Ares Games

View Poll Results: which system is better WW1 or WW2?

Voters
146. You may not vote on this poll
  • WW1: 3 cards maneuver - no speed

    37 25.34%
  • WW2: 2 cards maneuver - speed

    19 13.01%
  • Both are good: they represent the differences between both wars

    82 56.16%
  • Other, dunno

    8 5.48%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: What system is best: 3 cards WoW/WW1 or 2 Cards DoW/WW2

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CappyTom View Post
    I like the 2 card system better. It gives you a faster reaction time and makes you have to think out 2 to 3 turns ahead. The other is fine but if you turn the wrong way by the time the 3rd card is done your out in la la land.

    Thomas
    I'm not sure about having to think out 2 or 3 turns ahead for WGS, but you sure have to think out three cards in WGF. Exactly like Thomas says, though, if you get it wrong in WGF, you are way far apart (SPADs are terrible for this). I haven't enough experience in WGS, but I would like to try using the two card planning in WFG, just to see if the game gets tighter.

    Others' comments on the fun factor in WGF? Perhaps because the damage dealt in a single pass in WGS tends to take you completely out of the fight, even if you are not shot down? That's my limited experience. Never fly only one plane vs one plane, was one suggestion I have followed in my very limited experience. And now I have a flight of three Hurries to take up against four Bf-109s for a realistic "flight vs flight" for WWII. Should be nail-biters for the Canadians.

    For things like tailing, the 2 card system would allow better tailing. But, without playtesting, who knows.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  2. #52

    Default

    I prefer WW1, partly for the 3 cards system but also for the scale of the models. However my two grandsons prefer WW2, and that, is that.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I'm not sure about having to think out 2 or 3 turns ahead for WGS, but you sure have to think out three cards in WGF. Exactly like Thomas says, though, if you get it wrong in WGF, you are way far apart (SPADs are terrible for this). I haven't enough experience in WGS, but I would like to try using the two card planning in WFG, just to see if the game gets tighter.

    Others' comments on the fun factor in WGF? Perhaps because the damage dealt in a single pass in WGS tends to take you completely out of the fight, even if you are not shot down? That's my limited experience. Never fly only one plane vs one plane, was one suggestion I have followed in my very limited experience. And now I have a flight of three Hurries to take up against four Bf-109s for a realistic "flight vs flight" for WWII. Should be nail-biters for the Canadians.

    For things like tailing, the 2 card system would allow better tailing. But, without playtesting, who knows.
    I see what your saying Mike. What I mean with looking 2 to 3 turns out is that the WW2 version is more of a turning fight. You have to know your closing rates. The WW1 version is more maneuverable. That is why you can do 1 on 1. As you get better with WW2 you can do 1 on 1 but it is a turning fight and it will take a while to get a shot. And when one opponent makes a mistake it is usually his/her last. I enjoy both and think that each versions mechanics works for it version. I just lean more towards the WW2 version.

    Thomas

  4. #54

    Default

    I like them both as they are very different. WGF is a 3 card guessing game, where can they be in 3 cards and where do I want to be for the beginning of the next 3 cards.
    WGS I find is more intense. The guessing game isn't as much a factor. Once one has a position of advantage it is easier to dictate the action. When someone is behind you it is sooo much more difficult saving the situation.

  5. #55

    Default

    I think you have it in a nut shell Peter.
    The only thing I would say about WWI is that when you get into it, it's a bit like chess. Some moves in certain circumstances are always bad. ie. approaching the table edge at an oblique angle obliges you to Immel or turn in one known direction. Immel on the last move of a turn, and we all know where that leads. On the other hand some moves are % moves. If he does that I'll have him if I...... but if he does .... instead I'll still be safe. Then there are the if in trouble moves. It is always good to overdive, and then immediately turn. The chaser must make a judgement. If he follows your overdive, he may be going in the wrong direction, but if he waits to see which way you turn he will never catch you, especially if you have the height to accomplish another overdive later in the escape.
    These are things you learn with experience.
    WW2 seems as everyone says, far more immediate. I never cease to marvel at the fact that once on someones tail he is going down unless your cards are bad or you do something extremely crass. I think that is where we have it over the AIs in WW2 as well. They make sound moves, but never anything exceptional. It takes exceptional to get out of a tailing situation in WW2.
    Is all this not what makes the game so great. Chess in 3d with chance, guns and bombs for good measure.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  6. #56

    Default

    Much more eloquent than I Rob. I am a nut.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Much more eloquent than I Rob. I am a nut.
    Very good Peter.
    On the other hand, some people of my acquaintance would say that I suffer from sesquipedalian loquaciousness. (Too bloody long winded)
    Rob.


    And you can keep quiet too Squadron Leader.
    Kyte.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  8. #58

    Default

    Has anyone tried WGF with two cards a la WGS but w/o speed markers? One thing I don't like about the three card system is that it does not allow for any reactions to player movements except every third card. If each card is 6 seconds worth of action, it means that a pilot can only react once every 18 seconds.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tusekine View Post
    Has anyone tried WGF with two cards a la WGS but w/o speed markers? One thing I don't like about the three card system is that it does not allow for any reactions to player movements except every third card. If each card is 6 seconds worth of action, it means that a pilot can only react once every 18 seconds.
    That is what bothers me in the system as well, Anthony That is also the reason I have been leaning toward the WGS system recently, when you enjoy a better control over your plane.
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  10. #60

    Default

    I think you both have it Peter and Rob. I would also add. When playing WW2 if you have a good wingman you are good to go. It is very hard to shoot down a good pair of pilots. Each other covering the other. They will give you a heads up on incoming trouble from a blind spot. Meaning when you have target fixation and don't notice the boogie on your 3 O'clock. Then on the other hand someone that wants to go do his own thing...none of you last long.

    Thomas

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tusekine View Post
    Has anyone tried WGF with two cards a la WGS but w/o speed markers?
    PRS and I tried it on a slow night at the Family Game Store. If you want to give it a go, you should endorse it for one of our opening dogfights some time when there aren't a bunch of new people.

  12. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Others' comments on the fun factor in WGF? Perhaps because the damage dealt in a single pass in WGS tends to take you completely out of the fight, even if you are not shot down? That's my limited experience. Never fly only one plane vs one plane, was one suggestion I have followed in my very limited experience. And now I have a flight of three Hurries to take up against four Bf-109s for a realistic "flight vs flight" for WWII. Should be nail-biters for the Canadians.
    In my experience there's a big difference between early WGS and mid-late WGS aircraft. Early aircraft do more modest damage. They don't seem to mix too well with later aircraft because of that. I did play a rather long game with a friend this week; I flew a Reggiane and he flew a pair of Glosters. It wasn't quite "one-on-one", but pretty close. I relied on speed and he on maneuver. Maneuver won, but only just.

  13. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudotheist View Post
    PRS and I tried it on a slow night at the Family Game Store. If you want to give it a go, you should endorse it for one of our opening dogfights some time when there aren't a bunch of new people.
    Todd, what did you think? Do you think 2 cards is better than 3 for WGF?

  14. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tusekine View Post
    Has anyone tried WGF with two cards a la WGS but w/o speed markers? One thing I don't like about the three card system is that it does not allow for any reactions to player movements except every third card. If each card is 6 seconds worth of action, it means that a pilot can only react once every 18 seconds.
    I know that Luis (Iberian Shadow) swore by it, but I haven't tried it yet. One potential problem (or benefit) is that the maneuver decks are set up for 3 card play. You can get more diving/climbing action with the 2 card manner. Does this give the planes an unrealistic ability for climb and dive rates? Probably not an issue, since their relative rates stay the same, but something to think about. Turns too, since the Camel loses it's special turning ability; planes with only 2 90 degree turns can turn like a Camel.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  15. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    One potential problem (or benefit) is that the maneuver decks are set up for 3 card play.
    Yes, to implement WGS-style maneuvering in WGF you have to keep a third card in play, as a "memory slot" for the card played the previous turn. Ironically, it actually helps game tracking by obviating the need for a system to keep track of steeps & straights between turns (does anyone ACTUALLY use the provided tokens for that). Once you have that third card down on the cockpit you restore the maneuver concentration imbalance.

    As for which is better, I didn't get enough of a sample of the alternate method, but I will say it was more difficult than I expected to make the adjustment in thinking for the short ammount of time we tried it.

  16. #66

    Default

    Since I haven't had the chance to play WoG WWII I really can't offer a comparison. I can say that once I understood the reasoning and meaning of the three maneuver cards in WoG WWI, I thought it was pretty good and I do like it. Thank you, Andrea, for explaining it.

    [Edit: P.S. should I give my reasoning?}
    Last edited by Ken at Sunrise; 02-21-2017 at 07:00. Reason: spell'in n grammar

  17. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    I personally like the 3 card system as it feels more like flying to me. The 1 card system (it's not really a 2 card system once the game is under way) seems to break up the "flying" into short choppy bits since you have to plan a new card after every move.

    I do like the speed options in WGS though.
    I agree with the above quite a bit - I find the WGS system of planning a card each phase extremely tedious and immersion-breaking. So from a pure gameplay (i.e. not simulation) perspective, I absolutely prefer WWI's three card approach - it's simply more fun, and has a great rhythm to it.

    Furthermore, from a simulation standpoint, I do not feel that the WGS system is good way of representing the relative differences of WWI and WWII aircraft. If anything, the higher speeds (and hence, inertia) of WWII aircraft would make them less agile than the lightweight WWI biplanes... meaning if there was a choice between 2 card and 3 cards to represent both WWI and WWII, the two card system should go to WWI, and the three card to WWII.

    With that said, I do like the speed options in WGS and do feel they are important for representing the broader flight envelopes of those aircraft.

    My solution is to play WGS in a hybrid manner, with 2 cards planned per turn, in other words, exactly like WGF, but planning just 2 cards at a time instead of 3. That's a good enough compromise for me, and given the terrible turning radius of most of the WGS planes, it helps alleviate the "whoops where'd they go?" possibilities of flying off in a random direction due to a bad guess about where you're opponent is going next.

    One other comment - the damage caused in WGS is brutal and can make the game tend to be even more swingy than WGF. With that said... 20mm cannons and the like are serious business and in truth, short bursts were often all it took to bring down an opponent. So I just accept that for what it is.

  18. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    [...] meaning if there was a choice between 2 card and 3 cards to represent both WWI and WWII, the two card system should go to WWI, and the three card to WWII.

    With that said, I do like the speed options in WGS and do feel they are important for representing the broader flight envelopes of those aircraft.

    [...]
    I was comparing the maneuver with a turn like other games and was wondering why WGS had speed differences and WGF did not. Surely WGF planes could speed up or slow down so why wasn't there different speeds for straights and such.

    Then it was explained to me that I was looking at the turn wrong. In other games you pick you speed/maneuver, complete it and fire. But in this game the turn is divided into three steps, each having a maneuver and firing/combat component. So going fast was three long straights and going slow was short stall, straight, short stall. Suddenly it made perfect sense. The WGS planes are faster and more nimble/responsive, hence the two card system. The WGF planes can turn much more quickly, but compared to the acrobatics of a WWII plane that are not nearly as responsive.

    I've not an historian nor do I know the flight characteristics of the actual planes. But the three card system representing the full turn of other games does represent speed. And using three cards only shows that the WGF planes could not change direction (and survive the stress) that the later aircraft could. Maybe this is all a bunch of nonsense to make a game sound realistic, but it seems pretty good to me.

  19. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken at Sunrise View Post
    I've not an historian nor do I know the flight characteristics of the actual planes. But the three card system representing the full turn of other games does represent speed. And using three cards only shows that the WGF planes could not change direction (and survive the stress) that the later aircraft could. Maybe this is all a bunch of nonsense to make a game sound realistic, but it seems pretty good to me.
    Well, if you're happy, that's all that matters!

    With that said, to try to illustrate what I'm talking about, consider these flying clips of actual SE5a and Fokker D.VIIs - flown in many/most cases by former WWI combat pilots - as depicted in Howard Hughes' Hells Angels:



    (Turn down the sound if you don't like 80s hair metal!)

    Those aircraft are maneuvering in ways that are simply impossible for WWII warbirds to perform without spinning out of control. WWI biplanes were able to change direction and reverse course in just a few yards - something that a plane weighing four or five times as much, and flying 3-4 times (or more) as fast, simply could not do, no matter how agile they were (relative to other WWII aircraft). The physics just don't work that way.

    To a certain degree, the shift in scale - from 1/144 for WGF to 1/200 for WGS - helps to mask these differences, and as noted elsewhere, the ground scale on the maneuver cards is something more like 1/1000, so we're already dealing with significant abstractions from reality. But in the "tempest in a teacup" context of the physical airspace represented in a typical playing surface, the biplanes were absolutely the more agile IMHO. In this respect, I think the existing maneuver cards do a good job of representing this for both WGF and WGS; I simply think that, from a simulation perspective, 2 cards would be better suited to WWI biplanes than 3 cards, and vice versa.

    But that's just like, my opinion, maaaan....

  20. #70

    Default

    One thing, which could do with improving in the WGS system and will certainly have to be dealt with, if we ever move on to jet combat, is changing altitude in combat.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Well, if you're happy, that's all that matters!
    Thanks?


    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Those aircraft are maneuvering in ways that are simply impossible for WWII warbirds to perform without spinning out of control. WWI biplanes were able to change direction and reverse course in just a few yards - something that a plane weighing four or five times as much, and flying 3-4 times (or more) as fast, simply could not do, no matter how agile they were (relative to other WWII aircraft). The physics just don't work that way.
    As I said I'm neither an expert nor even well informed or educated on WWI planes. But I do think I wasn't very clear. I never had any doubt that WWI planes were incredibly maneuverable. Turning on a dime, so to speak, changing direction or reversing course in just a few yards as you said. I agree completely. Changing direction in a few yards while going 60 miles per hours (mph) is somewhat different than going several hundred mph. As you said "something that a plane weighing four or five times as much, and flying 3-4 times (or more) as fast, simply could not". Going at those higher speed would, obviously, rip apart a plane if it turned 90 degrees in a few feet.

    Rather I was referring to the response time from the moment the pilot chose to reverse. Yes the WWI planes are very maneuverable and capable of maneuvers in a very small space, but at a nice slow pace compared to planes of WWI or later periods. From what I've seen at airshows, on television (poor source) and in movies (another poor source), if you could, somehow, shrink the distance traveled of a WWII aircraft to a scaled distance of a WWI aircraft they would appear far more responsive, nimble and sturdier. Response is what I was referring to. Hence the planning ahead of 2 cards versus 3 cards.

    P.S. I was wondering, If one imagines the G-Forces the WWII planes contended with even at the wide arcs they traveled; what if we could, again somehow, compare those of the WWI planes to the same scale of speed and distance as the WWI planes. Which would be more nimble? Perhaps a ratio or forward stall speed to a banking reverse. Which was be measurably better? I don't know but maybe they were more maneuverable too, just over a larger area? Like I said, I wouldn't know.

  22. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken at Sunrise View Post
    Thanks?
    Apologies if that reply came off sounding condescending, that was not at all the spirit in which it was intended. It was a sincere statement - I'm really not one for trying to tell people that they're having fun "the wrong way," as is sometimes a bit too common in gaming circles. But words on the internet are easy to read with multiple interpretations, so I just want to confirm my intentions were entirely good.

    As for the rest - I think it's possible to go round and round (pardon the pun ) on the subject of 1, 2 or 3 cards being "best," but really - per my above statement regarding just having fun - the only thing that actually matters is that the game is enjoyable for those participating. I feel there are very reasonable justifications for both the 2 and 3 card approaches, and just offered my comments for what they're worth.

    I personally find WGS a joy when I play it in a 2 card WGF-style, whereas I don't enjoy as much playing it per the rules as written. But that's just me

  23. #73

    Default

    I can't say I read every post here but how does tailing work if you use 2 cards or even a card after each turn? I have not played WW2 yet ut I am getting close!

  24. #74

    Default

    No worries, I should always think before I type.

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    As for the rest - I think it's possible to go round and round (pardon the pun ) on the subject of 1, 2 or 3 cards being "best,"
    That is very true and I'm sure we all will end up with our own favorite. I was just trying to explain myself well. Too often I ramble and my point gets lost or clouded. Response time vrs maneuverability.

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    But that's just me
    As it is for all of us

    I do enjoy the game though.

  25. #75

    Default

    WW2 two cards with speed because the pilots would use their throttle in the battles which in WW2 was very important in life or death.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Missions

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-11-2012, 11:08
  2. other cards?
    By radzak in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 12:08
  3. S Cards
    By Linz in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 04:31
  4. WWI system vs WWII system question????
    By Propjockey53 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 14:14
  5. Ace Cards
    By Belis4rius in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 20:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •