Ares Games
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 87

Thread: Optional rules for specific planes

  1. #1

    Default Optional rules for specific planes

    We already have some in the game, as the broader firing field of the Roland or the impossibility for observers of the Bristol Fighter to fire after certain maneuvres. Multi-engine bombers also have several ones.

    Which one could be worth adding to the game?

    I am working on somes linked to these plane characteristics:
    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun
    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure
    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns
    - Fokker E.IV triple machinegun prone to jamming
    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate
    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1)
    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    - different cklimb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes

    Any more suggestions for any WoW/WGF plane?

    Thanks a lot!

  2. #2

    Default

    instead of "Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns" just make it "unreachable machineguns". The Phonix D series and Albatros D.III 53.2 and most 153 series, most Brandenburg D.Is, Pfalz D.IIIs all had them.

    Thank you for looking at these most interesting aspects.
    I did not realize the DH4 had fuel tank exposure issues thanks again.

  3. #3

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Been discussed before but special rule for planes mounting guns on foster mounts (mainly S.E.5`s and Nieuports).
    Perhaps working like the WWII Schrage Musik rule?

  4. #4

    Default

    Some thoughts.

    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun - quickly changed to a fixed mount when it was found almost impossible to aim
    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure - worth pursuing; makes the formidable DH4 more vulnerable
    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns - worth pursuing; agree with comments above on other types
    - Fokker E.IV triple machinegun prone to jamming - seemingly very few of the 49 E.IVs saw operational service with the 3MG fit
    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate - worth pursuing; hopefully attract more players to use altitude rules
    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1) - only 6 built, and not sure if all used operationally
    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916 - worth pursuing; may make some pilots think a bit more before Immelmanning allover the place, and Nieuport 28 and Fokker E.V in 1918 also vulnerable
    - different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes - exactly that, 'a few planes'. Leave the variations for someone's house rules

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks for the comments, I will take them all into account. I also remember the home rule about upper mgs firing upward, I am thinking about that.

    A little note: I am concentrating on planes in the game. Only one E.IV had 3 mg and was used in a very limited period, anyway it's in the Immelmann booster pack so the rule can fit anyay. Twin machineguns Sopwith Triplanes were 10 produced tbat way and a few that got a second weapon at the front - famed N533 Black Maria flown by Collishaw had two from ghe factory and is one of Ares' miniatures, but I aldo remember an on the field add-on in the Aegean tbat got a card in Recon Parrol.

  6. #6

    Default

    As far as the D.H.4 popular nickname "Flaming coffin" is concerned, the real reasons are controversial:

    http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ai...g-coffins.html

  7. #7

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    I'm with the naysayers on the "flaming coffin" issue - there's a serious lack of evidence that the DH4 really was particularly prone to burning, especially in combat rather than bad landings. Rather there was a serious *psychological* issue with its fuel tank, as its position between the two crew members rather put it to the forefront of their minds.... (Indeed as a gruesomely practical point, in combat the fuel tank was slightly less vulnerable than in many designs, since the observer was between it and any aircraft firing from astern....)
    Last edited by Dom S; 08-24-2013 at 06:35.

  8. #8

    Default

    Having hit the books this afternoon, I'm tending to agree with you there Dom.

    The other issue with the DH4 which could be exploited is the difficulty in communication, and therefore coordination, between pilot and observer due to the distance between the cockpits where the observer can't simply tap Biggles on the back of the head to get his attention.

  9. #9

    Default

    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun
    As a pilot option; expanded arc in exchange for no firing after steeps or Immelmans, and no aim bonus? Pilot experience would seem to indicate the drawbacks should outweigh the advantages, or at least it shouldn't be a free upgrade.

    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns
    With caveat for serious sticklers only; an unrecoverable jam can ruin an entire game, and they're way too common for that. A rule I think I could live with would be only red jams are permanent, and the first red jam reduces to a B-firing plane.

    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate
    Didn't you have this one in the old rules and dropped it because of the colision rules?

    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1)
    I think it's pretty simple to make A firing Triplanes use the D deck (and +1 to their climb rate). It may not be 100% accurate, but it most easily reflects loss of performance due to added weight.

    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    Something along the lines of if these machines perform and overdive they must draw a C damage card (there are SO many 0s in the C damage deck)? That would'nt be much more comlex than remembereng the overdive rules and Immelman exception.

    - different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes
    This is just adding a few lines to an already 2 page table; bring it on!

  10. #10

    Default

    Most or all SPADs had jettisonable fuel tanks, a trick which saved more than one pilot including IIRC Guynemer--have torecheck the Osprey books for the story.

    Maybe represent that with when you draw the BANG card, draw another card and if your draw is one of certain specific cards you get Engine Damage for the rest of the game instead?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Most or all SPADs had jettisonable fuel tanks, a trick which saved more than one pilot including IIRC Guynemer--have torecheck the Osprey books for the story.

    Maybe represent that with when you draw the BANG card, draw another card and if your draw is one of certain specific cards you get Engine Damage for the rest of the game instead?
    ... or the ability to only glide: no fuel = no power.
    Last edited by Baldrick62; 08-24-2013 at 08:18.

  12. #12

    Default

    I like to see differentiation between the Albatros D.III and the Oeffag D.III. I gather the 253 series was well-liked, and some reports indicate it was on a par with the late war fighters.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baldrick62 View Post
    ... or the ability to only glide: no fuel = no power.
    Right, no more Steeps and any climb must immediately be followed with a stall... sound reasonable?
    Last edited by Diamondback; 08-24-2013 at 09:51.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baldrick62 View Post
    Some thoughts.

    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure - worth pursuing; makes the formidable DH4 more vulnerable
    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1) - only 6 built, and not sure if all used operationally
    I'm jumping in as an ignorant noobie. However,

    DH4 - IMHO the exposed fuel tank is a problem for a lot of the planes of this war, not just the DH4. Some planes had gas tanks on the upper wings, over the engine and pilot. Why are they not being considered for special treatment? Were they armored? Were they self-sealing (I don't think so)? What made the DH4 especially vulnerable to fuel tank hits, considering the observer could soak up hits from the rear, and a fuel tank over the wing didn't have that extra protection?

    Sopwith Triplane twin machinegun - Collishaw's assessment of the Sopwith Triplane was that it was good up to 10,000 ft, IIRC. I don't have the book reference, just things posted on this forum. So, for the few planes (three?) used for two or three months (most optimistically) in 1917, before the Camels replaced all triplanes, why should we have any adjustment to the Sopwith Triplane, unless at high altitude?

    I can't comment on the other things, just not enough of a library or experience.

    My two cents.

    Mike

  15. #15

    Default

    Using the KISS principle... any aircraft normally fitted with 1 MG that's fitted with 2 gets the same penalties as if it was carrying some bombs. No extra rules needed.

    I would like some Jazz Music rules for upwards-firing lewis and observers guns though. Ball's tactic of flying very close below and opening up at range of 10 metres (ie below but bases overlapping) can't be simulated otherwise. Brisfits used similar tactics with the observer's guns firing forward and upward over the wing vs 2-seaters from below.

    Please adapt the WW2 rules unchanged (see KISS principle)

  16. #16

    Default

    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun
    I'm with Baldrick on this one; every mention I've read says it was unworkable, and pilots quickly fixed it in the field.

    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure
    Again, more of a psychological issue. The communications problem was noted, and fixed post-war in the US.
    I'm not sure any plane was particularly vulnerable to fuel tank fires (that is, they ALL were).

    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns
    As John notes, a number of planes have this problem, though the A-H ones lasted much longer than those on the western front.
    This should be a rule for die-hard purists, as an unfixable jam is a mission kill, and not for fun play.

    - Fokker E.IV triple machinegun prone to jamming
    My bigger problem was is degraded performance, which is not reflected in the Immellmann Booster card.

    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate
    Definitely worth doing.

    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1)
    IIRC, this was recently discussed and the performance degradation seemed to be in climb rate and ceiling.
    Also, (again IIRC) Collishaw's tripe had a better engine. But with the camel coming out, it wasn't worth pursuing this development.

    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    And Fokker D.VII, E.V, Nieuport 28.

    - different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes
    I'm not sure this is worth pursuing; it would add too much bookkeeping to be worth it.

    Any more suggestions for any WoW/WGF plane?
    I'll think on this

    Karl

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Most or all SPADs had jettisonable fuel tanks, a trick which saved more than one pilot including IIRC Guynemer--have torecheck the Osprey books for the story.

    Maybe represent that with when you draw the BANG card, draw another card and if your draw is one of certain specific cards you get Engine Damage for the rest of the game instead?
    Could you provide a source. I'm not doubting you, but have never heard of this before.
    The only one I had read about was a late-war German (SSW I think) that time ran out on.
    Karl

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Could you provide a source. I'm not doubting you, but have never heard of this before.
    The only one I had read about was a late-war German (SSW I think) that time ran out on.
    Karl
    http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ot...rop-tanks.html

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nils d
    Also some French planes started using a "dump tank" system near the EOW where if a fire started a pilot could use a sort of ring pull and jettison his fuel load.Slightly different but ld like to learn more on this.


    "This system was used on Spad 7 ( & later 13 etc.) in the bottom skin of the pressurised belly petrol tank , which was vulnerable in a crash . If a crash landing was likely , the soldered on sheet patch ( that covered a large hole ) , terminated in a connection to a cable that could be pulled by the pilot , ripping off the patch from the tank surface and thus de-pressurising the tank , exposing the hole & dumping the fuel thence . Due to the large hole , the fume filled tank was less likely to explode under compression when the machines belly was crushed , should the landing gear tear off .

    In a fire-in-the-air situation though , dependant on its origin , the dumping if a large plumb of fuel might itself cause a much greater hazard ??"

    imho, this is a mission killer, no fuel, no power, glide if you are lucky. Just a technique to survive a crash landing somewhat better than normal - if you remember to dump the fuel early before striking the ground. (and if the rip cord is intact and not damaged by the enemy fire that forced you into this crash landing). And if the pilot did this while the plane was on fire....

  19. #19

    Default

    Early D.H.2 flexible machinegun. I see this as something to be written into a campaign game, where you would basically say that the first flight of the D.H.2 would be unarmed in effect. Next mission it has a gun.

    The unreachable machineguns, again this mission-killer problem should just be a note for each applicable aircraft. In campaigns, this should be noted and let the unhappy player continue to the next mission. In normal (non-campaign) play, this is going to cause hate and discontent. Perhaps note it and advise to players to ignore it.

    Fokker E.IV - for one aircraft, but how about everytime you do more than 2 damage to the enemy, automatic jam occurs. Time out for 3!

    SS D.IV - best fix basically means allowing it to be the only aircraft with a climb of 1, and increasing the number on all other aircraft.

    Sopwith Triplane, perhaps best fix is to just use the D maneuver deck for dual guns?

    Wing failure problems on specific aircraft. The suggestion of drawing damage card after doing stressful maneuver is good - but perhaps, C damage after any steep, D damage after an immelmann perhaps.

    diff climb rates and top altitudes for specific few planes. sounds like a footnote project for the unofficial aircraft committee.

    Foster mounts. Can't see this one for just one specific pilot, but could just make it an Ace skill instead.

    Vertical Firing Arc
    Technical Ability
    Pilot or Crew
    This ability allows the aircraft to fire in the vertical mode above or below as allowed by aircraft configuration while the target is in the appropriate range (this requires altitude rules use)
    Last edited by wargamer; 08-25-2013 at 08:29.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargamer View Post
    http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ot...rop-tanks.html

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nils d
    Also some French planes started using a "dump tank" system near the EOW where if a fire started a pilot could use a sort of ring pull and jettison his fuel load.Slightly different but ld like to learn more on this.


    "This system was used on Spad 7 ( & later 13 etc.) in the bottom skin of the pressurised belly petrol tank , which was vulnerable in a crash . If a crash landing was likely , the soldered on sheet patch ( that covered a large hole ) , terminated in a connection to a cable that could be pulled by the pilot , ripping off the patch from the tank surface and thus de-pressurising the tank , exposing the hole & dumping the fuel thence . Due to the large hole , the fume filled tank was less likely to explode under compression when the machines belly was crushed , should the landing gear tear off .

    In a fire-in-the-air situation though , dependant on its origin , the dumping if a large plumb of fuel might itself cause a much greater hazard ??"

    imho, this is a mission killer, no fuel, no power, glide if you are lucky. Just a technique to survive a crash landing somewhat better than normal - if you remember to dump the fuel early before striking the ground. (and if the rip cord is intact and not damaged by the enemy fire that forced you into this crash landing). And if the pilot did this while the plane was on fire....
    Interesting, thanks.
    Karl

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun
    I'm with Baldrick on this one; every mention I've read says it was unworkable, and pilots quickly fixed it in the field.

    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure
    Again, more of a psychological issue. The communications problem was noted, and fixed post-war in the US.
    I'm not sure any plane was particularly vulnerable to fuel tank fires (that is, they ALL were).

    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns
    As John notes, a number of planes have this problem, though the A-H ones lasted much longer than those on the western front.
    This should be a rule for die-hard purists, as an unfixable jam is a mission kill, and not for fun play.

    - Fokker E.IV triple machinegun prone to jamming
    My bigger problem was is degraded performance, which is not reflected in the Immellmann Booster card.

    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate
    Definitely worth doing.

    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1)
    IIRC, this was recently discussed and the performance degradation seemed to be in climb rate and ceiling.
    Also, (again IIRC) Collishaw's tripe had a better engine. But with the camel coming out, it wasn't worth pursuing this development.

    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    And Fokker D.VII, E.V, Nieuport 28.

    - different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes
    I'm not sure this is worth pursuing; it would add too much bookkeeping to be worth it.

    Any more suggestions for any WoW/WGF plane?
    I'll think on this

    Karl
    I would like an official ruling on which planes were prone to wing failure in steep dives.

    My list for wing failure is as follows:
    All Nieuport - the underlying problem of the lower wing was inherent.
    Definitely Albatros DIII and Albatros DV. I'm tempted to leave out the Albatros DVa - the wing was significantly strengthened - on the other hand I might just be biased as I like the model
    I'd treat all Fokker Dr1 as prone to wing failure - once again the wing issue is inherent to the design.

    But, I'm not convinced of the Fokker DVII - I'd not come across significant evidence pilots were scared to do steep dives - but I could be wrong.

    [Edit - Added this bit]
    I would like for a very small number of planes different climb rates for different engines.
    My list is
    Spad VII
    DH4
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 08-25-2013 at 08:54.

  22. #22

    Default

    The Astro-Hungarian engineers fixed the lower wing of their Albatros D.III with extra braces ect. so should read "German made".

  23. #23

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    But, I'm not convinced of the Fokker DVII - I'd not come across significant evidence pilots were scared to do steep dives - but I could be wrong.
    Probably a typo - the Fokker D.VIII (aka the E.V) was in its early days one that certainly was extremely prone to shedding its top wing - especially problematic when the top wing's the only one you've got....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    You've misread that one - the Fokker D.VIII was what was suggested, and in its early days that one certainly was extremely prone to shedding its top wing - especially problematic when the top wing's the only one you've got....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII
    OK - thanks. Yes that makes a lot more sense. I thought it seemed a bit odd.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    You've misread that one - the Fokker D.VIII was what was suggested, and in its early days that one certainly was extremely prone to shedding its top wing - especially problematic when the top wing's the only one you've got....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII
    Actually, I did mean the D.VII, forgetting the D.VIII.
    while the D.VIII had a serious problem when first issued (and then pulled), didn't the D.VII also have issues (Fokker QC) when first issued. They didn't pull the plane out, like they did with the E.V/D.VIII, but there were still problems.
    Karl
    Last edited by Jager; 08-25-2013 at 09:00. Reason: more complete statement

  26. #26

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Possibly, but didn't the D.VII also have issues (Fokker QC) when first issued. They didn't pull the plane out, like they did with the E.V/D.VIII, but there were still problems.
    Karl
    There were a handful of incidents (the famous one being Fritz Rumey of Jasta 5 - in his case it's unclear whether his wing actually failed or he was involved in a collision with a 56 squadron SE5a....), but not enough to merit a ruling imo - the wing was prone to overstressing in the early days, but actual failures were extremely rare, due to a combination of field strengthening, and the problem simply not being as marked as in other types.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Actually, I did mean the D.VII, forgetting the D.VIII.
    while the D.VIII had a serious problem when first issued (and then pulled), didn't the D.VII also have issues (Fokker QC) when first issued. They didn't pull the plane out, like they did with the E.V/D.VIII, but there were still problems.
    Karl
    Many types of German planes had serious teething issues when first put into combat - but they were then fixed. IMHO, the design of the D.VII wing was not inherently weak - have you seen the wing bracing on it?

  28. #28

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Good point - with German types we need to be careful not to infer too much from very early reports, as they typically released what were effectively late model prototypes for evaluation in combat - the quirks and failings of those were frequently addressed before serial production began - after all, that's rather the point of the exercise....

  29. #29

    Default

    The Fokker D.VII had two different engines.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    The Fokker D.VII had two different engines.
    But did the Mercedes D.III 160hp performance differ enough from the BMW IIIa 185hp to show up in the WGF modeling.
    And which figures are used for the current ones?
    Karl

  31. #31

    Default

    Oops, somehow missed the SPAD tank commentary before I posted it.

    BTW, there was also an OAW (Oeffag-built) version, but I don't recall the differences--for some reason, though, they did have to add a designator suffix "(F)" to the later Fokkers to distinguish them from OAW's and earlier Fokker builds...

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    But did the Mercedes D.III 160hp performance differ enough from the BMW IIIa 185hp to show up in the WGF modeling.
    And which figures are used for the current ones?
    Karl
    For me the key question is how many built with the different type of engine were actually flown in combat?
    Most Fokker DVIIF were fitted with a 200hp engine - so I'd expect the plane to have that engine,

    The reason why I'd like the Spad VII to have the option of a 150hp engine is a very large number were built and flew in combat.
    Similarly a lot of DH4 (1,885) were built with the lower performance liberty engine.
    I can understand the interest in various rare planes (e.g. Siemens-Schuckert) but I'm mostly interested in the planes that commonly flew in combat.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 08-26-2013 at 01:26. Reason: Grammar

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbmacek View Post
    I like to see differentiation between the Albatros D.III and the Oeffag D.III. I gather the 253 series was well-liked, and some reports indicate it was on a par with the late war fighters.
    I have found two separate references to the Oeffag D.III on the Aerodrome, one from the Unofficial Stats spreadsheet that has the Oeffag at B/A/15/13/2 (vs. B/A/15/14/4) for the D.Va, and one that is a plane card that lists the Oeffag D.III as N/A/16 (with an explanation that the N Deck was to reflect better maneuverability).

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tusekine View Post
    I have found two separate references to the Oeffag D.III on the Aerodrome, one from the Unofficial Stats spreadsheet that has the Oeffag at B/A/15/13/2 (vs. B/A/15/14/4) for the D.Va, and one that is a plane card that lists the Oeffag D.III as N/A/16 (with an explanation that the N Deck was to reflect better maneuverability).
    I would not use the N (SE-5) deck. Adding a more powerful and heavier inline engine to a airframe does not aid manueverability.

  35. #35

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Similarly a lot of DH4 (1,885) were built with the lower performance liberty engine.
    That one looks like it`s covered in the new R&A rulebook as there are now two altitude and climb ratings for the DH.4.
    One for the UK version and one for the USA (Liberty engined) version.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tusekine View Post
    I have found two separate references to the Oeffag D.III on the Aerodrome, one from the Unofficial Stats spreadsheet that has the Oeffag at B/A/15/13/2 (vs. B/A/15/14/4) for the D.Va, and one that is a plane card that lists the Oeffag D.III as N/A/16 (with an explanation that the N Deck was to reflect better maneuverability).
    I would take the Unofficial stats as the correct source Anthony - N deck seems way to fast - if you wanted something with the same speed as a B deck but more manoeuvrability then use an F or Q deck (The F deck matches the N decks moves, the Q deck less so). Though I can't see how a Oeffag D.III would be that much better than a D.Va ?!

    Deck F (20) – Average speed - 4.7cm - (arrow is 80% of the card)
    3 straight
    1 hard right turn (90°)
    1 hard left turn (90°)
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep

    Deck Q (18) – Average speed - 4.7cm - (arrow is 80% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    1 hard right turn (90°) - steep
    1 hard left turn (90°) - steep
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip

    Deck N (20) – High speed - 6.0cm - (arrow as long as the card)
    3 straight
    1 hard right turn (90°) - steep
    1 hard left turn (90°) - steep
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit 3 View Post
    That one looks like it`s covered in the new R&A rulebook as there are now two altitude and climb ratings for the DH.4.
    One for the UK version and one for the USA (Liberty engined) version.
    Thanks - that makes sense. Now all that is needed is two lines for the Spad VII - 150HP and 180HP.
    I can't think of another plane that really needs it - but I could be wrong.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 08-27-2013 at 23:58. Reason: Clarity.

  38. #38

    Default

    I've checked my house rules. My list for wing failures for the published planes is as follows:
    All Nieuport - inherent lower wing issue
    Siemens Schuckert D.I - same inherent lower wing issue
    Albatros DIII and Albatros DV. (I left out the Albatros DVa - I suspect I'm biased but there must be some reason why so many were built)
    All Fokker Dr1 - inherent wing issue
    Fokker EIII - inherent wing issue of poor bracing and wing warping
    I, also, included the DH2 and RE8 as they were reputed to be poor in a dive but I'm not certain if the wings really would come off in a steep dive. It could be argued that the RE8 was so bad at diving it could not do a steep dive.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    I would take the Unofficial stats as the correct source Anthony - N deck seems way to fast - if you wanted something with the same speed as a B deck but more manoeuvrability then use an F or Q deck (The F deck matches the N decks moves, the Q deck less so). Though I can't see how a Oeffag D.III would be that much better than a D.Va ?!
    I need to preface my comments with the fact that I am a complete newbie when it comes to determining plane specs for WoW, so please feel free to tell me where I went wrong.


    I guess we need to distinguish between the 153 series and the 253 series. According to some data I have found (on Wikipedia, so may not be authoritative enough), the 253 was 16km/h faster than the 153 series (188 km/h to 202 km/h). This compares to D.Va top speed of 186 km/h (again, Wikipedia). So the 253 series would have been a touch faster though I do not know how much that difference is on a WoW deck--the SPAD XIII is listed at 218 km/h (again, Wiki), and I don't know if there is any deck that falls speed-wise between an A deck and a B deck. It could be that the unofficial stats committee decided to account for the higher speed in the 253 by improving the climb rate from 4 (D.Va) to 2 in the Oeffag D.III, which I think is a significant upgrade if you fly with altitude.

    The most significant difference between the D.Va and either the 153 or 253 series I think is the lower wing which supposedly did not have the flutter and torsion problems the D.III and D.V had (I think the D.Va also had this problem since it still had the single spar, but to lesser effect). Whether that should result in more maneuverability I don't know (I agree with your assessment that an N deck gives the plane way too much maneuverabilty and speed over the D.Va, and think even the F deck is too much--if anything, the Q deck with its two 90 degree turns should more than suffice). Maybe this could be solved by exempting the Oeffag D. III from the wing failure rules for the German Albatrossen and call it a day.

    Another difference between the German and K und K planes of course are the guns--both planes get an A damage deck, even though the A-H planes were stuck with the Schwarzlose guns, which is a significant downgrade, I would think, and am not sure if the housing put around the guns (which supposedly helped increase the ability to aim as it decreased the amount of powder gases, ejected cartridges and gun oil that affected the vision of gunners) had enough effect to offset the lower fire rate and reliability of the Schwarzlose.
    Last edited by tusekine; 08-28-2013 at 09:06. Reason: clarity

  40. #40

    Default

    Have a look at this Tools for working out stats the committee use Anthony - may help you work out the mechanics of how the manoeuvre decks are assigned
    Broadly speaking the speeds are in bands & the average speed it used rather than the fastest so likely the 153/253 will fall into the fast category (4.7cm) for speed - As an in line engine type with good agility it drops it squarely into the B deck for manoeuvres.
    The committee work through a number of data sources to determine agility though I won't pretend to understand any of that. It is accepted that the AH types were much stronger versions so exempting the Oeffag D. III from the wing failure rules would make sense.
    As for guns they too are effectively in bands - A for doubles, B for singles - no account is made for types or rof though there is nothing to stop you house ruling any of this !

  41. #41

    Default

    Flash:

    thanks, that is very helpful. Looking at the stats, the 253 could ***barely*** squeak into the A deck but I think it would be a stretch, so you are right, B deck seems right. And for low altitudes the 253 fits a climb rate of 1 but after 2000m it starts to slip into a 2. So if one wanted to be extremely generous (and as a native Austrian I have a K&K softspot), the Oeffag 253 series could be an A deck with a climb rate of 1, but that would be overstating the capabilities of the aircraft within the game, I think.

    So it looks like the best stats for this aircraft are the ones prepared by the Unofficial Stats Committee (which I am sure is pleased to get my seal of approval ) (B Maneuver, A Damage, Climb 2), maybe with an extra damage point for the solid construction (so 16 pts rather than 15 for the D.Va), and an exemption from the wing failure rules.
    Last edited by tusekine; 08-28-2013 at 15:04. Reason: grammar

  42. #42

    Default

    Looking at the stats, the 253 could ***barely*** squeak into the A deck but I think it would be a stretch, so you are right, B deck seems right.
    Our thinking exactly. The stats fit very well for a 153, but it's possible the 253 post-war (ie with better lubricant and fuel, in Polish service) might be better simulated with an A deck. It's a marginal thing.

    The 253, being based on the D.III not the D.V, has already been upgraded in strength compared to the standard model.

    As regards climb rates - we need to adjust those. For game mechanics reasons, Climb 1 has been degraded in WGF (as opposed to WoW) to climb rate 2.

  43. #43

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    - different cklimb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes
    all of them sound great! But I liked these three especially

    would it be possible to consider something that reflects the SPAD VII/XIII diving capabilities?

  45. #45

    Default

    May I add the Sopwith Dolphins with the two extra Lewis guns mounted on the wings discussed in another thread and a wider firing arc for the Lohner L flying boat's forward gun because it was flexible. The arc may also be asymetric.

  46. #46

    Default

    Thanks for all the suggestions, I am keeping notes!

  47. #47

    Default

    On the subject of special rules for particular aircraft ...

    I've always felt that the Morane-Saulnier N gets off a little too easy in game play.

    To my understanding, historically the Morane-Saulnier N did not have synchronization gear, but instead shot its gun directly through the propeller, with steel wedges mounted on the props to deflect the bullets away. This idea worked to a fashion, but reports indicated that the force of all the bullets hitting the wedges created a significant impact against the wooden propellers and put steadily increasing strain on the engine's shaft mechanism, potentially causing it to behave erratically while in flight.

    To reflect this, I recommend a simple rule for the Morane-Saulnier N: at the end of every phase in which a Morane-Saulnier N shoots its gun, the plane's pilot draws a card from the gun's appropriate deck (i.e., the "B" deck.) He does not show this card to other players. If the card indicates an explosion, the Morane-Saulnier N pilot has shot his own propeller off, and the plane is destroyed and removed from play. If the card indicates an engine damage, the plane takes the equivalent of one engine damage with the associated effects on flying. (This is counted as an engine damage in all respects, so that if the plane receives another engine damage, or it already has suffered an engine damage, it is destroyed and removed from play.) The card is otherwise ignored, and it is returned to a random position in its original draw deck.

    What do you think? Too extreme?

    -- Eris

  48. #48

    Default

    I am highly in favour of ANY rules that differentiate aircraft from one another, otherwise all planes that use the same maneuver deck appear as being pretty much interchangeable. Individual plane characteristics like these are, in my opinion, every bit as important as giving a rotary-engined plane access to sharp turns.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    We already have some in the game, as the broader firing field of the Roland or the impossibility for observers of the Bristol Fighter to fire after certain maneuvres. Multi-engine bombers also have several ones.

    Which one could be worth adding to the game?

    I am working on somes linked to these plane characteristics:
    - Early Airco D.H.2's flexible machinegun
    - Airco/De Havilland D.H.4's fuel tank exposure
    - Dec. '17/Jun '18 Aviatik D.I's unreachable machineguns
    - Fokker E.IV triple machinegun prone to jamming
    - Siemens-Schuckert D.IV's exceptional climb rate
    - twin machineguns Sopwith Triplane's additional weight (the 2nd mg seemed not to give relevant penalties to other planes as the HD.1)
    - wing failures on Nieuport 11, Albatros D.III/V/Va, early Fokker Dr.I up to nov 1916
    - different cklimb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes

    Any more suggestions for any WoW/WGF plane?

    Thanks a lot!
    I'm a builder of static and flying models, and a WW1 aircraft enthusiast first, and a a casual wargamer second.... here's my take.

    I will apologize up front for such a lengthy post-- but this is a subject that I care about.....


    DH-2: Like others have said, not worth the bother-- the flexible gun was found to be ineffective, and quickly made fixed.
    DH-4: Agree with the others-- more a case of 'bad press" than any significant deficiency
    Aviatik D.I and Pfalz D-III unreachable guns: A real issue for sure, but I think the game exagerates the rate of occurrence. There are two types of jams that typically happen- the "jam" and the "misfire". A jam is what comes to mind with the word "jam"-- a round that physically gets stuck in the breech mechanism, and may take some effort, force, or tool (the little hammer) to get it out. The other is the misfire-- where a round seats properly, but then fails to fire. Generally that is easily cleared by pulling on the charging handle/lever. If you were to implement this, I like the idea of distinguishing between the red and green jam counters-- say red is permanent, but green can be cleared in only 1 segment instead of three.

    Wing Failures: The documented wing failures were generally the result of extended, steep dives-- too much speed and the resulting stress on the structure. In game terms, this wouldn't really affect the ability to do Immelmans, but maybe doing a Split S would be risky.... Albatros fighters were also subject to this problem. (See below for more on this topic.)

    Performance impacts of extra MGs: As others have noted, rate of climb and performance at altitude are two of the most glaring results of the performance hit caused by extra weight. There is a third-- loss of maneuverability. Overweight planes need to fly faster to generate the necessary lift, and that means they have a higher stalling speed. Takeoffs and landing are trickier, but we really don't care about that in game terms. In combat, it shows up in maneuverability-- as you can't turn as tightly in heavy plane as you can in a lighter one, all other things being equal. In the game mechanics, perhaps you could simulate this by taking away some sharp turn cards from the maneuver deck, and also add 1 to the climb rate.

    I also really like Eris Lobo's idea of penalizing the Morane for the lack of a true interruptor gear.

    Finally, I'd second the motion for rules allowing planes with flexible mounts to fire upwards into planes above them. Nieuport pilot Albert Ball scored a number of kills this way, flying under a 2 seater and then firing up into it from close range.


    Aviation writer and modeler extraordinaire Tom Cleaver wrote the following about the Albatros:

    Albatros came into the fighter game in 1916 with its D.I and D.II biplanes, which were head‑and‑shoulders above their competition and set the standard for a modern fighter that has stood for 95 years: fast, agile, heavily‑armed and able to outperform the competition. Unfortunately for the Albatros fighters, one of their more successful opponents was the Nieuport 17, a lightly‑loaded, highly‑maneuverable sesquiplane. Not all the laws of aerodynamics were fully known at the time, and the German authorities came to believe there was something inherent in the Nieuport design that made it successful, that something being the sesquiplane design. German manufacturers were ordered to develop sesquiplanes, Albatros among them.

    The result was the Albatros D.III, which changed the strong biplane design for a sesquiplane, with the single spar in the lower wing. The Albatros design was different from the Nieuport ‑ heavy where the Nieuport was light, and the sesquiplane was really not strong enough to perform under these kinds of loads. The Albatros D.III was a very good performer and became the standard German fighter by the Spring of 1917. However, it was not as maneuverable as its Nieuport and Sopwith competition.

    The Albatros D.V was introduced that summer of 1917. The design was very weight‑conscious, and far lighter than the previous D.III. Unfortunately, it was structurally too light. The lower wing soon revealed its lack of strength when they began separating from the rest of the airframe in combat! This was the result of an unknown aerodynamic force ‑ flutter ‑ that overwhelmed the light attachment points of the lower wing under combat g‑forces. Pilots began handling the airplane gingerly, and a fighter that has to be flown gingerly is not a winner. Albatros undertook to beef up the airframe, but all this did was add unnecessary weight without providing the requisite strength, given that the real underlying problem was undiscovered at the time. The Albatros D.V and the beefed-up D.Va, though they served in large numbers and were still a significant part of the German fighter force as late as the summer of 1918, always fought with one hand behind its back. The killer of 1916 and 1917 became the prey of 1918.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rcboater View Post
    There are two types of jams that typically happen- the "jam" and the "misfire". A jam is what comes to mind with the word "jam"-- a round that physically gets stuck in the breech mechanism, and may take some effort, force, or tool (the little hammer) to get it out. The other is the misfire-- where a round seats properly, but then fails to fire. Generally that is easily cleared by pulling on the charging handle/lever. If you were to implement this, I like the idea of distinguishing between the red and green jam counters-- say red is permanent, but green can be cleared in only 1 segment instead of three.
    [Emphasis Added]

    This I really like... especially considering the amount of time I spend clearing jams.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Optional Advanced Solo Rules
    By Blackronin in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 05:19
  2. Newbie Optional Rules Question
    By Pope in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 15:47
  3. Speed rules/cards for WWI planes?
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-01-2010, 13:32
  4. Dawn of War: What optional rules do you use?
    By Oberst Hajj in forum Polls
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-31-2010, 04:16
  5. Plane Specific Cockpit Boards
    By Oberst Hajj in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 05:46

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
  •