Effectiveness, cost and useage
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:35 pm
Effectiveness, cost and useage
ok so the standard fighter is what 500? standard bomber it 1000
but standard AA is only 20. does this mean that it takes 25 AA units to take down a fighter? or does the fact that its AA give it a bonus if it happens to go against a fighter?
I mean for me if i have a patriot missile launcher i would think it could take down a B-52 (1000 points) does that mean that the launcher should cost 1000 points? If say i costed it lower would that mean that it couldn't take down a B-52?
I know that a major part of this is strategy and use but
same thing with a deisel sub and a battle ship the battleship is what 10x more expensive so does that mean that without a really good plan the sub cant take it down 1 on 1.
as i finish this i realize that most of this doesnt make much sense or will be answered/cleared up quickly but i think somewhere there was an issue and maybe this can bring out whats in my head but i dont have words for.
but standard AA is only 20. does this mean that it takes 25 AA units to take down a fighter? or does the fact that its AA give it a bonus if it happens to go against a fighter?
I mean for me if i have a patriot missile launcher i would think it could take down a B-52 (1000 points) does that mean that the launcher should cost 1000 points? If say i costed it lower would that mean that it couldn't take down a B-52?
I know that a major part of this is strategy and use but
same thing with a deisel sub and a battle ship the battleship is what 10x more expensive so does that mean that without a really good plan the sub cant take it down 1 on 1.
as i finish this i realize that most of this doesnt make much sense or will be answered/cleared up quickly but i think somewhere there was an issue and maybe this can bring out whats in my head but i dont have words for.
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
I know what you are talking about and support your point.
But, I actually like the idea of defensive units being lower in cost. Makes one choose whether to go aggressive/attacking or defensive.
But, I actually like the idea of defensive units being lower in cost. Makes one choose whether to go aggressive/attacking or defensive.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
My understanding/guess was that things like AA are costed low because of either:
a. They've always been costed low and we never thought it through
b. Each can only launch a missile or two, which could kill a bomber if it hit, but you'd expect you'd need more to be able to reliably hit many.
c. AA and equivalent units have specific uses. They're good against bombers. Their missiles can be deflected by fighters. Maybe they can take down enemy missiles - maybe. Apart from that, they're useless, and any ground unit can take them out no trouble. Hence, they're costed less, because though they're useful in one situation, they can't do much outside of that.
a. They've always been costed low and we never thought it through
b. Each can only launch a missile or two, which could kill a bomber if it hit, but you'd expect you'd need more to be able to reliably hit many.
c. AA and equivalent units have specific uses. They're good against bombers. Their missiles can be deflected by fighters. Maybe they can take down enemy missiles - maybe. Apart from that, they're useless, and any ground unit can take them out no trouble. Hence, they're costed less, because though they're useful in one situation, they can't do much outside of that.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:35 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
right which i understand and support but if your on the bomber side.
i personally wouldnt be too thrilled losing my 1000 point bomber to a 20 point AA gun, if you know what i mean, so we might want to rethink that or specify that a 20 point AA is a danger to helicopters but not jets. and for jets you need something a bit bigger.
I think it comes down to what defense do you need to counter act an enemy offense? if they have you 3 to 1 is it a land slide for them or a fair fight against your defensive force?
i realize AA missiles are basically worth 0 if there arent any planes around but if a bomber flies over it maybe is good enough to down the bomber, 1000, so do we average it and call the cost 500? or work out some system...
sigh, complicated, tiring and yet enjoyable
i personally wouldnt be too thrilled losing my 1000 point bomber to a 20 point AA gun, if you know what i mean, so we might want to rethink that or specify that a 20 point AA is a danger to helicopters but not jets. and for jets you need something a bit bigger.
I think it comes down to what defense do you need to counter act an enemy offense? if they have you 3 to 1 is it a land slide for them or a fair fight against your defensive force?
i realize AA missiles are basically worth 0 if there arent any planes around but if a bomber flies over it maybe is good enough to down the bomber, 1000, so do we average it and call the cost 500? or work out some system...
sigh, complicated, tiring and yet enjoyable
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
I'd wait for Monty to put in his two cents, he chose most of the costs. But there is certainly the potential that you could change the standard costs in Anunia if it could be sufficiently demonstrated they were unfair.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
You also have to remember that AA guns have a relatively limited firing range and can only go as fast as, well, a land vehicle (if it's self-propelled, of course), while a bomber can fly great distances.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:35 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
right but you still run into is it fair to have 5 AA guns around your camp at 20 points each and make it impossible for a bomber to attack you? or vice versa is it logical to need 50 AA guns around your camp to prevent a single bomber getting through?
I think its coming down to how much of the cost of mostly larger things is offensive firepower and how much is survivability.
I think its coming down to how much of the cost of mostly larger things is offensive firepower and how much is survivability.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
As with most of these discussions, I'll keep quiet until the war ends. At that point I can devote greater time to thinking over the propositions.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
I said it during the war that Annunia is not a points vs points system. Instead, its a unit vs unit system. All commanders know that the points offered are a guide to their orbat make up.
Andreas was partially right in proposing option c in his answer yet he did miss the point slightly. You must know what you're picking in your orbat; it is vital to strategy in the war and it is vital to your survival in war to know what your orbat allows you to do.
To keep the example of an AA unit being 20 and a bomber 1000, I'll go into detail.
Say for instance I have a British Rapier Air Defence System costed at 20 (its pretty standard) and a B-52 attacks me. Now, that B-52 can simply fly higher than the maximum ceiling of the Rapier Missiles to drop its bombs.
If I had a Soviet Air Defence system (like the S400 Triumf), that wouldn't be the case as they're designed to hit high targets. The B-52 would stand a chance of being destroyed but I'd also have to cost the Triumf system higher than 20. Also, the B-52 can deploy a number of countermeasures.
Its a similiar situation with AA guns. A high flying bomber can simply go higher and avoid range.
Yet what Andreas was not right about is whether they can be used in other forms of warfare. There is nothing stopping an AA gun being fired at ground troops; look at the German 88mm. They were originally anti-aircraft weapons and were found to be brilliant land weapons when the Germans had nothing left to use against a French counter-attack. An AA missile can also be fired at ground forces, though it wouldn't knock out a tank but could cause casualties to a infantry regiment and a building. You have to know what it is that you're commanding.
Yet it should be noted that in the interests of fairness such moves can very easily be taken to a judge. And again in fairness sometimes we must overlook certain things in recwar. I'll use the diesel submarine vs Battleship example for this.
A diesel sub fires Mk48 ADCAP or Spearfish torpedoes at a Battleship. Now the Battleships we use are all WW2 vintage designs. They were designed with torpedo belts (armour) to take away some of the impact of the explosives on WW2 torpedoes.
Torpedoes have moved on since then. Nowadays, torpedoes are not designed to explode on contact with surface ships. They have shaped warheads and are piloted or guided to explode beneath the ship's keel amidships, breaking the ship's back and splitting it in two. Now, a diesel sub armed with those torpedoes could quite easily do that to a battleship even if its keel is reinforced. Yet, that is not fair and i think you'd all agree? Even if I used that, I wouldn't do it against anything but transport ships and on naval ships I wouldnt expect anything other than damage. I certainly wouldnt expect to see a commander say his ship is sunk.
All in all, the fact of the matter is that points do not count in determining the outcomes of battle. Its more about compromise really and its better to place that compromise in teh hands of a judge or in the hands of combatants rather than write it rigidly down in law.
Andreas was partially right in proposing option c in his answer yet he did miss the point slightly. You must know what you're picking in your orbat; it is vital to strategy in the war and it is vital to your survival in war to know what your orbat allows you to do.
To keep the example of an AA unit being 20 and a bomber 1000, I'll go into detail.
Say for instance I have a British Rapier Air Defence System costed at 20 (its pretty standard) and a B-52 attacks me. Now, that B-52 can simply fly higher than the maximum ceiling of the Rapier Missiles to drop its bombs.
If I had a Soviet Air Defence system (like the S400 Triumf), that wouldn't be the case as they're designed to hit high targets. The B-52 would stand a chance of being destroyed but I'd also have to cost the Triumf system higher than 20. Also, the B-52 can deploy a number of countermeasures.
Its a similiar situation with AA guns. A high flying bomber can simply go higher and avoid range.
Yet what Andreas was not right about is whether they can be used in other forms of warfare. There is nothing stopping an AA gun being fired at ground troops; look at the German 88mm. They were originally anti-aircraft weapons and were found to be brilliant land weapons when the Germans had nothing left to use against a French counter-attack. An AA missile can also be fired at ground forces, though it wouldn't knock out a tank but could cause casualties to a infantry regiment and a building. You have to know what it is that you're commanding.
Yet it should be noted that in the interests of fairness such moves can very easily be taken to a judge. And again in fairness sometimes we must overlook certain things in recwar. I'll use the diesel submarine vs Battleship example for this.
A diesel sub fires Mk48 ADCAP or Spearfish torpedoes at a Battleship. Now the Battleships we use are all WW2 vintage designs. They were designed with torpedo belts (armour) to take away some of the impact of the explosives on WW2 torpedoes.
Torpedoes have moved on since then. Nowadays, torpedoes are not designed to explode on contact with surface ships. They have shaped warheads and are piloted or guided to explode beneath the ship's keel amidships, breaking the ship's back and splitting it in two. Now, a diesel sub armed with those torpedoes could quite easily do that to a battleship even if its keel is reinforced. Yet, that is not fair and i think you'd all agree? Even if I used that, I wouldn't do it against anything but transport ships and on naval ships I wouldnt expect anything other than damage. I certainly wouldnt expect to see a commander say his ship is sunk.
All in all, the fact of the matter is that points do not count in determining the outcomes of battle. Its more about compromise really and its better to place that compromise in teh hands of a judge or in the hands of combatants rather than write it rigidly down in law.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
That sounds great, Monty, but if Anunia is not a point vs points system, then the points are wrong.
This is meant to be the advantage of Anunia over ADB - that Anunia has units of equal strength and as such, when hopelessly in doubt the stronger unit (ie more points) wins.
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean any slur on you Monty. I just mean that when I helped write this, my intention were always that points were the baseline for battles, and that strategy, terrain etc modified from there.
This is meant to be the advantage of Anunia over ADB - that Anunia has units of equal strength and as such, when hopelessly in doubt the stronger unit (ie more points) wins.
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean any slur on you Monty. I just mean that when I helped write this, my intention were always that points were the baseline for battles, and that strategy, terrain etc modified from there.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
I think Montague's argument is that it isn't necessarily just a literal points versus points, but it's what you do with it. Like the example of the bomber versus the AA platform.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
If that's what he's saying, that's fine. Strategy, terrain etc should certainly be taken into account. But when people say "the points are irrelevant, your unit can only do this and mine can do this so nah" the system breaks down (because chances are if they're saying points are irrelevant, they've costed their units unfairly ) Oh, and I did plan that Anunia could be used by people (like me) who don't know the specifics of each and every military unit and don't have the interest to find out, and just want to recwar. Hence being able to look at points and basic abilities helps. There may well be better ways of handling that than 'strength' ... but not that have been proposed internationally thus far.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:35 pm
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
if not points vs points then what about sitiuations like this war where we had 2 people using AC-130 gunships and one costed them at 150 and the other had them at 750. surely there is some difference between what they can do.
or so i would hope...
or so i would hope...
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
Maybe the Anunia Convention should keep its list up to date and include new things as suggested, such as the gunship.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Effectiveness, cost and useage
If the points principle is followed fully, it's impossible to cheat. You can write whatever you want in the description and refuse to change it, but if you've costed it lower than a similar unit, it's weaker. If you don't follow it fully, it's dead easy to cheat and you start having to define absolutely everything.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander