Correctly Scaled Movement and Firing Rules

[Eris Lobo]

I was pondering how many seconds long a typical movement phase would be in Wings of Glory WWII, and during my research I came across some interesting facts and resulting conclusions .

As a result, I’ve created some minor rules modifications to make movement and firing a bit more realistic in scale.

First of all, I’ll present the logic and math for my conclusions. If you want to skip all that, you can go to my next post in this thread, which has the suggested rules changes.

How much time does a typical movement phase take? Determining the answer to that took a bit of research around the Internet to find the statistics regarding different fighter planes. During that, I decided to concentrate on two of the aircraft first put out as miniatures for the game: the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I, and the Messerschmitt BF 109 E-1.

Among the Web sites I uncovered, one stood out as particularly useful:
Spitfire Mk. I versus Me 109 E: A Performance Comparison -http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Other web sites on the performance of the two aircraft generally contained very similar data, but this one was great because it had it all in one place.

Some of the important data I found was:
Me 109 -- Max speed: 300 mph – Turn radius: 885 feet – Time to make a level 360-degree circle: 25 sec.
Spitfire -- Max speed: 360 mph – Turn radius: 696 feet – Time to make a level 360-degree circle: 19 sec.

Also of note was that both planes had a climb rate of about 2850 feet/minute.

Regarding the movement decks for both planes, I found they were virtually identical in every way that mattered to my calculations, which made matters a bit easier – although it also showed that the game designers were a bit loose in determining how each plane could fly, as the performance of the two planes is a bit different in a few important ways. With that in mind, I first calculated the results for each plane, then determined an average for use in the game.

I needed a constant to base my results, and using the turn radius of the planes seemed the best choice.

In game play, both planes require eight movement phases to complete a 360-degree circle. Measuring from the center of each plane’s movement cards, the radius of such a circle is 5.43 inches, or 0.4525 feet.

Elapsed time per movement phase:
Me 109: One-eighth of 25 seconds = 3.125 seconds per phase.
Spitfire: One-eighth of 19 seconds = 2.375 seconds per phase.
Average: 2.75 seconds per phase.

Distance scale, as determined by aircraft turn radius compared to game-play turn radius:
Me 109: 0.4525 feet/885 ft. = 1/1956 scale
Spitfire: 0.4525 feet/696 ft. = 1/1538 scale
Average: 1/1747 scale

Therefore, using historical testing trials conducted on the Spitfire and Me 109 by their government’s respective researchers, the scale for movement in Wings of War/Glory is approximately 1/1800.

Although the aircraft are 1/200 scale, it must be remembered that the game is intended to simulate aircraft movement and firing, and that is what is most important in playing. The 1/200-scale models used in the game make very attractive place holders to represent where the aircraft are supposed to be, but it must be clearly understood that the models do NOT realistically represent the size of the aircraft in scale to the turns and distances indicated on the movement cards.

To make the point clear, let’s look at the historical data in comparison. If the movement cards were to be printed in 1/200 scale, then the diameter of a level 180-degree turn for a Spitfire (as represented by four movement cards) would need to be 1392 feet / 200, which equates to about 7 feet. I don’t think many of our playing tables could handle the space needed for such a game.

Next, let’s consider straight moves.

To convert miles/hour to inches/second, use the following algebra: (1 mile / 1 hour) * (1 hour / 3600 seconds) * (5280 feet / 1 mile) * (12 inches / 1 foot) … resulting in (1 mile/hour) = (17.6 inches / second).

Considering maximum speeds at level flight at sea level, you get:
Me 109: 300 mph * 17.6 = 5280 inches / second
Spitfire: 360 mph * 17.6 = 6336 inches / second
Average: 330 mph * 17.6 = 5808 inches / second

Putting that to scale in relation to the movement cards, as determined above, you get:
Me 109: 5280 * (1/1956) = 2.69 inches / second
Spitfire: 6336 * (1/1538) = 4.11 inches / second
Average: 5808 * (1/1747) = 3.32 inches / second

Taking it further, if each plane went at maximum speed forward in a straight line in the game terms,
Me 109: (2.69 inches / second) * (3.125 seconds / phase) = 8.41 inches / movement phase
Spitfire: (4.11 inches / second) * (2.375 seconds / phase) = 9.76 inches / movement phase
Average: (3.32 inches / second) * (2.75 seconds / phase) = 9.13 inches / movement phase

Therefore, each inch of movement per phase at full speed for the aircraft equates to:
Me 109: 300 mph /8.41 inches = 35.67 mph / inch
Spitfire: 360 mph / 9.76 inches = 36.89 mph / inch
Average: 36.28 mph / inch

The fast-straight movement card for both the Me 109 and the Spitfire causes the respective plane to move forward five inches (the distance from the bottom of the movement card to the dark-blue arrow, plus the height of the airplane card itself). Considering the above values for “mph / inch”, that means a fast-straight movement card for the two planes being only the equivalent average value of (36.28 * 5), which equals 181.4 mph.

Clearly, the fast-straight movement card isn’t long enough to handle the top speed for these two planes. A more accurate representation of their top speed would be to place down two fast-straight movements in row (a fast-straight card laid down, then moving the plane base so its arrow overlaps the card’s dark blue arrow, followed by another fast-straight card placed touching the top edge of the plane base, then with the plane base moved up again to having its arrow overlapping the second fast-straight card’s dark-blue arrow). This would move the associated plane forward 10 inches, which in game scale would be approximately 363 mph. This may be a bit fast for the top speed of the Me 109, but not by much, and it’s almost exactly equal to the top speed of the Spitfire.

By considering the possibly of using either one or two straight-movement cards in one phase, numerous speeds could be put into play, including:
One slow-straight movement: 3.75 inches * 36.28 = 136 mph / phase
One fast-straight movement: 5.0 inches * 36.28 = 181 mph / phase
Two slow-straight movements: 136 * 2 = 272 mph / phase
Two fast-straight movements: 181 * 2 = 362 mph / phase

If you decided to add in other cards, such as a stall maneuver card, the number of speed combinations would be dramatic … but at a possible cost of adding too much complexity and, as a result, being detrimental to the game’s core playability. With that in mind, I’ll keep the speed possibilities to the four listed above.

Considering the stall card, however, let’s look at the tested real-world flight characteristics for the Spitfire.

First of all, note that the stall card, which when played causes the plane to move forward 2.875 inches, would equate to an average of 104.3 mph / phase

For real-world fighter aircraft, the word “stall” has two meanings: it can mean the speed at which a plane is going so slowly that it no longer achieves the needed lift to maintain flight (and as a result could easily crash), and it can also mean the pilot manipulating the controls to force the plane’s wing surfaces to cause an intense drag against the air (acting as a stressful “brake” for the purpose of cutting the aircraft’s forward movement speed quickly).

The Spitfire in real life has a “loss of needed lift” stall speed of 78 mph if its flaps are up, and 68 mph if its flaps are down. If my understanding of aerodynamics is correct (but I may be wrong, and if so, please correct me), the “braking” stall would need to maintain a speed greater than the “loss of needed lift” stall to allow the plane to be quickly slowed without falling into a dangerous dive. If so, then the “stall” movement card in the game achieves that purpose by braking the plane dramatically while keeping it at a speed of 104 mph. As such, the stall card seems to be satisfactory as it is, without needing adjustment for playing purposes.

Now let’s consider climbing rates. Both the Spitfire and the Me 109 have a similar climbing speed of about 2850 feet / minute, equating to about 32.4 mph – which, in scaled game terms, would be around one inch per movement phase. A good way to simulate this for the Spitfire and Me 109 would be to place a short-straight movement card against the top of the plane’s base, then move the base so that the top of the base is even against the bottom of the white arrow (as opposed to normal movement, which would be to place the bottom of the base over the arrow). This allows the plane base to be moved only an inch, which would be a good simulation of how much forward travel a Spitfire or Me 109 would do while attempting to climb as quickly as possible at max speed.

Finally, let’s look at firing distances, and compare it to the existing range ruler. Reports indicate that the Spitfire’s guns were calibrated to center at between 300 and 400 yards from the aircraft. In perspective, that would be as if you were standing in the back of the bleachers at the furthest end of an American football field, and shooting at a target in the back of the bleachers at the opposite end of the field. Although a fighter plane was large enough to make for a decent target even at that range, when you account for the fact that both the attacker and the target plane are flying very fast and maneuvering in all directions, such a shot becomes a bit tricky. With that in mind, we’ll use the centering point for the Spitfire’s guns as the extent of “long-range” firing. Taking an average of 350 yards and applying it to the averaged game scale of 1/1747 gets a length of 7.2 inches – which is almost exactly the size of the game’s range ruler (which measures 7.625 inches long). Therefore, the firing distances are fine as they are using the range ruler as it is.

Hitting a target is another matter. The standard single-pilot fighter aircraft bases (which measure 1.69 by 2.625 inches) are the targets for firing – any shots that reach any location on the bases have the potential for causing damage. As the aircraft miniatures are in 1/200 scale, the conversion multiplier would be 200/1747, or 0.114. As a result, the correctly scaled target area for the Spitfire or Me 109 would be (1.69 * 0.114) by (2.625 * 0.114), which equates to 0.2 by 0.3 inches. Although somebody could make a bunch of markers measuring that size to represent the planes in combat, probably the easiest way to handle such a small target would be to make it so that incoming shots have to connect with the target airplane’s center peg in order for a hit to be scored (when aiming at a fighter plane, that is. Heavy bombers, naval vessels and other large targets may benefit from creating 1/1800-scale representatives of them for aiming purposes).

There you have it … my analysis of the game’s mechanics in regards to real-world scale and dynamics. I realize that I based everything on the statistics of only two aircraft – the Me 109 and the Spitfire Mk. I, but I consider those to be critical cornerstones of the game, and as such, particularly because they were among the very first miniatures published, everything else in the game to a degree stands upon them.

I’m open to any and all critiques, and if I made any mistakes, I’m eager to hear about them. I want to provide this as a service to the community, and so I want to provide the best I can – and if that means I need to change something dramatically, so be it.

So, on to my next posting, which contains a variety of rules changes I feel might be appropriate in light of putting everything in its proper scale. Enjoy!

-- Eris

[Eris Lobo]

Wings of War/Glory is a game about airplane combat, and airplane combat is about flying and shooting. The models look nice, but they’re not the point of the game. And as I explained in my previous post, the movement and shooting is done at 1/1800 scale, which is quite smaller than the scale of the aircraft miniatures.

Considering my calculations in my previous post in regards to the game’s scale, I believe it is best to use 1/1800 as the best approximation, not only because it is convenient mathematically, but it also works particularly nicely with a method of miniatures representation that I’ll recommend in my next post.

This post will have my suggestions on how to integrate various minor changes to the rules to put everything on the same scale – which will allow people to fly a better simulation of a real dogfight than can be done with the current rules.

After I’ve given people a chance to look over the rules suggestions here (and my calculations and the rest of this thread) and post responses, I plan to integrate everything together into a better format, then place it into a file and post it all on the Home Rules section for everybody to download.

Now then, onto the new rules proposals …

Straight flight:
The fast-straight movement card isn’t long enough to simulate how far forward a plane would travel in one phase at maximum speed. Accurately scaled movement for a plane’s maximum speed would be more accurately portrayed by using two phases of fast-forward straight cards instead of just one. This can be reflected in game play in several ways:
a) The simplest and most playable method would be that the “white-arrow” straight distance (i.e., the current straight-card maneuver at slow speed) would no longer be used. If the plane is travelling at slow speed and a straight card is played, use the fast-speed movement instead. If a plane is travelling at fast speed and a straight card is played, immediately do two fast-movement phases in a row. (It would be as if you were playing two fast straights in two sequential phases, one right after another, but doing it all in one phase.)
b) A more complicated but more diverse method would be to increase the possible number of movement possibilities. Slow-speed straight movement would use one movement card, and fast-speed straight movement would use two straight movements done one after the other in the same phase (as described above). Unless marked with a special “extra-fast” marker (explained below), a straight movement card at slow speed would result in the plane moving forward a normal slow-straight movement amount, and a straight-movement card at fast speed would result in the plane moving forward two slow-straight movement amounts. If the card is marked with a special marker, however, the fast-speed movements would be used – one fast-speed movement distance if the plane is travelling at slow speed, and two fast-straight movement distances if the plane is moving at fast speed.

To clarify, if a straight-movement card is played, but the following occurs:
* At slow speed, but without the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward one slow-straight distance (3.75 inches).
* At slow speed, but with the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward one fast-straight distance (5.0 inches).
* At fast speed, but without the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward two slow-straight distances (7.5 inches).
* At fast speed, but with the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward two fast-straight distances (10 inches).

To account for the increased types of straights, you would need to add in a new flight-speed marker to represent “extra-fast” movement. (Normal flight-speed markers consist of a black arrow, a white arrow, and a blank space.)

In our game tests, we used the markers for “Stuka bombing” and “Exceptional Pilot” as the “extra-fast” markers because both of them look from the back like the normal flight-speed markers.

A more novel approach would be to create custom markers that all look the same from the back, but with some marked in a special way on one side, and the others being left blank. (Pennies could work well for this, with some of them marked with a small sticker on one side to indicate “extra-fast” movement and the others left unmarked.) You would place them on a movement card in addition to the normal flight-speed marker and reveal them when the movement card is played – if the special marker has the “extra-fast” mark, the plane moves at extra-fast speed (as described above), but if the marker is revealed to be blank, nothing special happens. If these custom markers are used, they could be great for feints and bluffing -- if you place a special marker on any movement card other than a straight, or place a blank marker on a straight-movement card, play is done as if the special marker wasn’t used, but it might make your opponent think you were planning on doing an “extra-fast” straight.

Dives:
An aircraft can pick up a significant amount of speed during a dive. If the “extra-fast” marker is used on a dive card, the plane still only goes down one level of height, but for determining the amount of forward movement, conduct the dive as if you were playing two dives in two sequential phases, one right after another, but doing it all in one phase (similar to if you played an “extra-fast” marker on a straight-movement card while the plane is at fast speed).

Climbing:
The “climb” movement card causes the plane to move much faster than it would have in real life. To more accurately simulate the amount of forward movement a plane would do while climbing, place a straight movement card against the top of the plane’s base, then move the base so that the top of the base is even against the bottom of the movement card’s white arrow (as opposed to normal movement, which would be to place the bottom of the base over the arrow). To be clear, a “climb” movement card would be placed on the movement track to indicate that a climb is planned for that phase, but after the climb card is revealed, it is not used to measure movement; instead, the bottom of the white arrow on a straight-movement card would be used to determine how far the plane moves forward.

Immelmanns:
Statistics for the Spitfire indicate that it needed to be going straight at a speed upwards of 320 mph before performing an Immelmann, and it can be assumed that other planes would need to go extremely fast as well. That speed is almost at Spitfire’s maximum movement speed, so the rules to account for that would be as follows:
* If playing without “extra-fast” markers, no rules changes are required for Immelmanns.
* If you are playing with “extra-fast” markers, then in the phase before playing an Immelmann maneuver card, a plane would be required to play a fast-movement card with an “extra-fast” marker.
* When coming out of an Immelmann, the required straight card is considered to be at slow speed, but can be marked with the “extra-fast” marker as described above.

Split-S Maneuvers:
Normal rules apply for going into a Split-S maneuver, with it being a stall, then an Immelmann, then a fast straight. If using the “extra-fast” marker rules, the fast straight maneuver after the Immelmann card can be marked “extra fast”.

Stalls:
Stall cards are played normally in most respects, except as follows: a stall maneuver card cannot be played unless the previous movement card was at slow speed. Also, a fast-movement card cannot be played immediately after a stall card (unless the plane is performing a Split-S maneuver, which is a special case).

Targeting:
Because of the small size of aircraft when correctly scaled to the 1/1800 movement cards, targeting an aircraft is more difficult than indicated in the original rules. To account for this, for a shot to potentially hit a target, the range ruler must touch both the attacker’s center peg and the target’s center peg. Other targeting rules apply as normal. (Optional: When dealing with large targets, such as heavy bombers or naval ships, aiming targets can be created to compensate, but they would need to be at 1/1800 scale. To convert existing Wings of War/Glory 1/200-scale bases and targets accurately, they would need to be reduced to 1/9 their original size.)

No other movement cards or rules are affected.

Height Pegs:
One final note regarding scale is in regard to height pegs. Under the assumption that one peg equals 1000 feet of height, then bringing it to scale would result in each peg being about 6.5 inches in height. Using pegs of that dimension, combined with using 1/1800-scale aircraft, could potentially create a very accurate physical representation of what the battle scene would have been like – which is a subject I’ll cover further in my next post.

-- Eris

[Eris Lobo]

After realizing that the 1/200-scale aircraft for Wings of War/Glory are immensely out of scale with the actual game mechanics, I can’t help but look differently at the game and wonder how it would be if everything was in equal perspective.

I wasn’t very successful at finding 1/1800-scale aircraft for sale on the Internet, but I did find something easily available that’s workably close, and it’s in a scale that several gamers on this site already use – 1/1200-scale plastic models.

The great thing is that there are a variety of World War II aircraft-carrier models in 1/1200 scale, particularly for the Pacific Theater, and these kits come with the associated fighter aircraft. Not only would the aircraft be great to use on their own, but the ships can be used with the air-to-ship naval combat rules written and posted by Skafloc in the files section.

The game components could be used as they are with the 1/1200-scale aircraft and ship models and provide a reasonable accurate representation of a dogfight scene. To make things much more precise, however, only a couple of changes need to be made.

First, note that 1/1200-scale models are 1.5 times as large as the 1/1800 scale used by the game’s movement cards (as detailed in my previous posts). To compensate, the various movement decks used by the planes in your battles could be taken to a copy store (or scanned into your computer) and printed out at 150 percent of their original size, making the maneuvers accurate for 1/1200 planes. (Although copying copyrighted material to give or sell to other people is wrong, there’s nothing illegal or immoral about copying something you own for your own use. Therefore, only copy your own decks, and don’t give them away.)

Secondly, if a height peg is equal to 1000 feet, then scaled to 1/1200 size, each peg should be 10 inches tall. (Such pegs could be made from inexpensive dowel rods commonly available at many hardware and hobby stores.)While that may get a bit unwieldy for planes flying extremely high, it could work fine for planes flying at a height of four pegs or less. To further enhance play and display a fight accurately, you could make several five-inch tall pegs to indicate that a plane is one or more climb steps above a level. (One five-inch peg would be used no matter how many climb steps a plane has on it, and it would be replaced by a ten-inch peg when the plane reached the next level.)

Now then, imagine the sight you might have before you … A US aircraft carrier on one end of the table, with three American fighter planes flying from it to intercept a squadron of Zeroes coming in to attack – and everything would be in scale … the planes … the ship … the distances from each other … the heights … the movement … the firing … all of it, making you feel as if you’re really seeing the battle as it happened, as if you’re really there.

I don’t know about you, but I think that would be pretty cool …

Tally ho!

-- Eris

[Zoe Brain]

We came to similar conclusions in the stats determination committee.
Your figures for the 109E are a bit slow, but that doesn't matter as the speed-of-best-turn for both 109E and Spitfire are dramatically different, both around 240mph.

Ground scale is "about" 1/2500. Each card represents "about" 2-3 seconds. It's likely that the re-issue of the Spitfire deck will include a 60 degree turn added, as will the A6M2.

Basically, you're on exactly the right track, but there's a number of other factors that have to be considered, and the raw data you're using must be treated with suspicion - you need to look at multiple sources. Some good data is already on the site, but not well organised. For example, the results of a fly-off between a Spitfire Va and an A6M3. The A6M3 speed of best turn was around 180 mph.

See
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...in-August-1943
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...itive-analysis

All in all your post was excellent, and had you had more and better raw data to work from, would have been the definitive post on the subject. Would you consider joining the unofficial stats committee?

[Eris Lobo]

Zoe,

Thanks for the kind words! I felt a bit humbled when you said my data might be off, and that I should continue my research and use a greater variety of data sources. It inspired me, however, to get off my laurels and keep moving on this project, and I appreciate that!

With the idea of more diversified research in mind, I've put together a comprehensive Excel spread sheet, with plans of entering as much performance information as I can find for as many of the planes I own (I have one of each of the planes Nexus put out for the first two releases of WWII WoW minis, so that should give me a good set of possibilities to work with. ).

In regards to the maximum speed of an Me 109, you're correct -- tests conducted by Germany, Russian and France determined that the Me 109E could had a top level speed of about 345 mph. This correction doesn't seriously affect my original conclusions, but it's worth noting nonetheless.

Now then, let's get to the matter at hand -- whose calculations are correct, yours or mine? Is the game scale 1/1800 (as I concluded) or 1/2500 (as you and the unofficial-stats committee concluded)?

This was not an easy matter to determine, but I took to task weighing all the variable with scientific precision, and I finally came to a conclusion. Based on verified performance data from repeated tests of the Spitfire Mk. I and the Me 199E, I feel I've been able to firmly prove that ...

... the game scale is approximately 1/2285 scale.

(FYI, that's basically the same scale you determined, but I took your calculation to a much deeper degree and came up with what I feel to be a more precise result. )

For both of us, calculating game scale was based upon one piece of real-world information -- the best (tightest) level-turn radius for both the Spitfire and the Me 109. To equate that to game terms, we had to find an equivalent movement card and measure its radius as well. Clearly the card to be used was the tight-turn card, but there was one problem -- should the slow-speed turn be used, or the fast-speed turn?

That crucial choice was what caused your results and mine to be so dramatically different, because it appears you chose the "slow-speed" path on the tight-turn card, and I chose the "fast-speed" path on it.

The decision might seem arbitrary, but I became determined to seek out the best answer using logic and mathematics. At times at seemed as if my conclusion was correct, then your conclusion was correct, and even that both conclusions could be simultaneously correct! Eventually after gettng through the twists and turns, however, one of the two conclusions seemed by far the best.

Before I begin, I might note that one of the two threads you indicated I should read -- http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...itive-analysis -- was written by you and used the same data I did from the "Spitfire vs Me 109" site at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html . As a result, even though I'll be continuing to look for more data from other sources, I'll also continue to use that site's listed performance data in my calculations. Also, after researching a bit on the Web, I found on a variety of other sites very similar numbers regarding the best-turn radius and speed of a Spitfire Mk. I and an Me 109, so I feel comfortable using my aformentioned data for my best-turn-speed calculations.

(FYI, for somebody looking for more mathematically graphical oriented results of numerous aspects of Spitfire and Me 109 performance test, I recommend investigating the charts at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif . I use that Web page to help confirm some calculations, which I'll detail below.)

As determined by numerous real-world tests by different countries on the two aircraft, the best-turn radius and time to complete a full 360-degree circle without losing altitude was:
Me 109: 885 feet radius in 25 seconds
Spitfire Mk. I: 696 feet radius in 19 seconds
Average: 790.5 feet radius in 22 seconds

FYI, although both the Spitfire Mk I and the Me 109 have different performance abilities, in Wings of War/Glory they use the same movement cards for curves and straights. Therefore, the game-scale values were determined for each plane, and then an average was calculated to provide a more general result.

Using the tight-turn movement card, the planes require eight movement phases to complete a 360-degree circle. Elapsed time per movement phase is:
Me 109: One-eighth of 25 seconds = 3.125 seconds per phase.
Spitfire: One-eighth of 19 seconds = 2.375 seconds per phase.
Average: 2.75 seconds per phase.

Based on my measurements from the center of each plane’s movement cards, the radius of such a circle was:
Fast-speed tight-curve radius = 5.43 inches (0.4525 feet)
Slow-speed tight-curve radius = 4.125 inches (0.346 feet)

Your own calculations were as follows, as stated in the thread you wrote (noted above) about determining game scale in regards to the data on the "Spitfire vs. Me. 109" performance web page:
1) That means each card represents about 2.25 to 3 secs of time - 8 cards -> 20/24 secs.
2) Radius of turn is about 10cm, so that's 700-900 ft (220-270 m). Ground scale is thus about 1/2500.
3) 1cm/turn thus means 25m about every 2.5 secs, or 10m/sec, about 36 km/h
A Spitfire going straight goes 12.5cm, so 440 km/h. This is about right for combat speed when doing turns, rather than the 600 or so in straight flight at optimum altitude and maximum throttle

(Although my measurements for the slow-speed tight-curve radius were a bit larger than the 10 cm (3.94 inches) you specified for your results, I assumed the two amounts were close enough to show that you had indeed used the slow-speed path on the tight-turn card for your measurements and calculations.)

Using the fast-speed path on the tight-turn movement card, the game scale was determined to be:
Me 109: 0.4525 feet/885 ft. = 1/1956 scale
Spitfire: 0.4525 feet/696 ft. = 1/1538 scale
Average: 1/1747 scale

Using the slow-speed path on the tight-turn movement card, the game scale was determined to be:
Me 109: 0.346 feet/885 ft. = 1/2557.8 scale
Spitfire: 0.346 feet/696 ft. = 1/2011.6 scale
Average: 1/2285 scale

I originally chose to use the "fast-speed" distance on the tight-turn movement card after reading the following paragraph in the "Spitfire vs. Me 109" website (which both of us used in our calculations, as noted above): The RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the corresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. 73 (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.

Notice that it is indicated that the planes were travelling at full throttle during their turning tests. Therefore, I felt the fast-speed distances on the movement cards should be used in determining game scale.

Upon further reflection, however, after reading your response to my conclusions, I decided to look at things from another angle to determine the best choice.

To determine how fast those two aircraft were actually going during their real-world performance tests, I used the formula "circumference = PI * (2 * radius)".
Me 109 best-turn speed = ((PI * 2 * 885 feet)/25 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 151.65 mph
Spitfire best-turn speed = ((PI * 2 * 696 feet)/19 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 156.93 mph
Average best-turn speed = 154.29 mph

That results in a conundrum. Those speeds are clearly in the "slow" range for both planes, being less than half of their respective plane's maximum speeds. But if the planes were going "full throttle", doesn't that mean they were going as fast as possible?

Finding the answer to this question resulted in a variety of mathematical calculations using both proposed scales as a basis.

First I measured the slow and fast curve lengths using both proposed game scales to see which one best matched up to being approximately 155 mph.

Based upon the tight-turn movement card radius measurements and using the average time the two planes took to complete a circle,
1/1747-scale fast-speed tight turn: ((PI * 2 * 0.4525 feet)/22 sec) * 1747 (game scale) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 153.93 mph
1/2285-scale slow-speed tight turn: ((PI * 2 * 0.346 feet)/22 sec) * 2285 (game scale) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 153.95 mph

They both showed the same result, with their best-turn-radius speed being almost exactly equal to the real-life best-turn radius speed for the two planes -- which was no surprise, as the calculations basically reversed the primary math that was used to determine scale.

At this point, no conclusive results had resulted from calculations based on the tight-turn maneuver card. The wide-turn maneuver card, however, had not been considered, and it was to this I turned my next tests.

I took the same measurements and used the same mathematical formulas on the wide-turn card as I had on the tight-turn card, as follows:

Wide-turn maneuver card:
12 phases to complete circle
Slow-speed radius = 6.75 inches
Long-speed radius = 9.33 inches

When put in scale,
1/1800 scale:
Wide-turn slow-speed radius: 1012.5 feet
Wide-turn long-speed radius: 1399.5 feet

1/2285 scale:
Wide-turn slow-speed radius: 1285.3 feet
Wide-turn long-speed radius: 1776.6 feet

Using the average of 2.75 seconds per movement phase and the fact that it takes 12 phases to complete a wide-turn circle, speed was then determined for a wide-turn curve using a basis of the circle's circumference and a time of 33 seconds.

Calculating with the scaled radius distances obtained the following:

1/1800
Slow-speed wide turn: ((PI * 2 * 1012.5 feet)/33 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 131.44 mph
Fast-speed wide turn: ((PI * 2 * 1399.5 feet)/33 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 181.68 mph

1/2285
Slow-speed wide turn: ((PI * 2 * 1285.3 feet)/33 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 166.85 mph
Fast-speed wide turn: ((PI * 2 * 1776.6 feet)/33 sec) * (3600 sec/hour) * (1 mile/5280 feet) = 230.63 mph

Next, the values were compared against the two planes' approxmate average values on the best speed/radius performance chart at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif :

1/1800
131.44 mph: 800 feet radius (real life) vs 1012.5 feet radius (calculated) = 21 percent difference
181.68 mph: 950 feet radius (real life) vs 1399.5 feet radius (calculated) = 32 percent difference

1/2285
166.85 mph: 850 feet radius (real life) vs 1285.3 feet radius (calculated) = 34 percent difference
230.63 mph: 1300 feet radius (real life) vs 1776.6 feet radius (calculated) = 27 percent difference

As these results indicate, when using the wide-turn movement cards, the Spitfire Mk. I and the Me 109 both turn with a significantly larger radius than they could have at their best in real life. As the values on the chart represent the best speed/radius turn ratios, the main thing to consider is whether the calculated game-scale values are realistic and possible -- and they are for both scales. Therefore, comparing the overall results against real-world accuracy, again there is no clear-cut advantage between using either the 1/1800 scale or the 1/2285 scale when determining game play.

So then there was one last thing to be considered -- game logic and maneuver options. And in that regard, using the 1/2285 values appeared to be the clear winner.

Both the Spitfire Mk. I and the Me 109E in real life could travel at speeds up to around 350 mph, and even at high speeds, they could both fly straight and turn. Granted, at high speeds the turns would be much wider than at lower speeds, but high-speed turns definitely existed for both planes.

The above calculations showed a problem when using 1/1800-scale measurements -- the planes can't fly fast enough using the existing game cards. The fastest turn available to a Spitfire and Me 109 in the game using the available movement cards at 1/1800 scale is at 181.68 mph -- barely more than half the planes' maximum level speed.

When using 1/2285-scale measurements, however, the fastest turn speed is 230.63 mph -- which is very appropriate for representing the speed of combat maneuvers. (Looking at the speed/radius chart I previously mentioned, it's worth noting that the turn radii start to go off the charts at speeds above 250 mph, reaching distances greater than 2500 feet -- quickly becoming quite unrealistic for representing on standard game-maneuver cards.)

So the reason to use 1/2285 scale became clear: the math made sense, the measurements were confirmed, and it provided a wide enough selection of manuevers to adequately represent real-world combat options.

As a result of that final evaluation of the two scales, I have no problem admitting that my initial determination of game scale was incorrect, and instead a value of 1/2285 should be used.

All that being stated, I feel more work is to be done on this matter, and I am determined to dig deeper into the issue using stats from as many sources as I can (as I indicated at the start of this post) in order to find the most conclusive results possible.

Searching for the necessary info online has been harder than I thought, I have to admit. And I had an annoying (and embarassing) mishap the other day ... I spent more than two hours combing through an online encyclopedia of WWII fighter performance stats, getting the numbers I could use and entering them into my calculations carefully and precisely setting them up for my spreadsheed. I had thought the encyclopedia was a gold mine -- until I finally decided to look at the author's home page, and I realized all of the aircraft he tested were from A VIDEO GAME!!! Yes, the game was a historical simulation, but it was JUST a simulation, and so NONE of the information in his encyclopedia was reliable at all! Once again, I was smacked in the face with a cream pie (chocolate, I seem to remember) by the demon of "jumping to the conclusion that the author of your data knows what he's talking about." Garsh, I feel a bit like a doofus.

Unfortunately, often the best source of data I have found on aircraft performance has been Wikipedia, and there's no way of knowing for sure if THAT data is accurate or not, as ANYBODY can edit it. I remember reading a few years ago that somebody for a prank changed a Wikipedia site on the American Civil War to say that two-legged steam-powered battlemechs were used by each side in a noteworthy engagement. (I'm assuming that if that prank did actually happen then it was quickly fixed ... I hope ... )

In order of importance to my calculations and conclusions, I'm seeking the following information about the WWII fighters I'll be comparing:
a) Best turn radius (360 degrees)
b) best turn speed (360 degrees)
c) max level speed
d) best climb speed
e) stall (loss of lift) speed (flaps up/down)
f) gun firing center distance

The top three values are by far the most important, but the first two have been showing themselves to be surprisingly elusive in many cases.

Nonetheless, I'll persevere and learn from my mistakes, and hopefully present a more thorough analysis in the near future to test the conclusions I presented in my first two posts in this thread.

Now then, on to the next important question ... so what does having the scale at 1/2285 do to the game rules, particularly in light of the rules changes I recommended in my previous posts? To make things easier to read, I'll put my ideas on that subject in the next post in this thread, and look forward to everybody's comments on the idea.

Thank you again for the encouragement. With any luck, I will eventually provide something definitive, because I'm hoping I can contribute to this wonderful community of fliers we have here.

Tally ho!

-- Eris

[Eris Lobo]

The rules changes I presented previously for playing 1/1800-scale games by and large remain in effect when playing 1/2285-scale games, but with a few minor modifications. For ease of reading, those changes will be indicated in BOLD.

Straight flight:
The fast-straight movement card isn’t long enough to simulate how far forward a plane would travel in one phase at maximum speed (as it is, the fast-straight movement card only allows the planes to travel at 236 mph, and performance tests in real life showed both the Spitfire Mk. I and the Me 109E had a max level speed of about 355 mph).

Accurately scaled movement for a plane’s maximum speed would be more accurately portrayed by adding the length of a plane base or maneuver card to the movement (i.e., 2.7 inches). (FYI, adding the length of a card effectively increases a plane's speed by 127 mph.).

This can be reflected in game play in several ways:
a) The simplest and most playable method would be that the “white-arrow” straight distance (i.e., the current straight-card maneuver at slow speed) would no longer be used. If the plane is travelling at slow speed and a straight card is played, use the fast-speed movement instead. If a plane is travelling at fast speed and a straight card is played, conduct a normal fast-speed straight movement, then immediately move the plane further forward the length of a plane base or maneuver card.

b) A more complicated but more diverse method would be to increase the number of movement possibilities. Slow-speed straight movement would use one straight movement distance, and fast-speed straight movement would use a straight movement plus the length of a plane base or maneuver card. Unless marked with a special “extra-fast” marker (explained below), a straight movement card at slow speed would result in the plane moving forward a normal slow-straight movement amount, and a straight-movement card at fast speed would result in the plane moving forward a slow-straight movement length plus the length of a plane base or movement card. If the card is marked with a special marker, however, the fast-speed movements would be used – one fast-speed movement distance if the plane is travelling at slow speed, and a fast-straight movement plus the length of a plane base or movement card if the plane is moving at fast speed.

To clarify, if a straight-movement card is played, the following occurs:
* At slow speed, but without the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward one slow-straight distance (3.75 inches).
* At slow speed, but with the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward one fast-straight distance (5.0 inches).
* At fast speed, but without the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward a slow-straight movement plus the length of a plane base or movement card (6.45 inches).
* At fast speed, but with the “extra-fast” marker, the plane moves forward a fast-straight movement plus the length of a plane base or movement card (7.7 inches).

To account for the increased types of straights, you would need to add in a new flight-speed marker to represent “extra-fast” movement. (Normal flight-speed markers consist of a black arrow, a white arrow, and a blank space.)

In our game tests, we used the markers for “Stuka bombing” and “Exceptional Pilot” as the “extra-fast” markers because both of them look from the back like the normal flight-speed markers.

A more novel approach would be to create custom markers that all look the same from the back, but with some marked in a special way on one side, and the others being left blank. (Pennies could work well for this, with some of them marked with a small sticker on one side to indicate “extra-fast” movement and the others left unmarked.) You would place them on a movement card in addition to the normal flight-speed marker and reveal them when the movement card is played – if the special marker has the “extra-fast” mark, the plane moves at extra-fast speed (as described above), but if the marker is revealed to be blank, nothing special happens. If these custom markers are used, they could be great for feints and bluffing -- if you place a special marker on any movement card other than a straight, or place a blank marker on a straight-movement card, play is done as if the special marker wasn’t used, but it might make your opponent think you were planning on doing an “extra-fast” straight.

Dives:
An aircraft can pick up a significant amount of speed during a dive. If an “extra-fast” marker is used on a dive card, the plane still only goes down one level of height, but for determining the amount of forward movement, conduct a normal dive movement then move the plane additionally forward the length of a plane base or movement card (similar to if you played an “extra-fast” marker on a straight-movement card while the plane is at fast speed). Note that if the dive card is played without an "extra-fast" marker, play the dive normally as per the rules.

Climbing:
(Use the rules as I originally presented for 1/1800-scale game play. No modifications are needed for 1/2285 scale.)
The “climb” movement card causes the plane to move much faster than it would have in real life. To more accurately simulate the amount of forward movement a plane would do while climbing, place a straight movement card against the top of the plane’s base, then move the base so that the top of the base is even against the bottom of the movement card’s white arrow (as opposed to normal movement, which would be to place the bottom of the base over the arrow). To be clear, a “climb” movement card would be placed on the movement track to indicate that a climb is planned for that phase, but after the climb card is revealed, it is not used to measure movement; instead, the bottom of the white arrow on a straight-movement card would be used to determine how far the plane moves forward.

Immelmanns:
(Use the rules as I originally presented for 1/1800-scale game play. No modifications are needed for 1/2285 scale.)
Statistics for the Spitfire indicate that it needed to be going straight at a speed upwards of 320 mph before performing an Immelmann, and it can be assumed that other planes would need to go extremely fast as well. That speed is almost at Spitfire’s maximum movement speed, so the rules to account for that would be as follows:
* If playing without “extra-fast” markers, no rules changes are required for Immelmanns.
* If you are playing with “extra-fast” markers, then in the phase before playing an Immelmann maneuver card, a plane would be required to play a fast-movement card with an “extra-fast” marker.
* When coming out of an Immelmann, the required straight card is considered to be at slow speed, but can be marked with the “extra-fast” marker as described above.

Split-S Maneuvers:
(Use the rules as I originally presented for 1/1800-scale game play. No modifications are needed for 1/2285 scale.)
Normal rules apply for going into a Split-S maneuver, with it being a stall, then an Immelmann, then a fast straight. If using the “extra-fast” marker rules, the fast straight maneuver after the Immelmann card can be marked “extra fast”.

Stalls:
(Use the rules as I originally presented for 1/1800-scale game play. No modifications are needed for 1/2285 scale.)
Stall cards are played normally in most respects, except as follows: a stall maneuver card cannot be played unless the previous movement card was at slow speed. Also, a fast-movement card cannot be played immediately after a stall card (unless the plane is performing a Split-S maneuver, which is a special case).

Targeting:
Because of the small size of aircraft when correctly scaled to the 1/2285 movement cards, targeting an aircraft is more difficult than indicated in the original rules. To account for this, for a shot to potentially hit a target, the range ruler must touch both the attacker’s center peg and the target’s center peg. Other targeting rules apply as normal. (Optional: When dealing with large targets, such as heavy bombers or naval ships, aiming targets can be created to compensate, but they would need to be at 1/2285 scale. To convert existing Wings of War/Glory 1/200-scale bases and targets accurately, they would need to be reduced to about 1/12 their original size.)

No other movement cards or rules are affected.

Height Pegs:
One final note regarding scale is in regard to height pegs. Under the assumption that one peg equals 1000 feet of height, then bringing it to 1/2285 scale would result in each peg being about 5.25 inches in height.

-- Eris

[Eris Lobo]

Oh, and regarding 1/1200-scale games ... the only thing different from what I recommended regarding 1/1800-scale games is that the movement cards would need to be increased in size to 200 percent instead of 150 percent. Piece of cake!

-- Eris

[Zoe Brain]

Eris, your journey through the thicket of research almost exactly parallels my own. Including the false trail of that game site!

BTW.. it looks like the reprint of the Spitfire I and A6M2 may have decks including one 60 degree turn, giving a rate of 105 degrees per 2 cards rather than 90.

Before you go much further though, you have to consider all the abstractions in the model. That is, if an over-simplification in one area leads to a 10% difference, there's no point chasing the last decimal places.

The first, really gigantic effect we've abstracted out is the effect of altitude. This can affect performance not by 10% but 30% or more. Aircraft type A can be very significantly faster than type B "on the deck", but very significantly slower at 20,000 ft, and slower still at 35,000 ft.

A Mig3 for example is slower than a Hurricane at 0 feet, about 310mph, but faster than a 109F at 30,000 ft, about 400mph.

So what do we do? There are three ways to deal with the issue.

1) Pick an altitude, any altitude, and then take all aircraft performance there. This will lead to some surprising results depending on the altitude chosen. Aircraft with good reputations will be crippled, ones with poor ones become monsters. Choose another altitude, and you get the same effect, only the types change. The rationale here is that in the game, everyone is pretty much at the same height, whatever that height might be.

2) Figure out what altitude best performance is at for each plane, and then use that. So type A might have stats valid at 15000 ft, type B at 25000 ft. The rationale here is that aircraft will tend to stay at heights where there performance wasn't too terrible - so in A vs B, the fight might be at 20,000 ft, a bit higher than A would like, a bit lower than B would like, but in neither case is the performance too far off.

3) Figure out what altitude the planes were actually used at, historically, and use that. The trouble here is that often this will completely hose good aircraft. An Fw190A for example intercepting a B-17 at 30,000 ft would be dead meat vs pretty much anything. But they tended to only engage enemy fighters - and this is a fighter vs fighter game primarily - at 15,000 ft or so, after a dive to evade.

Then there's roll rate, a huge difference in effective maneuverability.

Oh yes, altitude affects "cornering speed" too. Not so much for the Bf109E and Spit, but dramatically for some aircraft! Too high, and your great-turning aircraft either wallows due to too light controls, or goes into a vicious spin-stall at any but the mildest turn onset.

Wear on engine - a high-tempo combat with multiple sorties per day will reduce aircraft performance dramatically. This is ameliorated if there's a high loss rate, aircraft get shot down before having time to wear out. Having excellent refit facilities nearby also makes a huge difference, some aircraft got undeservedly bad reps because the maintenance in the field, with no spares or repair shops, led to performance 20% or so less than the same aircraft if well looked after.

By the end of the Battle of Britain, few Hurricanes could do 300mph, let alone the 330 they did when new. New Merlins went into the Spits. The CAMS ships catapulting off worn-out hurris barely capable of 250mph weren't as wasteful as they seemed, the aircraft were only fit for scrap anyway.

Quality of fuel made a huge difference to the Axis in 1945, lowering performance from theoretical maxima by 20% in many cases.

Then amidst all of this uncertainty, you have to remember the constraints of the game. This is where game design becomes an art, not a science. You need to understand what simplifications can be made while retaining the right "feel'. Verisimilitude, the appearance of accuracy, not accuracy itself.

Game design is hard. Complex simulations on computers need more research into technical aspects, but almost no creativity. Game design, you need "just enough" hard data so it's plausible, while waving hands a great deal, and in the right way, so achieve a fun game that doesn't violate any technical maven's sensibilities too much.

Jervis Johnson and Andrea Angiollio are two of the great game designers of our time. Jon Tuffley's no slouch either. I've had the pleasure of working (in a minor way) with all three.

[Eris Lobo]

Zoe,

I read your response and smiled, because I have to say I agree with you entirely on every point.

And yet I still stand on my conclusions.

Well, except for one -- the declaration of an exact game scale. Although my calculations determined it is 1/2285 based on comparing real-world performance records of the Me 109 and Spitfire versus the movement cards they use in the game, the scale is 1/2285 only for those two planes, and it's assuredly something a bit different for each of the other aircraft used in Wings of War/Glory. (Heck, 1/2285 isn't even accurate for either the Me 109 and the Spitfire, but is only the AVERAGE of the scales for the two planes.)

So instead of saying the scale is exactly 1/2285, I should have done like I did with my original post, and declare the game scale to be an estimate that would work well with gameplay -- and probably 1/2400 works as good as anything because it's a nice round number, it's a scale that's a multiple of the aircrafts' 1/200 scale, and it's exactly double the 1/1200 scale used for numerous ship models.

So, for now, 1/2400 it'll be.

Regarding aircraft performance at various altitudes, I repeatedly kept coming across information like you stated while researching performance information for the Me 109 and Spitfire Mk I. Altitude makes a HUGE difference on plane performance, indeed! The best turn radius for a plane would change dramatically depending upon how high it was up at the time.

So how did I handle it? Simple -- I ignored it, not because I was lazy, but because of wanting to maintain the flow of the current game design.

I had to ignore other factors, too, such as the fact that I was basing game scale and speed on the performance of only two aircraft. I felt that was valid to a degree because the Spitfire and Me 109 were among the very first aircraft produced for the game -- but in my heart I knew that to truly determine game scale, I would need the performance characteristics of all of the aircraft produced to date, and that was for me an unrealistic quest.

The thing is, Wings of War/Glory is not a game intended to be a perfectly accurate representation of aerial combat in the skies of either WWI or WWII. It's meant to be fun. It's meant to be easy to learn and play, allowing games containing a large amount of planes for multiple players to use yet only taking an afternoon to finish. And it's meant to be quite pleasing to the senses with its colorful cards and intrically detailed miniatures.

It's impossible not to admit that the designers of Wings of War/Glory often have had to to sacrifice exact historical accuracy in order to keep the game so extremely playable. And I highly respect them for that. When we're not playing Wings of War/Glory, my husband and I also love to play Memoir '44, which is a game designed for simulating a wide variety of ground battles of WWII across every front. If you're familar with Memoir '44, you know that it's a blast to play -- but, like of Wings of War/Glory, it's definitely not a concrete, ultra-precise simulation of history.

Both Memoir '44 and Wings of War/Glory have something in common that makes them shine -- they both effectively find the fine line where they can present a reasonable recreation of historical conflict while being so thoroughly enjoyable that even a non-wargamer could play them with ease.

In contrast, I own another game that is also great to play -- an out-of-print WWI aerial simulation called "Wings." It has individual data cards for numerous aircraft that flew in combat over the WWI skies, and each card charts out how that aircraft's speed, climb rate, and ability to conduct each possible maneuver are affected at every altitude of play, in 2500-foot increments from ground level to 20,000 feet. The rule book is 146 pages long, and goes from basic flying to an incredibly detailed expert-level "duel game" intended to pit two highly skilled pilots against each other for a true knightly battle.

I love history immensely, and I'm thrilled by being able to recreate historical simulations. But I find myself playing Wings of War/Glory the majority of the time, and go to "Wings" only on occasion. Why? Because Wings of War provides more light-hearted fun and is a beautiful pleasure to the eyes. Because, simply put, Wings of War is more enjoyable, even if it's not as historically accurate.

In "Wings", my aircraft can do pretty much every maneuver I can dream of, turning tight or loose while flying fast or slow, all within detailed historical specifications. But at heart it's all about pushing tiny cardboard squares around a hex-gridded map and looking at charts over and over again to determine combat ranges and results.

In Wings of War/Glory, I'm very limited to only a handful of maneuvers, requiring my plane to only turn a certain way and making me fly straight at only a few specific speeds. But I can gladly live with that, because I get to fly finely detailed airplane models around our table, and the rules are so simple that I have everything I need to play right in front of me at all times, with no charts required. I'm able to concentrate on the experience, and not be bogged down thinking about the rules.

I kept all that in mind when I came up with recommendations regarding how to modify Wings of War/Glory to accommodate the game's actual scale. I didn't try to maintain tight, specific changes requiring aircraft to move along scientifically precise lengths and directions. Instead, I tried to make very easy-to-use, easy-to-remember changes that would tweak things just enough to make playing the game a bit more realistic without being detrimental to playability.

Basically, all my rules changes were (a) increasing straight-speed possibilities by adding a "very fast" movement marker and allowing straight movement to be increased by the length of an airplane base, (b) making it so stall cards and fast-movement cards can't be played immediately after each other, (c) dramatically shortening the forward movement when a plane is climbing, and (d) making so that the targeting ruler must touch a target's base peg in order for a hit to be scored. Easy to remember and easy to integrate into play.

I quickly have to admit, though -- I'm not a professional game designer, and I'm awed at the fact that you were able to interact with those three industry giants! (Jervis Johnson is like a god to me, and even though I'm not a fan of real-world American football, I think Blood Bowl is one of the greatest board games of all time! )

At heart, I'm just trying to improve a little a game I love to play, and I hope that by posting my ideas here I can provide a benefit to other people in the community as well.

Whatever the case, I do love this game, despite the occasional shortcuts the designers had to take around historical accuracy to maintain game quality, and I'm greatly looking forward to continuing to discuss possible modifications to game play with you and everybody else around here for the future to come. Thanks for responding to me so nicely and intelligently -- you did, indeed, inspire me, and I feel good knowing we're trying to travel the same path.

Take care, and tally ho!

-- Eris

[Blackronin]

This thread has been (is being) very instructive.
Thank you both.