Points costing thread
Points costing thread
Welcome to the point costing thread, this way we can have all the 'less used' units in one easy to find place? Anyone is welcome to suggest units up for costing.
Units that need point costing-
Littoral combat ships
Chemical weapons?
Father of All Bombs
Costed units-
Humvee- 5 points, 10 with a TOW missile or had armour plating attached.
Amphibious assault craft- 750 points
Super heavy tanks- Case by case
Ospreys VTOL planes- 115 Points
Also, maybe a little more clarity inbetween fighters, fighter-bombers and bomber?
Units that need point costing-
Littoral combat ships
Chemical weapons?
Father of All Bombs
Costed units-
Humvee- 5 points, 10 with a TOW missile or had armour plating attached.
Amphibious assault craft- 750 points
Super heavy tanks- Case by case
Ospreys VTOL planes- 115 Points
Also, maybe a little more clarity inbetween fighters, fighter-bombers and bomber?
Last edited by Gareth on Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
First Senator of Dazhou
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Points costing thread
Chemical weapons, for starters, are generally not used in recwar.
Ospreys are transport aircraft, yes? Usually free.
Amphib Assault Ships are generally held at 750
A Littoral Combat ship is analogous to River Class Patrol craft i think?
Super Heavy Tanks aren't usually seen in warfare these days but you'd base them off the MBT cost.
Aster's vehiciles are roughly just lower than APCs I think.
Ospreys are transport aircraft, yes? Usually free.
Amphib Assault Ships are generally held at 750
A Littoral Combat ship is analogous to River Class Patrol craft i think?
Super Heavy Tanks aren't usually seen in warfare these days but you'd base them off the MBT cost.
Aster's vehiciles are roughly just lower than APCs I think.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Points costing thread
This demented yankee behemoth could probably sink a River Class patrol boat with its bow-wake.
Re: Points costing thread
Chemical weapons, for starters, are generally not used in recwar.
I thought it was only nuclear and biological weapons that were not used?
Ospreys are transport aircraft, yes? Usually free.
They are about two times as quick as a ordinary helicopter, and may have a light to medium defense systems, if that makes a difference?
Righto, i'll add it to the list.Amphib Assault Ships are generally held at 750
See Khan's postA Littoral Combat ship is analogous to River Class Patrol craft i think?
Would be taken on case by case then?Super Heavy Tanks aren't usually seen in warfare these days but you'd base them off the MBT cost.
I think they may be mine resistant though?Aster's vehiciles are roughly just lower than APCs I think.
First Senator of Dazhou
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Points costing thread
The Littoral Combat Ship? Vulgar.
The Ospreys may well be somewhere between helicopters and fighters then. I'd need to see the exact specs and comparable specs to give an exact point costing.
SHTs would be case by case depending on the exact specs.
Mine resistant but probably a little more vulnerable to RPGs I imagine? A bit of a trade off I think? Might just be below APC values then.
The Ospreys may well be somewhere between helicopters and fighters then. I'd need to see the exact specs and comparable specs to give an exact point costing.
SHTs would be case by case depending on the exact specs.
Mine resistant but probably a little more vulnerable to RPGs I imagine? A bit of a trade off I think? Might just be below APC values then.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
Re: Points costing thread
You kidding? That thing looks like death on ... death on hull? Death on water? Your get what i meanThe Littoral Combat Ship? Vulgar.
What sort of specs will you need for the comparing, i'll handel that then if you like?The Ospreys may well be somewhere between helicopters and fighters then. I'd need to see the exact specs and comparable specs to give an exact point costing.
Agreed, added to the listSHTs would be case by case depending on the exact specs.
I wouldn't know, but i guess they would be quicker than an APC, so 10 points seem about right?Mine resistant but probably a little more vulnerable to RPGs I imagine? A bit of a trade off I think? Might just be below APC values then.
First Senator of Dazhou
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Re: Points costing thread
Another small note, would one need to pay points for a FOAB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAB
First Senator of Dazhou
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Minster of Defence for the Kingdom of Victoria
Former Victorian Ambassador to the MCS
Proud owner of 500 Dverghallen Næringer shares
http://dazhou.proboards.com/index.cgi
Re: Points costing thread
Okey dokey where shall we begin. I, along with a few of the other representatives from A1, have a few slight issues with your points calculation system. Respecting your obvious desire to have a simple and usual system I will attempt not to over complicate things. Apologies in advance if this comes off a bit harsh that was not my intended tone and I am just trying to give some constructive criticisms.
Firstly you list with the Armoured Personnel Carrier category as an example the German/Dutch Boxer vehicle. It is officially listed as a MRAV (Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle) due to its capacity to have a modular system like a lot of similar vehicles (The Austrian Pandur I APC for example) this allows them to convert into what is commonly labelled as an AFV. Considering the Boxers size, in comparison to the Pandur and similar APCs, it is a lot larger and its modular weaponry capacity is higher which would therefore put more into the category of IFVs (Being an AFV) surely.
On IFVs I am looking at it rather confused, you list three categories which all effectively mean the same thing (IFV, Reconnaissance Tank and Light Tank) in virtually every case the differences between these vehicles is on a variant basis and they are just minor adjustments (Usually the engine and occasionally armament). Your listed examples are Scimitar tank which is the sister to the Scorpion Light Tank, the Warrior IFV which is sold in a great range including even an APC variant for Kuwait. Considering that in the modern field the primary offering in all three categories is now the ASCOD series is it really necessary to have all three categories with very minor differences between them (considering that there are others that are immensely broad).
‘Armoured Artillery’ I believe here you really mean Self-Propelled Howitzer/Gun (SPG) which is the general designation given to the listed examples.
Anti-Air Systems, I would better classify these as either the more expensive truck launched systems (i.e. Patriot system) and the trailer systems such as the British Rapier.
Helicopters; these could surely be better clarified into more specific categories, such as;
Light Helicopters – UH-72A Lakota, UH-1Y Huey, Lynx
Medium Helicopters – Black Hawk, Merlin, NH90
Heavy Helicopters – CH-47F Chinook
Light Attack Helicopter – AH-1Z, Tiger
Heavy Attack Helicopter – Apache
Naval wise there are a great deal of problems;
Firstly there is no such thing as a non-nuclear aircraft carrier capable of carrying ninety aircraft, even the Nimitz class cannot carry such a large amount of aircraft in the modern day and that is a number that is greatly reducing with new heavier aircraft. Just look at how many the British are going to fit on the Queen Elizabeth class.
The River class is not a Corvette, its larger sibling the Port of Spain class occasionally claims to be one but does not carry missiles and therefore is only an OPV. Rule of thumb is if it has missiles of any description, usually anti-ship and anti-air.
You are considering a Destroyer and Frigate to be within the same category when they are such broad categories. You only have to look at the capability differences between a Mowj class frigate and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer (An exampl that has been in the news a lot recently) to see that, an cost wise there is US$1, 150 million between them. At the very least they should be separate and probably further than that, for example:
Zumwalt Class Destroyer: This would be fairly unique.
Heavy Destroyer: Arleigh Burke Class, Japanese Derivatives (8, 000 tons upwards) The Tico class cruisers would now fall in this category as Cruiser is taken out of circulation.
Standard Destroyer: Hobart Class, Type 45 (Approx. 7,000 tons)
Light Destroyer: Dutch De Zeven class (6, 000 tons to 7, 000 tons) Generally those borderline ones.
FFG: Type 23 Frigate, Type 26 (4, 500 tons – 6, 000 tons) Generally those that cost within the $750 million region.
FFH: La Fayette or Anzac class Frigate (3, 000 tons – 4, 500 tons) Those found around the $500-600 million region.
FFL: Sigma Class, Mowj Class (Iran) (<3, 000) Those found in the $100 - $200 million region.
Firstly you list with the Armoured Personnel Carrier category as an example the German/Dutch Boxer vehicle. It is officially listed as a MRAV (Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle) due to its capacity to have a modular system like a lot of similar vehicles (The Austrian Pandur I APC for example) this allows them to convert into what is commonly labelled as an AFV. Considering the Boxers size, in comparison to the Pandur and similar APCs, it is a lot larger and its modular weaponry capacity is higher which would therefore put more into the category of IFVs (Being an AFV) surely.
On IFVs I am looking at it rather confused, you list three categories which all effectively mean the same thing (IFV, Reconnaissance Tank and Light Tank) in virtually every case the differences between these vehicles is on a variant basis and they are just minor adjustments (Usually the engine and occasionally armament). Your listed examples are Scimitar tank which is the sister to the Scorpion Light Tank, the Warrior IFV which is sold in a great range including even an APC variant for Kuwait. Considering that in the modern field the primary offering in all three categories is now the ASCOD series is it really necessary to have all three categories with very minor differences between them (considering that there are others that are immensely broad).
‘Armoured Artillery’ I believe here you really mean Self-Propelled Howitzer/Gun (SPG) which is the general designation given to the listed examples.
Anti-Air Systems, I would better classify these as either the more expensive truck launched systems (i.e. Patriot system) and the trailer systems such as the British Rapier.
Helicopters; these could surely be better clarified into more specific categories, such as;
Light Helicopters – UH-72A Lakota, UH-1Y Huey, Lynx
Medium Helicopters – Black Hawk, Merlin, NH90
Heavy Helicopters – CH-47F Chinook
Light Attack Helicopter – AH-1Z, Tiger
Heavy Attack Helicopter – Apache
Naval wise there are a great deal of problems;
Firstly there is no such thing as a non-nuclear aircraft carrier capable of carrying ninety aircraft, even the Nimitz class cannot carry such a large amount of aircraft in the modern day and that is a number that is greatly reducing with new heavier aircraft. Just look at how many the British are going to fit on the Queen Elizabeth class.
The River class is not a Corvette, its larger sibling the Port of Spain class occasionally claims to be one but does not carry missiles and therefore is only an OPV. Rule of thumb is if it has missiles of any description, usually anti-ship and anti-air.
You are considering a Destroyer and Frigate to be within the same category when they are such broad categories. You only have to look at the capability differences between a Mowj class frigate and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer (An exampl that has been in the news a lot recently) to see that, an cost wise there is US$1, 150 million between them. At the very least they should be separate and probably further than that, for example:
Zumwalt Class Destroyer: This would be fairly unique.
Heavy Destroyer: Arleigh Burke Class, Japanese Derivatives (8, 000 tons upwards) The Tico class cruisers would now fall in this category as Cruiser is taken out of circulation.
Standard Destroyer: Hobart Class, Type 45 (Approx. 7,000 tons)
Light Destroyer: Dutch De Zeven class (6, 000 tons to 7, 000 tons) Generally those borderline ones.
FFG: Type 23 Frigate, Type 26 (4, 500 tons – 6, 000 tons) Generally those that cost within the $750 million region.
FFH: La Fayette or Anzac class Frigate (3, 000 tons – 4, 500 tons) Those found around the $500-600 million region.
FFL: Sigma Class, Mowj Class (Iran) (<3, 000) Those found in the $100 - $200 million region.
Re: Points costing thread
Indeed - thanks for raising the issue about the more expensive SAM systems. The current system costs an S-400 self propelled SAM as the same as a Tunguska SPAAG.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Points costing thread
Leeway, Gentlemen, leeway.
The points system is something with which to base a costing on, not exhaustive.
The points system is something with which to base a costing on, not exhaustive.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Points costing thread
Talking of the arbitrary assignment of points, I am trying to decide the points allocation for a light trainer / ground attack aircraft like this one I cobbled together out of string and glue earlier.
Considering how 500 points gets you a Eurofighter it would seem to me implausible for this aircraft to be worth any more than a hundred. So I was thinking 50 points, putting it in the same ball park as the multi-purpose and attack helicopters.
Considering how 500 points gets you a Eurofighter it would seem to me implausible for this aircraft to be worth any more than a hundred. So I was thinking 50 points, putting it in the same ball park as the multi-purpose and attack helicopters.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Points costing thread
Alexandria costed the same sort of aircraft as 100pts? Although the 50pts can be justified too. Shall we agree this sort of aircraft is generally held to be 50pts?
http://www.empireofthealexandrians.org/ ... wtopic=155
http://www.empireofthealexandrians.org/ ... wtopic=155
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Points costing thread
Yeah I think it would be fair to set piston engined fighters at 50 points.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Points costing thread
I'd say light infantry on horseback would be 2 points, integral mobility serving as a force multiplier. Bear Cavalry would have its own particular élan and 'holy fuck I fall off the bastard bear behind is going to eat me' that you'd have to be a cut above the special forces in the machismo-bullshit stakes just to contemplate your mount, let alone ride it.
Shall we say six points?
It's the form that the inevitable escalation would take that concerns me.
Shall we say six points?
It's the form that the inevitable escalation would take that concerns me.