Awhile back (pre new forums) I had asked about people's thoughts on how a point buy system would work for a a Combat Mission style meeting engagement. I've taken the feedback provided and kicked it around a bit and thought I'd share what I've come up with. There's still some work to do and clearly some balancing to continue tweaking but I figured if anyone else wanted to give it a go and provide some feedback it would be appriciated.

Setup: The map default map dimensions should be 3 boards x 3 boards. Terrain should be balanced but I think in the long run that some specific map building will have to be done similar to the scenarios to provide a more balanced playing field. There could be some specific map/scenerios like capture the bridge or garrison the town where there are specific objective markers on the map with the scenario.

Rounds: 9 - For the map size and a fairly reasonable point allowance this should be sufficient to enter the battlefield and smash the opponent or take and hold any sort of objectives.

Command Objectives: there should be 4 neutral markers (2,2,1,1 for example) and using a similar method as artillery is resolved, two dice should be rolled. The target hexes being the top most left and right as well as the bottom most left and right hexes in the center board (those hexes actually are half hexes shared with the right and left center boards). Black die on a 4 or higher is on target, 1-3 is the # of hexes drifted, red die is the drift direction. North would be the top border of the map. This should keep the command objectives fairly neutral but also a little random.

Each side would get 800 points to be spent on units, specializations, and decks after the map is set up so that you can choose things appropriate to the map layout and/or your strategy.

I have not created a table for the point cost of decks yet. I'm still trying to come up with a good way to value them. Since it's a meeting engagement I'm not going to include minefields, entrenchments, pillboxes, tank traps, or razor wire since those all are typically defensive in nature and are part of some prepared position. Though I could see a capture the "X" scenario where X was an abandond bunker or pillbox that had some prepared obsticles as part of it.

As for the deployment zone I'm thinking that each side would not start on the board but would enter from off board on their respective sides (N and S edges).

The costs listed in the below table are per figure. So for example a squad of regular infantry would cost 44 points.

This sounds very interesting

There was an Excel Spreadsheet that covered this on BBG; very different from yours. I like your point allocations. Nice work. I might give this a try.

Hawaiiirish said:

Really? Do you know where I can find it? It might be interesting to see someone elses approach to see if there are any good ideas to adopt.

Actually, never mind. I found it and the associated post. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Unfortunately I can't edit the original post so for now, here's some preliminary deck values to go with the above. Once I've got a full write up of the supplemental rules and a full workup of the component values I'll make a penultimate post for it.

I would interested in discussing with you how you achieved the point levels for the deck(s) - and, in general the points for units. Do you know if FFG forums has a PM? Are you at BGG?

I am on BGG, also as sloejack. I can also be reached via email sloejack at gmail.

To come up with the values I used a formula that my friend and I worked up that works along the lines of all of the unit attributes and a fudge factor.

I used a similar formula for the decks in that if they granted any units or added/removed dice for their effects. Some cards I had to use some judgement on since it wasn't always a easy way to determine their value. I suspect some tweaking may need to go on there, but for now it should do.

I've still got the 7 decks that came with normandy to work through and then I'll have to give some thought on how/what to do with the operations cards. I was thinking that each card could have a value and that a player could buy the card at cost. However if the other player wanted to also use it then they could both use it, each side paying half it's cost and it becomes a shared op card. Depending on how their cost works out could be some meta gaming going on there as well since obviously any cards purchased take away from units that can be purchased, on the other hand the effect might be worth going halves on in the cases where it makes sense. Also, since some cards make for disadvantages then should taking them give the player some additional points to spend? Dunno on some of that stuff, obviously it's still in the thinker stage.

Hi sloejack, it is an interesting idea - designing such a point table for units and decks in TOI:

But I guess that because of almost complete identity (as to the stats) of infantry and transport units (tracks, trucks) between
all 3 nations (Americans, British and Germans) there is no need to evaluate them by point.

It is a little bit different in case of tanks and ATs, which have quite wide scale of stats (armour, movement, attack value...)

This point-idea is by my guess used for example in Warhammer 40k miniature game, but (though I do not own it nor play it) I think that armies (factions) there are much more diferrentiated (for example like races in Starcraft) from each other than national armies in TOI (if we omit tank and AT units).

Moreover, if I understand it right, both opponents build their armies (squads) simultaneously without looking at the units in an enemy army. Because if one could build army after his opponent has built his own, it would be easier for him to build good "counter-army".

Your idea itself does not seem to me wrong, but maybe I would focus it in a little different way.

Now some my opinions:

a) As to the evaluation of specialization tokens:

A suitability of a specialized squad always depends on an objective and a structure of an opponent army. In some battle you can easily do without a flamethrower squad (if you face a quartet or oktet of tanks), other time you can hardly (without them and engineers) accomplish the objective when you try to capture a pillbox with MG crew surrounded by razor wire with minefields.

So it seems to me that 2-point Engineer token vs. 14-point flamethrower token is a little unbalanced. Maybe it should secure that a player does not choose much flamethrower squads. But if you give to an engineer squad via operations cards abilities like clear mines, lay smoke,... its meaning and value grows considerably.

So I would not evaluate specialization with points, but would rather give them a limit:

For example: Supposing a map consisted of 3x3 map tiles, a player may use up to 3 spec. tokens while up to 2 of them may be from a base TOI, and the third may be taken from DOTF or Normandy expansion.

b) as to an infatry: As meant above because of adequate ability of all type of infantry figures to all 3 nations with the same stats (except German MGs) I would rather limit their number in a way mentioned below.

3) as to transports - there is no need to limit them, all sides have their equivalents and they are rarely used in "abundance"

4) tanks and ATs - here is a real reason for making a comparison table, but it can be (easily or more complicately) done by one of system meant below

5) as to operational cards and decks, maybe an easier way how to manage their righteous distributing is alternating choosing of players. For example player A chooses a deck by his choice, then player B chooses another deck by his choice...

Probably there would be a limit of 2 decks.

In case of operational cards it would work the same way, with maybe a higher limit - let us say up to 3 cards per player.


And now to some kind of evaluation itself. We can use either a rough measure or a fine measure.

Some exaple to both systems:

a) a hard measure - We establish an etalon (a basic, simple unit) to which we will relate the cost(value) of all other similar units.

I.e. Etalon is 1 regular infantry. We may assume that 2 regular infantry = 1 elite infantry, 3 regular infantry = 1 MG crew or 1 mortar crew or 1 officer.

This way you can reduce all infantry types on certain number of regular-infatry-units.

Similarly you will take some etalon in tanks - for exaple Panzer III and by comparing it against all other tanks you will
make a similar table for tanks.

In case of transports such a comparison is not needy because they are almost identical.

Then if you want to build an army, you would not be given a point value of X points but rather several limits:

(for example up to 30 reg. inf. "units" (used either as 7,5 squads of reg. inf. or 3 squads of elite inf. and 2 mortar crews), up to 5 Panzer III "units" (which we could transform to 2 Panthers or 2 Panzer IV and 1 Panzer III), up to 2 transport units, up to 3 operational cards, up to 2 decks and up to 3 spec. tokens)

This way is quite easy to made or get consensed, quite easy to comprehend and you can easily build (count) your new army.

b) a fine messure - in this way we will take a different point of view. We will not establish an etalon unit, but will make a list of evaluable features of a unit type. Then we will evaluate each unit according to this list of features:

The problem is complicated by fact that the with the same system we will have to evaluate regular infantry, Bren carrier and King Tiger. But what has these 3 different units in common? Little.

First we would like to build a list of evaluable features:

for example:

1) ability to attack infantry (attack strength, range, better assault abilieties, bonuses to alfa, flamethrower, elite inf.)
2) ability to attack vehicles (ATs, AT special., tanks range)
3) ability to resist normal attacks (bonuses to medics, bravo, recon, thick armor)
4) ability to resist suppresive attacks (bonuses to officer, bravo, recon, vehicles :-))
5) moveability (officer, recon, halftracks, some tanks)
6) providing bonuses for other units (in a same hex)...
.
.
For each such a feature there would be a scale let us say from 1 to 10 points and each unit could get 0-10 points from each category to make a final sum which would be its cost. The scale should be wide to adequaely (precisely) cover each feature. You could make in each feature establish the unit having this feature in best and in worst. For example in ability to attack vehicles a King Tiger (or AT 88) would receive 10 points, while transporting trucks would receive 0 points and reg. infantry (1 figure) would receive 10/13 = 0.769 points.

Specialization abilities would be included in the synergy table with the same features:

For example: AT token would give 2,1 points to a squad or 0.525 points to a figure via "ability to attack vehicles", considering lower range and lower attack than tanks.

You could also get from this table a value of an 1 reg. infantry belonging to alfa unit squad and could compare it with a value of 1 elite infantry. But how to incorporate there the specialization tokens and probably a possibility of non/complete squads?

Making such a table requires much more time and precisity. It is then rather better used for comparingalancing a given scenario forces than building an army from a scratch, because many facts are already included in it.

Sloejack, you probably have made some kind of "fine measure" evaluating, but I do not quite understand how for example you could evaluate Tiger and Panther with the same cost (they differ in armor and movement), the same case it is with Crusader and Matilda (they also differ in the same features).

These lines are not meant as a criticism, but rather as another point of view.

Let us invite others to the discussion.

Artemis, thank you for the feedback.

I think your part 'A' is really suggesting the same thing as what I've put together but perhaps in simpler language. If I understand it right for example instead of telling each player to build an 800 point army, the equivalent from your suggestion would be to build a (roughly) 18 squad army equivalent. I think the issue that I ran into with just trying to make equivalents is that while some units while better than others, are not 2:1 better so it makes it difficult to implement an equivalence system.

Here's another example of this, towards the end of your post you mention about the various tanks having the same value despite being different. In many cases the differences in tanks are minor, which are generally seen as minor variations in their value, or trade offs. The example of the Matilda and the Crusader is an example of this. The Crusader is a fast tank with some armor where as the Matilda is a slower tank with a little more armor. So in this case I'm equating speed to armor (since all other characteristics between the two tanks are the same) which may be flawed but it certainly provides a starting point.

While I agree that an equivalence system would be quick and easy to manage, I don't think it provides the right scaling that I would want in my game.

As you point out, the 'value' of some of the specializations is situational and some become better than others in the right instance. However keep in mind a few things. This system is meant for a meeting engagement scenario so there are no obsticles (razor wire, tank traps, minefields) or fixed defences (entrenchments, and pill boxes) so that by default removes many of those situations. Additionally you mention about the operations cards improving their usefulness. I certainly agree that the operations cards can really take some figures or specializations up a notch but as long as an appropriate value is attributed to the card I think that it ultimately balances since the player looking for that particular 'edge' for their side will be paying for it out of potential troops they could have.

I think the real flaws in my tables come out when you start building the armies. For example, using the 800 point build example is 18 squads of infantry as good as 5 Tiger I tanks? Probably not since you'd need probably 6 squads all one hex away to make sure that you erase a single tank. To get to that range would be difficult at best without taking heavy losses. Depends on the terrain, but by and large the squads will be paying dearly just to close and kill one tank, to do it 4 more times could be impossible. Though from a scenario design perspective one would look to limit this type of min maxing by saying for example the objective is to enter a town and occupy the buildings. That means that tanks are good for support but won't allow you to meet the objective so players will come in with a more balanced force.

I certainly invite anyone interested to share their thoughts or to use whatever I assemble and play test it so that the tables can be balanced out better.

Again, thanks for your input. I'll spend a couple of days re-reading it as you certainly put a lot out there that deserves concideration.

Sloejack,

I will also try to look more deeply into the idea of evaluating units - but as we can see the problem becomes the more difficult, the more things

we want to take into account (operation cards, terrain, specialization, decks).

It is an eternal problem - simplicity vs. complexity. Maybe the only solution would be 2 systems - one simple and the other complex.

Another problem may be to design such a system when we do not know what FFG has in store with future TOI expansions, so design a robust system

from a scratch (without a future need to rescale it too much) would be nothing less than a "meister-stick" (master-piece).

Sloejack -

I agree with your ideas of min/maxing here. However, if the infantry was made up of 600 points of figures and 200 points of decks, would that even out the fight against the 800 points of armor? I think it might ... provided the infantry had a good flow of command point currency.

You've mentioned that this is being sussed out for a meeting engagement scenario. However, I wonder if some of the balance you're looking for might be found in attack/defend scenarios or ambush scenarios (as opposed to meeting engagements) where the sides are not going to be equal in points.

Of course, you might need to start thinking about terrain costs, etc. for things like that.

Just a quick comment:

Engineers for 2 pts is WAY too cheap. In addition to being able to build an entrencment in forest (providing 4 cover), engineers have a lot of nice hiden bonuses:

1: they can remove razor wire.

2: they avoid being killed when entering a minefield.

3: with some operation cards they may remove minefields, place smoke markers, etc. etc. etc.

I like the ide, but balancing the cost is hard.

That's some good points. When I built my formula I used only the benefits listed on the reference for the specialization.

I'm hoping to be able to start some vigorus playtesting this weekend since it really boils down to two (or more) people sitting down and building out their forces and seeing how it plays out in terms of balance.