Thank you,Originally Posted by Angiolillo
Thank you,
I was putting all the skill values into a spreadsheet tonight, and I have a couple of quick questions (which I apologize if they were already answered):
Can I assume that anybody, either pilots or crew, can take the Fire Expert ace skill? If so, would it be like Technical Eye, in that it affects the entire plane, but goes away if the ace with the skill is incapacitated?
Also, the point-value list indicates that "All the crew is rookie" is a disadvantage worth negative 10 points. What if only the pilot is a rookie? Or only some of the crew members? Is a rookie non-pilot crew member prohibited from firing during steep maneuvers?
Thanks!
Alphabetic Sort?
Airco DH2 58
Albatros C.III 81
Albatros D.II fire A 78
Albatros D.II fire B 58
Albatros D.III 79
Albatros D.Va 82
Aviatik D.I fire A 82
Aviatik D.I fire B 62
Breguet XIV B2 A/A 130
Breguet XIV B2 B/A 110
Breguet XIV B2 B/B 90
Bristol F2B Fighter A/B 111
Bristol F2B Fighter AB/A 147
Bristol F2B Fighter B/A 111
Bristol F2B Fighter B/B 91
Caproni Ca.3 143
Caproni Ca.4 fire A/B 180
Caproni Ca.4 fire B/B 169
Curtiss H.16 179
DH4 A/A 129
DH4 AB/B 133
DH4 B/A 109
DH4 B/B 89
Felixstowe F.2.A 216
Fokker D.VII 100
Fokker Dr.I 85
Fokker E.III 48
Fokker E.V 89
Friedrichshafen G.III 164
Gotha G.V 142
Halberstadt CL.II 90
Halbestadt D.III 60
Hannover CL.IIIa 93
Hanriot fire A 87
Hanriot fire B 67
Macchi M.5 84
Morane Saulnier Type N 46
Nieuport 11 50
Nieuport 16 47
Nieuport 17/23 fire A 76
Nieuport 17/23 fire B 56
Nieuport Ni.28 87
O/400 fire A/A 197
O/400 fire A/B 182
O/400 fire B/A 182
O/400 fire B/B 157
Pfalz D.III 83
Phönix D.I 84
Raf Re8 B/A 101
Raf Re8 B/B 81
Roland fire B 64
Roland fire B/B 92
Rumpler C.IV B/B 85
Se5a fire A 92
Se5a fire B 72
Sopwith 1 1/2 Stutter 86
Sopwith 1 1/2 Stutter Comic 78
Sopwith Camel 86
Sopwith Pup 63
Sopwith Snipe 97
Sopwith Triplane fire A 86
Sopwith Triplane fire B 66
SPAD VII fire B 62
SPAD VII fire A 82
SPAD XIII 85
SS D.I 58
SS D.III 93
Ufag C.I 83
Zeppelin Staaken 239
Last edited by OldGuy59; 03-25-2017 at 15:59.
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
A WW2 proposal:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...Wings-of-Glory
I know I've said this before but it bears repeating.
Thank you for this Andrea. This is very much appreciated.
With the 100 year anniversary of Blood April nearly upon us, and with an eye towards playing scenarios and campaigns inspired by same, I'm curious if anyone has given a thought to an appropriate points value for the Sopwith Pup?
The "officially unofficial" stats have the Pup with the B damage deck, the D maneuver deck, 12 HP, a climb rate of 4 and a maximum altitude of 12.
The Sopwith Triplane - historically a bit faster than the Pup if I'm not mistaken - is listed at 66pts with 13 HP and B deck damage.
I'm guessing the Pup would be maybe two or three points less than the Triplane, to account for the reduction in speed and hitpoints?
P.S. - There are a few other "unofficial" planes listed in the points values, so hopefully this request isn't considered out of scope. It's an important early/mid-war plane, after all!
Pup would be 63pts.
I confirm 63.
Thanks for your prompt replies chaps.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
SAML S.2 -- 87 points?
Alphabetic list updated with Pup.
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
It all depends sometimes the "K" deck is 7pts (RE8) others it is 8pts (Br14).
So the SAML could be 87 or 88.
UR in the ballpark!
Last edited by john snelling; 03-25-2017 at 23:17.
Thank you
Hi John, just curious on why the K deck would vary by a point?
Thanks, Peter
I think John has a more accurate system for determining points that I do, but what I do is try to find the closest match and then adjust the point value from what rules I know:
1) Andrea has said that the difference between an A gun and a B gun is 20 points. Ie, we can see that an A-firing N17 is worth 76 points while a B-firing N17 is worth 56 points. There are other examples that bear out this rule.
2) It also appears that the difference a difference in damage value equates to 2 points per damage point. Ie, a Pfalz D.III (J-A-16) is worth 83, and an Albatros D.III (J-A-14) is worth 79, 4 points less than the Pfalz.
3) I don't believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that climb rate and ceiling have any bearing on the point value.
The closest matches I can find for the SAML S2 (K-B/B-16) are these:
R.E.8 (K-B/B-13) : 81 pts
Rumpler (K-B/B-15) : 85 pts
Breguet (K-B/B-17) : 90 pts
As you can see, the difference between the RE8 and the Rumpler is 2 damage, so the point value difference should be 4, and it is (81 -> 85).
Then, the difference between the Rumpler and the Breguet is another 2 damage, so I would expect the point value to be 89, but its not, its 90.
So the Breguet gets another 1 point from somewhere. John states that in this case the K deck is scored as 8 rather than 7. I don't have a sense for how many points the decks are worth so I can't comment on how he's calculating those.
Anyway, if we use the RE8 or Rumpler as our basis, then the SAML is +6 over the RE8 and +2 over the Rumpler for 87 points.
On the other hand if we use the B14 as our basis, then the SAML is -2, for 88 points.
John or Andrea: can you elaborate on your methods? I'd like to better understand how the points are calculated and how the different decks score.
EDIT:
Here's one I have no clue about: I don't understand how the UFAG is only worth 83 if Rumpler is 85 and the B/B DH.4 is worth 89. I think the UFAG should be 91 points based on the DH.4, but then again, the B/B Brisfit is 91 points, and it is clearly worth more than the UFAG because the Brisfit has an Immelmann turn.
Last edited by brdavis; 03-27-2017 at 14:59.
When you are figuring out lots of numbers and stats mistakes are made.
Another mistake is the UFAG C.I.
They just need to be addressed. Andre is a busy guy.
Do not hold me has 100% correct it is something like this:
ADD the numeric value of Speed and manueverbility (sp) then divide by 2.
Speed
Very fast = 16, Fast = 14, Average = 12, slow = 10, very slow = 8?
Man standard =8 (3 straights, 3 left/right, 2 left side slip/right side slip, Immel)
No Immelmann = -2
Sharp right or left +2 per card
side slip +1 per card or -1 if only 1
WING OVER +2 per card
Fokker D.VII standing on wing +3
iii.Results are: A=12, B=12, C=14, D=14, E=11, F=15, G=9, H=10, I=12, J=11, K=? or 8, L=17, M=17, N=16, O=17, P=10, Q=13, R=9, S=11, T=9, U=15, V=10, XA=4.5, XB=5, XC=4.5, XD=5 rounded down
I always thought the K deck should be 9 because the difference of H and K is only speed so the difference should be 1.
Or K is average speed 12 standard deck 8 minus 2 no immel equals 18 divided by 2 equals 9
This is a fascinating post, for me, as I've not seen this formula before. Presumably something similar was used by Andrea to create the official points values?
Also, which cards represent the "Wing over" and "D.VII standing on wing" maneuvers?
Should there be an increase in points for the Entente planes with the Higher Gun rule? - the ability to shoot when bases overlap is pretty powerful, and is denied to all Central Powers planes!
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
What is wrong with teh UFAG C.I.?
I am curious about these too.
The points value for the UFAG (H-B/B-16) should be -2pts to the Br14 (H-B/B-17) 90pts. The UFAG is 83pts should be 88. That is if K deck is 8pts. (IMHO it should be 9pts.)
The standing on wing is card #21 and #22 on the Fokker D.VII "L" deck. The card that makes the D.VII the best, the stall with a turn.
The Wing Over is card #19 and 20 on the "F" deck.
I hope this helps.
I've generally found the points system decent for early and late -war planes, but I'm finding there may be a gap with respect to midwar planes.
Please see this thread for details:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-not-be-enough
Cheers Andrea!
I was thinking of how to moderate victory points in competitions that I am planning to run. I started even to delve into historical studies of aviation technologies of WWI, got overwhelmed, and understood that I am over-complicating as always, but didn't know where to start. You did the big work, so a big thank you from me. Now running a league competition will sort out the aces (those that survive and down at least 5 opponents off-course) in a fair rank. E.g. from my situation I like my Morane-Saulnier N, but one of my opponents likes the Fokker Dr1 or Albatross DIII, guess who will sweat more in our games...
Anyway, grazie again from Down Under to Italia!
Have fun and let me know how it goes, thanks!
I saw that Ares has put out official points lists for WGS and Sails of Glory --- but I didn't see an official points list for WGF. Did I miss it somewhere, or should we keep using this list until the official one comes out?
It's the first post in this very thread.
[EDIT] Read your post again - I wasn't aware Ares had published point lists, I found the WGS one after searching Ares' website. As far as I'm aware there isn't a similar publication for WGF - I would continue using the list in the first post in this thread until then.
Last edited by brdavis; 06-30-2017 at 12:12.
Correct me if I am wrong - but isn't the Andrea on this thread the same Andrea who designed this game (I mean the names coincide, both located in Italy and both are Game Designers)? So if that is correct, the points system that were supplied by the Author are a good indication on what they stand in terms of the game. Or so I would think...
EDIT: If it is the same person, that's great! I have a few technical questions with regards to the rules.
You are not wrong Oleksandr, Angiolillo is the game designer.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Oh, I totally respect that Andrea wrote the list that's the first post in this thread -- that's why I use the list pretty religiously. But I've always thought the list was "unofficial", and I'm wondering whether Ares might now be planning to make the WGF point-value list a canonical part of the formally approved rules.
Eris,
Please note that the Ares 'Official' WGS List doesn't provide points for Nexus Planes. As they have changed the A Maneuver deck, anyone flying the Nexus Spitfire with the old deck will not have the same point value. And this may come up with any future reprint release, if they change the Zero deck, for instance.
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
Apprciae the work Andrea and others have put in to devising a points system, but totaly agree with the above quote from BobP
I appreciate the effort developing a point system. It will be good tool to attempt to evenly match the sides.Hopefully, there will be an "official" list on the Ares Games website sometime soon, same as for WWII.
Hello all,
The Fokker EIII and Morane-Saulnier N both use the same maneuver decks, and have the same speed in game terms. But, from what I read from James McCudden, V.C. "Flying Fury - Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps" I found (quoting chapter IV, book III. -1915, page numbers depend upon publisher):
"This Morane came to No. 3 Squadron about the same time as the single-seater Fokker first appeared, and the machines were almost identical, except that the Fokker had a square fuselage, and the Morane had a round one. The performances, however, were very different, as the Fokker was faster, no doubt because it lost no propeller efficiency as the Morane did, the Fokker being fitted with a Mechanical interrupter gear to prevent the gun from shooting the propeller, and so it did not have deflectors on its propeller"
So I infer that the deflectors made the propeller heavier, and, to add to this, the occasional strike of a high speed bullet would transfer its' immense momentum to add to the effective propeller load, and by thus decreasing the efficiency of the machine engine (i.e. engine is loaded more, loss of efficiency). I would assume then that the Fokker EIII should be a tad bit more faster than the Morane (and maybe even just a bit more maneuverable?). From the game perspective though, was there too less of a difference to represent this variation?
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to find faults, just reading pilot memoirs and trying to transfer it to my games and understand if I don't see another half of the picture, my interest in this period now goes much more deeper than just the game, so hope I am not being a smart-ass, if I am, let me know, and I'll shut it. Sometimes I get questions which I attempt to answer from pure logic. Some things I can't truly answer without referring to the game designer or the community.
Cheers all,
Oleksandr
There have been economies of design made in the game. The original boxed set of Wings of War Famous Aces had the Fokker Dr.1 and the Sopwith Triplane using the same maneuver deck. This was a decision to get more plane choices in the box, and not increase the number of maneuver decks. With the release of the Ares Wings of Glory Triplane, the maneuver deck changed to reflect the difference in speed that should have been there in the first place (notwithstanding the debate about the extra gun on Collishaw's plane).
Also, for the WGS version, almost all the dive bombers use the I maneuver deck, despite any difference in speeds (some more knowledgable player can correct this), as there are very specific dive bombing maneuver cards in this deck, and this deck only (for the moment).
There might not be sufficient difference in the performance between the Moraine-Saulner N and the Eindecker to rate an entire new maneuver deck. On a scale of 1/900, and a potential difference of a millimeter or two arrow length on a card, they may have made the design decision to use the same deck for both.
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
Collishaw's own words about the Triplane bemoaned it's lack of speed "it could have been faster", yet Ares have seen fit to give it a deck which is significantly faster than every single contemporary German aircraft.
Go figure.
The combination of "similar" speeds into a single 'speed band' cuts out a number of real-life observations by the crews who actually flew the planes.
Sholto Douglas applauds the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter, and declares its only fault as the fact that it was slower than the Albatros and Halberstadt scouts in 1916.
In the game, they all have exactly the same speed.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Tim,
Can you reference this? My research reveals something quite different. And as he lead other single-gunned planes in his flight with it, it couldn't have been too slow.
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
You posted the quote yourself, here - http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...ghlight=A+guns
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Yup. However, not borne out by stats in any pubs I can find. Every publication I have just looked through says the Triplane was faster than its contemporaries, some by over twenty kilometers per hour.
Winchester, J (2010) Classic Military Aircraft - the World's Fighting Aircraft 1914-1945. China, Chartwell Books
Taylor, M.J.H. (1980) Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. New York, New York, Portland House
Among others quickly scanned on line.
Hmmm... Perhaps Collishaw wanted to chase down planes from a distance? Not sure what to make of this.
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
Simply put Oleksandr, the speeds are grouped into 20kph speed bands eg 141-160kph, so machines of similar speeds can have the same game speed or, if they happen to fall across a divide, quite different game speed ! Whilst not as accurate as it could be it's about accurate as it can be.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I thought it was faster because Ares had given it a more compact wing spread!
Don't show Chris this post.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I thought it was faster because Ares had given it a more compact wing spread!
Don't show Chris this post.
Rob.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
I thought it was faster because Ares had given it a more compact wing spread!
Don't show Chris this post.
Rob.Ares have yet to make a Sopwith Triplane
In respect of the quote which version of the Sopwith Triplane was was Collishaw talking about? The early production models (very limited numbers) with the Clerget 9Z nine cylinder rotary engine only produced 110hp (82kw) as opposed to the more usual model with the Clerget 9B engine, which produced 130hp (97kw) albeit being about 40kg heavier. This may have been one of the early models which may have been slower.
More generally the Sopwith Triplane was reported as slower in a dive (and probably straight line acceleration) than the Albatros III, which was because of the increased drag induced by the triplane design. So again Collishaw may have meant acceleration rather than top speed, which for fighter pilots dependent on surprise and speed of response was an important consideration.
Or he could have had a duff engine (anyone familiar with classic British motorbikes will well know the difference between a 'Monday' model and a 'Friday' production model..) or he could just have been talking bollocks. Who knows?
Tom
I told you not to let Chris see this.
Now look what has happened!
Pass me the dried frog pills bursar.
Kyte.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Oh, deja vu, thought I was back at the Tank Museum then !!
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I find this humorous. I know what you mean but they are truly contradictory.
Cheers all for the answers. Got it - a wargame has limits of accuracy, and would never be a complete substitute for the real thing, let alone if any of us have ever been pilots of an actual airplane.
Now, since the rules are being discussed here in a way, let me know if this should be asked in another post, does anyone know if there were "house-rule" developments that anyone made up to factor in the "dud-engine" problem during a fight? In some memoirs, there is a reference to pilots not rarely quitting a fight due to having a dud engine (or it getting cluttered by engine oil if descent was too steep and for too long for that matter, a good example of both duds and oil problems could be found in a couple of occasions in "Winged Victory" by V.M. Yeates, for example).
Don't recall anyone doing that sort of rule but do a search to see if anyone has, if not you could start a thread about it.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
This might be of interest for campaign play using 'NPC' pilots but I don't imagine many players would be happy about having to abort their mission due to engine trouble.
The way I see it the missions flown in Wings of Glory are the ones where the aircraft involved managed to get into the action without succumbing to mechanical malfunctions and the like. That stuff can happen 'off-camera' so to speak.
Carl, you have a point. In any case though, not all aircraft fought to their full capability in a given battle, so this rule would be there entirely optional for those who want extra "realism".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks