too"

The kill hungry will not abide by that...those that want to rtb will. Thats not a function of pts, its a function of the players in that fight. Some dive through field ack and go "Kamikaze" to get a kill (and be likely killed), others will not do that. You have seen plenty of that im sure.

Not having pts for fighters? it means you can lose as many as you like without any real consequences to the frame, how does that in any way promote survival as a goal? Just have bombers worth pts? you get suicide ramming dead 6 attacks with gondola fighters screaming BANZAI!!!!!!!!! thats what you get. Or Jabo-kazes trying to "close" some base and practically following their bombs into the hangers to "win". Assigning a/c pts makes sure that losing them frivolously is a costly strategy. Thats why the players asked for a "landing bonus" is it not?

...Wether you use pts, count planes or count bases, if you want a "winner" and a "loser" in FSO you will have to quantify it somehow. Im not sure that the actual quality of the gameplay will be changed all that much by choosing one over the other. Also, trying to figure out a "fair" system will be no easier, since FSOs are usually original designs, and predicting loss rates, or how many objectives can be completed, ect, is extremely difficult sometimes. Ask anybody that has ever designed an SEA event; Scenario, Snapshot, FSO or anything else.

[Spikes]

"I also think that it might be possible that if one side is totally defense, they get extra points for bringing down the opposing side's prized plane, such as bombers."

Its been done. Otherwise the defenders have no chance to win a frame.

"This would open the door for dweeby, attack NOE at 59 minute mark"

I have not seen this happen too often, the bottom line is the targets are known ahead of time, NOE attacks usually result in extremely high bomber losses as well as escorts.

"so there would have to be only one of two objectives very near each other."

With the usual threads of " we flew for an hour and saw no planes, we are bored, how come nobody attacked us?". Been there done that. Im fine with it but are you guys ok with maybe CAPing a target that gets bypassed? 

Fact of the matter is you are never going to get it perfect. I know this, but I think trying, or retrying new things once in a while may be of benefit.

How would fighters not see any action of there were only 2 objectives, or even 1 objective? Especially if they were close together. Chances are you would get a massive force together, and then a smaller attack group would split off to the secondary target. Make it so both targets must be hit? (Is that how it is currently?).

I am just throwing ideas out. It seems as though something new would like to be tried. I just learned a lot from TFB and we had a 'group meeting' between the two sides on how to make it better.

[Krusty]

"Our SpitVs ran into 190As, 109Fs, etc... We let folks go that were "out of the fight" and at times they did too"

The kill hungry will not abide by that...those that want to rtb will. Thats not a function of pts, its a function of the players in that fight. Some dive through field ack and go "Kamikaze" to get a kill (and be likely killed), others will not do that. You have seen plenty of that im sure.

I disagree. It's a function more of the player base than of individual players. The majority of FSO players nowadays follow enemy to the ends of the earth, chasing down every last enemy they can find once they get the slimmest of numbers advantages. They never break off unless the rules say "don't fly past this line" -- often chasing targets hundreds of miles JUST to make the losing side suffer that much more. It's unhonoarble to some extent (as much as can be said in a video game)

Not having pts for fighters? it means you can lose as many as you like without any real consequences to the frame, how does that in any way promote survival as a goal? Just have bombers worth pts? you get suicide ramming dead 6 attacks with gondola fighters screaming BANZAI!!!!!!!!! thats what you get. Or Jabo-kazes trying to "close" some base and practically following their bombs into the hangers to "win". Assigning a/c pts makes sure that losing them frivolously is a costly strategy. Thats why the players asked for a "landing bonus" is it not?

Ramming is not a valid tactic in AH. Suidice jabo won't ever happen because it more often than not takes more than one plane to kill any given hangar. Your comments don't ring true here. It's not the case that everybody instantly wants to die for points. It IS the case that they may decide "You know, it's not worth my gas and ammo to chase these guys away for no extra points when my strat needs defending" -- which going by my own experiences and going by others' lamentationon this forum, most folks forget the objectives and go kill-hunting. It's so bad you might as well call it what it is: Stats Pading from a Horde. Nobody likes it in the MAs, and basically the same rings true in FSO.

[daddog]

How would fighters not see any action of there were only 2 objectives, or even 1 objective? Especially if they were close together. Chances are you would get a massive force together, and then a smaller attack group would split off to the secondary target. Make it so both targets must be hit? (Is that how it is currently?).

As it stands now even with each side having to attack, defend, or escort to a target some don't see action. Rare, but it happens. The success of FSO has much to do with everyone seeing action. I am not keen on targets that 'might' be attacked, but 'must' be defended. Can make for a long two hours if no one shows up. To answer your question every target must be attacked by the 60 minute mark. That way everyone is guaranteed action. Having targets next to each other create a sky full of AC. In the past we have guys getting shot down and never seeing who shot them. With the updates that is not so much an issue any more, but I generally don't want to see 200 AC fighting in one sector.

I disagree. It's a function more of the player base than of individual players. The majority of FSO players nowadays follow enemy to the ends of the earth, chasing down every last enemy they can find once they get the slimmest of numbers advantages. They never break off unless the rules say "don't fly past this line" -- often chasing targets hundreds of miles JUST to make the losing side suffer that much more. It's unhonoarble to some extent (as much as can be said in a video game)

First off your making the assumption it is the guy on the losing side that is being chased. We have all been chased a long way and being in the winning or losing side is irrelevant.

I think most chase the guy down because they want to get another kill and have some successful action. I doubt many are thinking, “Ya, I can get another 10 points for my side if I get this guy!”.   They are just having fun!  I think the flip side is also true. When a player gets shot down they don't think, “Darn, I lost 10 points for my side!”. They are talking to their squadies hoping one of them will get that guy!

Your comments don't ring true here. It's not the case that everybody instantly wants to die for points. It IS the case that they may decide "You know, it's not worth my gas and ammo to chase these guys away for no extra points when my strat needs defending"

 
I don't see that happening. The only reason someone might break off from chasing an enemy would be:
1.They think they can't catch him.
2.He has friends coming.
3.Too far and too boring. Might have better luck elsewhere.
4.C.O. or flight leader asks them to break off for various reasons.

I am not sure that players will be any more concerned for strat if their AC are not worth points. Squad/Players defend strat because they know they will see action. If we just put up targets and told everyone to attack and defend what they want, players will fly toward the action, every time. Squad/Players defend strat because it is a rule and they know they will see action.

Points in FSO satisfy the competitive among us who wants to know if they won or lost.
Points in FSO offer some kind of guideline to CM's to see if the event as as balanced as they hoped it would.
Beyond that points don't do much when your in a fight and I certainly don't think they do much to alter the behavior of the general players.