Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

RAF» Forums » Rules

Subject: Victory Point loss for Gladiator Sqn rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon Blackwell
England
Rotherfield
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have just noticed on the Victory Point Chart of the Board that it states 3 VP's are lost for each Spit, Hurricane or Blenheim Sqn. However there is no mention of that solitary Gladiator of 247 Sqn.

Now this has not happened to me YET losing the Gladiator as I tend to handle it with care but wondered if they are eliminated in combat should 3 VP's be lost or none?


My view is that you should take a points penalty but as this unit if eliminated is out of the game for good I wonder whether a 3 VP loss is too harsh especially considering its dubious combat ability. Maybe it should be just 2 VP for example?

Grateful for any views from players who have indeed lost the Gladiators in combat or if anyone has a definitive answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

My initial thought here, is that as this aircraft was considered "obsolete" by 1940 ( and as a result is not placed on the "reinforcements / replacements" Calender when it is eliminated ), it does not "qualify" / "merit" as a VP loss.

You should also note that none of the reinforcement squadrons ( that you can choose to enter ) are marked as based at 1/10 sector ( where the Gladiator Sqn was based ) ; so it was presumabaly never seen as important that they were "replaced" when lost.

Hopefully, therefore, there is no Rules omission / error here...

[ But who knows ?? ]
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Blackwell
England
Rotherfield
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Those are good points, cheers.

I have asked Mr B for his view although I haven't had anything back yet.

Historically 247 was still based in 10 Group in Nov 1940 after the battle had ended so it served its time there partly switching to a night-fighter role (with the same lack of success being too slow to engage the bombers) and still based at St Eval and Roborough before re-equipping with Hurricanes in December. Interestingly 263 Sqn equipped with Westland Whirlwinds was also stationed at St Eval in November 40. A case of old meets new.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Blackwell
England
Rotherfield
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DEB8 wrote:

My initial thought here, is that as this aircraft was considered "obsolete" by 1940 ( and as a result is not placed on the "reinforcements / replacements" Calender when it is eliminated ), it does not "qualify" / "merit" as a VP loss.

You should also note that none of the reinforcement squadrons ( that you can choose to enter ) are marked as based at 1/10 sector ( where the Gladiator Sqn was based ) ; so it was presumabaly never seen as important that they were "replaced" when lost.

Hopefully, therefore, there is no Rules omission / error here...

[ But who knows ?? ]


So now thinking on this a bit more, if there is no VP penalty if you lose this unit it means that you can throw it into any combat you like without worrying about the outcome giving it a semi-special status as it would be best used to try to get in amongst bombers to negate the 2 column shift even if it gets shot up for its troubles.

Now I'm thinking that's not necessarily how it would have been used/sacrificed in that sort of way. So I'm now coming round to the idea of a -2 or single VP loss if destroyed in combat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In the absence of any particular ruling from the games designer ; whatever you feel is appropriate here is fine by me...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Further to my previous comment, I have given this a little thought and applied a maths logic to the query !

As Spitfires, Hurricanes and Blenhiems are all worth 3 VPs, the only logical answers are:

It was missed ( ! ) = 3 VPs [ as per the others ]

It was missed and not "calculated" = 1 VP [ 2 VPs not viable * ]

It was deliberately left out = 0 VPs

[ * If 2 VPs were to be used, one ( or more ) of the 3 other British Sqns would lose it's 3 VPs status, which would be incorrect. ]

This answer was arrived at after appling three different "basic" formuli to all four aircraft. However, if a far more complex formula was to be used, it might provide a different result and make 2VP viable... ]

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Blackwell
England
Rotherfield
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't quite follow your point about how a 2VP loss would affect Spit, Hurri or Blen losing 3VPs.

I would say all these types remain at 3VP loss as per the rules regardless of what the gladiator loss would be
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Simonsmrt wrote:
I don't quite follow your point about how a 2VP loss would affect Spit, Hurri or Blen losing 3VPs.

I would say all these types remain at 3VP loss as per the rules regardless of what the gladiator loss would be


The nature of the maths formula used to ascertain a VP loss of two for the Gladiator, would mean that one ( I can't recall which ) of the other three aircraft would no longer be a 3VP loss. Evidently this is an unacceptable / unwanted result / outcome.

Ergo, the only viable result ( from a maths perspective ) is that a Gladiator loss should be 1 VP.

However, see my next post...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

I had a new thought on this last night. I believe our perspective may be incorrect here...

What if the VPs lost do not represent a lost squadron , but are in fact the cost of, ( in due course ), gaining a Replacement squadron ? As there are no Gladiator Replacements to be had at all, a 0 VP value would then be correct !!

[ This makes sense when you also consider that the VP Chart could have simply referred to ( British ) Squadrons @ 3 VP, but does not. It instead specifically refers to three particular squadron types, ( all of which are listed on the replacements calender ) ; whilst leaving out the one particular squadron type that does not appear. ]

If you follow this logical perspective , then the rules are correct and a Gladiator = 0 VP.

However, if you wish to ignore this perspective, and apply your previously stated case, I strongly suggust a VP value of 1.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Blackwell
England
Rotherfield
East Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DEB8 wrote:

I had a new thought on this last night. I believe our perspective may be incorrect here...

What if the VPs lost do not represent a lost squadron , but are in fact the cost of, ( in due course ), gaining a Replacement squadron ? As there are no Gladiator Replacements to be had at all, a 0 VP value would then be correct !!

[ This makes sense when you also consider that the VP Chart could have simply referred to ( British ) Squadrons @ 3 VP, but does not. It instead specifically refers to three particular squadron types, ( all of which are listed on the replacements calender ) ; whilst leaving out the one particular squadron type that does not appear. ]

If you follow this logical perspective , then the rules are correct and a Gladiator = 0 VP.

However, if you wish to ignore this perspective, and apply your previously stated case, I strongly suggust a VP value of 1.


That's a fair point. I am still undecided although on the grounds of the consequences of losing a Sqn I err towards some form of loss otherwise you have the situation I alluded to earlier where you can use your Gladiator with the fore-knowledge that you won't lose any VP's if its lost in combat and can therefore throw it into any combat you wish (in range) with no negative consequences and the advantage of disrupting one or more bombing raids and at least cancelling out the 2 column right shift for bombing if no fighters intercept.

I'm afraid I still can't fathom your mathematical reasoning about why a 2VP loss for Gladiators would affect the 3VP lost for any other sqn type eliminated as its a stand alone loss attributable to that sqn only.
If I decide to play with VP losses for the Gladiator, the way I would play would simply be if a Spit, Hurricane or Blenheim was eliminated you still lose 3 VP's. If the Gladiator was destroyed you should lose a lesser amount, 1 or 2 VP's.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The object of my Maths logic here was to establish a VP value for the Gladiator, using various "factors" ( two of which are a Squadron's Combat Factor and an aircraft type's Crew amount ).

A VP value for the Gladiator is valid ( if and only if ) the same factors ( when fed into a formula ) leave the VP values of the other three squadrons unchanged !

The three formuli I tried, all gave varying results for the each of the four squadrons, and the only formula which left the VP value of the other three squadrons unchanged at 3 VPs, gave a value to the Gladiator of 1 VP ; hence my strong recommendation of a 1 VP value.

[ Perchance, if I incorporated some more "factors" into the equation I could achieve a result that gave a 2 VPs value to the Gladiator whilst leaving the other three unchanged ; but I am at a loss to know what those factors might be at this present time ... ]

In perchance plainer English ; I am not saying here that the 3 VP value loss for other three squadrons should be changed. Only that a 1 VP loss for the Gladiator is viable ; and that a 2 VP loss is not viable ( as it only appears to be viable with a change to the other Squadrons existing 3 VP loss amount, which is completley unacceptable ).

Personally, I am happy with my other thought ( as advised ), which leaves the Gladiator at 0 VP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin David Bliss
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yesterday, I had some further thoughts with regard to this question...

There are three options here :

a) Gladiator = 0 VPs

b) Gladiator = 3 Vps

c) Gladiator = 1 ( or 2 ) VPs

The logic for a) is as set out in my previous post of 12th June . In my opinion this is the most likely option to be correct.

The logic for b) is that all the other British Squadrons are 3 VPs and all of the German Gruppen are 2VPs, so a 3 VPs figure for a British Squadron of Gladiators is consistant. This "logic" is more important ( IMHO ) than my previouly stated "Maths" logic...

The logic for c) is as set out by your post of 10th June. In my opinion this is the least likely to be correct ; although I do understand ( and to a degree, agree with ) your stated logic.

If you still wish to use option c), I again strongly recommend that you use a 1 VP value ( rather than a 2 VP value ).

[ NB : It will be interesting to see Mr B's reply ( if we get one )... ]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.