BKC4 Points

Started by fred., 28 February 2022, 08:31:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fred.

I'm having a play with creating a formula for generating points values for BKC4. As apparently Pete didn't create one initially, and all points where worked out by reference to other units. 

Leon has kindly shared the army lists with me, and I am working though those to get a good sized data set. 

On my current small data set, 1 anomaly has come out already SU-152 and KV-2

SU-152 is 190 pts, KV-2 is 225 

SU-152 has +5 speed, +20cm AT Range, Save 5, has no MGs rule
KV-2 is Save 4

Do people feel this is right, that a SU-152 is 35pts cheaper, when it is longer ranged, slightly quicker, but has a lower save?

In my current formula the SU-152 is 5pts more than the KV-2, which feels OK. 


2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Big Insect

Generally - with MBTs my own view is that the big drivers are
1) Protection (Armour)
2) Main Gun effect (so AT stats)
3) Speed is also important - yes, but is IMHO a secondary factor - unless it is a significant difference.

Are there any other Special Abilities in play at all here?
Sorry- I cannot remember off the top of my head - but usually there is a reduction in cost for restricted arc (as the SU-152 is an assault gun) where as the KV2 has a traversable turret*. NB: Low Profile doesn't apply to the SU-152 - as it might do to other assault guns, as it is a massive hulking great thing!
* although other factors such as fewer gun crew and restricted visibility will also play a role in downgrading the cost and causing restricted firing arcs.

The Su-152 was built using the chassis of a KV-1S heavy tank and weight approximately the same as the KV-1S and used the same V12 engine. The SU-152 weighs in at c.45 tons and the KV-1S c.44 tons as well.
So their speed should be roughly the same. However, the SU-185 was (in theory - based on manufacturers specs) faster (by 5mph) probably due to the lack of the weight associated with the turret.
The KV2 however was considerably heavier @ 52 tons (again using the same v12 engine), so it would be slower.

Historically, the SU-152 could have an 1× 12.7 mm DShK machine gun as an optional secondary armourment - but so few were actually added that it was deemed better to have them depicted without them. Also, most other MBTs have at least 2 MGs (as with the KV-1S & KV2) - in the case of a lot of Soviet heavy tanks 3 or even 4 MGs were not unusual!

The KV-1S has better frontal armour (90mm) compared to the SU-152 which has 75mm.
Whereas the KV2 has the same gun as the SU-152, but weights c.52 tons and has better frontal armour at 110mm.
It is much slower, at 17mph than the KV-1S (22mph) or the SU-185 (27mph).

It is a complex set of factors. Generally I'd work on increments of a full 5mph difference for the cost (jumps) of movement. Armour is tricky, as it is not just the thickness, but also the angle of deflection and a general overall defensive factor needs to be established.

Not sure if any of this is helpful .... ???


'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

fred.

QuoteNot sure if any of this is helpful .... ???
Not exactly!

I'm not questioning the stats given to different vehicles in BKC4 - I'm assuming that was covered well enough already. So the mapping of the real world stats to game stats isn't part of this problem.

What I am looking at is the comparison of in game stats for these 2 vehicles, which have pretty similar in game stats - other than the few factors I mentioned.

But they have a pretty big difference in points cost - largely driven by the KV2 having a better save (4+) despite it having shorter AT range, and being slower.

My question was in game terms do people feel the current points values (SU-152 is 190 pts, KV-2 is 225pts) feel about right? As my draft formula gets them about the same.
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Zinkala

I'm not nearly as experienced with BKC as some people here but I'll throw in my 2 cents. If you have a logical formula that is to be applied to all sides I'd trust it over the current points values. I've noticed a few discrepancies when trying to make forces for our games or trying to make stats for a unit not in the lists. Sometimes it seems like the designer just pulled the stats out of thin air.

My personal theory for points in a game is that they should be applied equally to all sides based on in game performance. I've never liked it when one list would discount the points compared to another for reasons like 'well they historically had more of unit X". I'd rather see that solved by allowing more total numbers of "unit X" in their list than having the exact same unit for less points. Should a T34 be cheaper for a soviet army compared to a captured german tank? I'd say no. It gets a bit trickier when you have army level rules differences that can affect the game like in BKC but that's a different topic.

fred.

Hi Zinkla

Good points - do you have some examples of units where the points seem wrong?

I agree that points should reflect the in game value of a unit. Rarity is a complex factor I'm not aware BKC attempts to do this via points - I think as the lists have limits this is largely to model rarity. 
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Big Insect

I am also not aware that rarity has any impact on individual units points values - that is covered off in the army list restrictions

Special Abilities are usually the thing that complicates the points calculations, in my experience.
Some of the SAs have greater 'value' than others. Some are also disadvantageous rather than advantageous. But there is also the question as to whether an SA has more value when applied to a certain unit than to others.

So a Tiger I (PzKpfw VI Ausf. H) is a great example of this.
Often described as being so 'over-engineered', in BKCIV terms you could add a host of plus and minus SA's to the core Tiger I's basic stats and easily end up with the unit so expensive as to be almost un-fieldable in a small game scenario. But also almost impossible to KO. So again, there is the question of game balance.

On the SU-152 (190 pts) v KV-2 (225pts) as long as the lack of MGs and more restricted arc of fire for the SU-152 is taken into account by your formula fred, then I think a comparable points cost seems very acceptable.

'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Zinkala

My comment about rarity/points wasn't specifically targeted at BKC. It's a long standing grumble from other games. BKC seems to be much less restrictive for choices than many games so I feel that having relatively balanced points is important. Started with some of the Micromark lists and have been making my own since. All our battles have generally been 1-2 battalions as a core and historically plausible support to fill out the points according to the scenario.

I've was heavily involved in trying to balance points in another game so understand how hard it is to satisfy people. Ultimately I settled for close enough on many things. Still like to see the rules applied equally to everybody in any game.

On the discrepancies, uhh I forget right now. Last year I was building fairly large german and british/canadian armies and it was in the stats when comparing units in different time periods. To get the units I wanted for my lists I had to sometimes pick from earlier periods in the rulebook. I'll try to see if I can find what I saw. Or maybe I'm just losing my mind which is always a possibility.  ;D

Inactive

29 April 2022, 01:31:06 AM #7 Last Edit: 29 April 2022, 02:22:24 AM by Atilla
Quote from: Big Insect on 07 March 2022, 10:43:00 AMI am also not aware that rarity has any impact on individual units points values - that is covered off in the army list restrictions

Special Abilities are usually the thing that complicates the points calculations, in my experience.
Some of the SAs have greater 'value' than others. Some are also disadvantageous rather than advantageous. But there is also the question as to whether an SA has more value when applied to a certain unit than to others.

So a Tiger I (PzKpfw VI Ausf. H) is a great example of this.
Often described as being so 'over-engineered', in BKCIV terms you could add a host of plus and minus SA's to the core Tiger I's basic stats and easily end up with the unit so expensive as to be almost un-fieldable in a small game scenario. But also almost impossible to KO. So again, there is the question of game balance.

On the SU-152 (190 pts) v KV-2 (225pts) as long as the lack of MGs and more restricted arc of fire for the SU-152 is taken into account by your formula fred, then I think a comparable points cost seems very acceptable.



I was just looking at this as I couldn't figure what the reason was for the points difference between the Churchill Mark III 6 pdr (170) and the Churchill VI 75 mm (210) when the stat line performance of them is exactly the same?  Only the limits differ.  I figured that it must be some kind of rarity factor but you say not.  Given that they both, obviously, have Tough, is there another reason I'm missing for the 40 point difference between the two? 

Following on from that the Mk VII Churchill was, AFAIK, armed with the same 75mm gun as the Mk VI and yet its AT drops to 3/60 from the VI which is at 4/80.  The increase in AP from the 1/40 of the III/VI I assume must be because of a change in the ammunition carried?  I can see why the VII increases in points to 220 over the VI due to it's heavier armour that is reflected in the Save value, this makes the 40 point difference between the III and the VI even harder to fathom.

I'm no expert on Churchills by any means and there may be a number of factors that need to be taken into account for pointing units in the game.  I'm just interested in what factors cause the 40 points difference between the III and the VI and the drop in AT performance of the same 75mm gun across two vehicles.

As a complete aside, in other rules that I use, the III and the VI are exactly the same save that the HE is higher in the VI 75mm (I this case matching that of the 75mm in the VII), the AT factor is the same is the same across the III, VI & VII with only the VII having the better save.  While BKC is clearly not that set of rules there surely has to be some justification for the points / performance differences?

I wonder if the improved HE capability of the 75 mm has been missed off the VI? Whether that alone would be worth a 40 point increase I'm not sure as I don't know the calculations used.  The only thing that should differentiate the VI from the VII is the increased armour thickness and whatever point increase that entails.  IMO the stats for the III, VI and VII should arguably be:

III: AP 1 / AT 4
VI: AP 3 / AT 4
VII: AP 3 / AT 4

At whatever ranges are considered appropriate but the ranges for the VI and the VII should be exactly the same, again, unless I'm missing something. 

Leon

The points in general are a little all over the place as there's never been a set formula for them.  Pete told us that he did it all from memory rather than a fixed system.
www.pendraken.co.uk - Now home to over 7000 products, including 4500 items for 10mm wargaming, plus MDF bases, Battlescale buildings, I-94 decals, Litko Gaming Aids, Militia Miniatures, Raiden Miniatures 1/285th aircraft, Red Vectors MDF products, Vallejo paints and much, much more!

Inactive

30 April 2022, 12:54:15 AM #9 Last Edit: 30 April 2022, 02:03:33 AM by Atilla
LOL, ah OK. The points value I'm not bothered about personally, the problem for me is the stat line difference between the 3 variants, there being no discernible reason for the difference in performance of the two 75mm guns.  It does look like the stats for the 3 variants have got a bit jumbled up at some stage. 

AFAIK the AP / AT for both 75mm armed tanks should be the same in terms of both effect and range, the difference between VI and VII being the higher Save of the latter due to the increased armour.  While the 75mm gun (be it the bored out Brtish 6 pdr or the US M2) had improved HE/AP capability that came at the expense of a slight drop in performance in terms of AT effect. Whether the difference in AT performance is significant enough to warrant a stat difference between the 6 pdr and the 75mm at this scale is perhaps debatable.

As to point values, I'm less bothered about points personally but some may use them.  Depends if the jump in the HE/AP effect from the III to the IV as per the book is seen as justifying a 40 point increase, especially given what should be a drop in AT performance; and then whether the increased armour save of the VII is worth just 10.  Always the problem when trying to establish point values. 

If the AT performance is considered worthy of a stat difference the stat lines for the 3 variants should arguably be:

Churchill III 6 pdr: AP 1/40, AT 4/60, Save 4 (170 points?)

Churchill VI 75mm: AP 3/80, AT 3/60, Save 4 (190 points?)

Churchill VII 75mm: AP 3/80, AT 3/60, Save 3 (210 points?)

I don't normally bother examining stats in detail but the stat lines for these 3 Churchill variants, for me at least, are out enough to revisit them, of course YMMV.

Orcs

I have only ever used points systems to give a general approximation of an equal force, mainly for club night games. I normally put a scenario together that gives both sides an objective that matches their capabilities rather than equals that of the enemy.

I would also suggest that unless you are playing games with rather small armies, even a 100 points difference between a force is not likely to swing the game much. Your dice rolling will have a far greater effect.

Many years ago one of my regular opponents had in his Dark Age collection a "small boy with stick" as one of his villagers.  He became the most feared opponent in any game we played. He took down Viking axemen, Saxon warriors and Norman knighhts with impunity. All of them would have been at least two or three  times his points cost, but he seemed to always be lucky with the dice.

Anyway what I am really saying, is that points on any rule system should be taken as a rough guide.
The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

Inactive

Quote from: Orcs on 30 April 2022, 02:18:24 AMI have only ever used points systems to give a general approximation of an equal force, mainly for club night games. I normally put a scenario together that gives both sides an objective that matches their capabilities rather than equals that of the enemy.

I would also suggest that unless you are playing games with rather small armies, even a 100 points difference between a force is not likely to swing the game much. Your dice rolling will have a far greater effect.

Many years ago one of my regular opponents had in his Dark Age collection a "small boy with stick" as one of his villagers.  He became the most feared opponent in any game we played. He took down Viking axemen, Saxon warriors and Norman knighhts with impunity. All of them would have been at least two or three  times his points cost, but he seemed to always be lucky with the dice.

Anyway what I am really saying, is that points on any rule system should be taken as a rough guide.


I agree entirely on the points, I never use them.  It's the stat variations that are questionable with seemingly no reason for the differences in performance between the same gun mounted on two different variants.

sultanbev

The Churchill III stat with A/P = 1/40 is based on the old myth that the 6pdr had no HE. One of the two brigades sent to North Africa had no HE for their 6pdrs at first, but the other brigade did, (can't remember which off the top of my head) and by Sicily this had been corrected. There may have been shortages of HE at random times, perhaps giving basis to the myth.
I've corrected the stats in the various army lists I've done.
It now turns out that 6pdr armed Churchills were retained in NW Europe for quite some time, because of the APDS ammo, of which each gun (towed and tank) in NW Europe had a standard allocation of 24 rounds - yes, it was that common. Canadian units earmarked for Normandy were training with it as early as February 1944, so the accuracy issue would have been dealt with by June 1944.

Regarding points and stats, see for example list BKCB32, which has an attached Tank Regiment of 34th Tank Brigade listed>
Churchill III and IV are 170pts with A/P = 2/60 A/T & 4/60 reflecting 6pdr HE and APCBC
there is an option in the notes to add APDS at +10pts giving A/T 5/50 for up to 6 shots per tank.
The Churchill VI with 75mm gun has A/P = 3/80, A/T = 3/60 and listed as 210pts.
The Churchill VII with 75mm gun and save of 3+ is listed as 220pts.
Whether the points values are correct I've no idea.

Inactive

Quote from: sultanbev on 02 May 2022, 01:17:43 PMThe Churchill III stat with A/P = 1/40 is based on the old myth that the 6pdr had no HE. One of the two brigades sent to North Africa had no HE for their 6pdrs at first, but the other brigade did, (can't remember which off the top of my head) and by Sicily this had been corrected. There may have been shortages of HE at random times, perhaps giving basis to the myth.
I've corrected the stats in the various army lists I've done.
It now turns out that 6pdr armed Churchills were retained in NW Europe for quite some time, because of the APDS ammo, of which each gun (towed and tank) in NW Europe had a standard allocation of 24 rounds - yes, it was that common. Canadian units earmarked for Normandy were training with it as early as February 1944, so the accuracy issue would have been dealt with by June 1944.

Regarding points and stats, see for example list BKCB32, which has an attached Tank Regiment of 34th Tank Brigade listed>
Churchill III and IV are 170pts with A/P = 2/60 A/T & 4/60 reflecting 6pdr HE and APCBC
there is an option in the notes to add APDS at +10pts giving A/T 5/50 for up to 6 shots per tank.
The Churchill VI with 75mm gun has A/P = 3/80, A/T = 3/60 and listed as 210pts.
The Churchill VII with 75mm gun and save of 3+ is listed as 220pts.
Whether the points values are correct I've no idea.

Thanks for the info, I've not got the Micromark lists so I was just going from the book but that's roughly where I thought the stats should be. I'm not bothered about points but they too would seems fair.  I recall reading somewhere that Montgomery actually had a preference for the 6 pounder gun over the 75mm and that one brigade, having had the 6 pdr guns changed to 75mm actually changed them back again!  Can't for the life of me find the reference now.

sultanbev

"I recall reading somewhere that Montgomery actually had a preference for the 6 pounder gun over the 75mm and that one brigade, having had the 6 pdr guns changed to 75mm actually changed them back again"

it was more subtle than that in Normandy. I've since found the 34th Brigade's war diary, and not only did they retain a mix of Mk.III, Mk.IV, Mk.VI and Mk.VII per squadron, some of the Mark.III with 6pdr were uparmoured to the same level as a Mk.VII, they called them Mk.III* but were also known as Mk.IX.

That becomes quite a formidable tank - 6pdr firing APDS with 152mm of frontal armour and 95mm of side armour :)
In BKC terms A/P = 2/60 A/T = 5/50 & 4/60; 6 hits at save @ 3+ and Tough rating all for 190pts in theory.