WGF - Do we want ( need?) Variable Speed Maneuver Decks for WWI?

[OldGuy59]

Reading through the New Scupts thread, and saw a suggestion for WGS style maneuver decks for WGF.

Do we want this? Should I try to do up some test decks?

[Barkmann]

I think that the way they are is good, and i really don't want this to chage. But i'd like to see some tests, if isn't ask much
Thanks


Nick

[milcoll73]

i think it would make a nice house rule for those who wish to add extra realism but i dont think its vitally necessary.

the way id handle it is to allow a pilot to choose (before revealing of course) move approximately to the halfway mark on any given non steep maneuver as long as it was followed with a stall (with usual restrictions) and on side slips the a/c makes it past the turnback on the card (ie it ends up going the same general direction as it started).

[Doug]

I like the way it is for WW1, and personaly cannot see any avantage in change, however there is no reason why individuals cannot use the idea in their own house rules.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I am with Doug on this one.
Rob.

[flash]

Non.

[Dom S]

A no for me, chiefly on logistical grounds - adding a low speed option to a WWI deck is going to make for 30-50 movement options to pick your three from - variable speed coupled with the "plot 3 cards at a time" mechanism is going to make for *very* cumbersome decks and excessive time spent picking cards. If you want a higher level of detail in this particular regard, I think you'd be better off parting company with the WGF movement mechanism than trying to shoehorn it to fit.

(You'd also need to put in acceleration rules too, as WWI aircraft couldn't return from "slow" to "fast" with the alacrity of most WWII types, hence WWI dogfights tending to spiral downwards over a period of a few minutes - having lost speed pulling a maneuver you couldn't regain it by just hitting the throttle (in the kind of timeframe of an actual combat) so you *had* to trade off height for it - obviously height-for-speed remains a trade-off in dogfighting to this day, but in WWI it was pretty much non-optional; your acceleration just wasn't worth a damn....)

[Jager]

I would have to say no also; I find that the game engine of WoG feels better in the WW1 version than the WW2 one. Not to say some tweeks and house rules aren't nice to add for some chrome
Karl

[grumpybear]

I like the way it is for WW1, and personaly cannot see any avantage in change, however there is no reason why individuals cannot use the idea in their own house rules.

I agree

[greenalfonzo]

(You'd also need to put in acceleration rules too, as WWI aircraft couldn't return from "slow" to "fast" with the alacrity of most WWII types, hence WWI dogfights tending to spiral downwards over a period of a few minutes - having lost speed pulling a maneuver you couldn't regain it by just hitting the throttle (in the kind of timeframe of an actual combat) so you *had* to trade off height for it - obviously height-for-speed remains a trade-off in dogfighting to this day, but in WWI it was pretty much non-optional; your acceleration just wasn't worth a damn....)

This is the right answer. By slowing so dramatically, the pilot would be really cutting his maneuver options, and you'd have to start adjusting what was possible after deceleration. Probably force an additional deceleration/half speed on a following cards that attempt to climb or stay level, maybe even force a dive to regain 'normal' speed within so many cards. If you go this route to add 'realism', make sure you go all the way with it.

[Rabbit 3]

Apart from everything else a lot of WWI planes, mainly the ones with rotary engines didn`t have proper throttle controls as such, just a so called "blip switch" which cut the engine for a few seconds.
The way the rules work as they are manages to simulate this fairly well by playing the stall card, while some in-line engine planes did have proper throttles is it worthwhile to introduce a whole additional level of complexity just to cover a few individual planes?

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Nice idea, mooted by some at shows, however I'm in agreement with the majority; it's a no from me. The stall card fills in admirably for slow maneuvers and I would think following Dom's reasoning that an aircraft would apply all it's power to maintain a modicom of control flying left or right, tight or otherwise, any slower and the trade off in height lost would be too complicated to admin during a game.

[Nicola Zee]

A no for me, chiefly on logistical grounds - adding a low speed option to a WWI deck is going to make for 30-50 movement options to pick your three from - variable speed coupled with the "plot 3 cards at a time" mechanism is going to make for *very* cumbersome decks and excessive time spent picking cards. If you want a higher level of detail in this particular regard, I think you'd be better off parting company with the WGF movement mechanism than trying to shoehorn it to fit.

(You'd also need to put in acceleration rules too, as WWI aircraft couldn't return from "slow" to "fast" with the alacrity of most WWII types, hence WWI dogfights tending to spiral downwards over a period of a few minutes - having lost speed pulling a maneuver you couldn't regain it by just hitting the throttle (in the kind of timeframe of an actual combat) so you *had* to trade off height for it - obviously height-for-speed remains a trade-off in dogfighting to this day, but in WWI it was pretty much non-optional; your acceleration just wasn't worth a damn....)

I agree. In general throttle control was limited and (even with planes with throttles) it could be dangerous because of the fuel pump and the fuel mixture control. The stall card mimics the blipping of the engine OK. For me, the way WW1 planes tended to gain speed fast was by diving and if you're going to add house rules I'd focus on this and not the throttle control.

[Boney10]

Also a no from me, I think the 3 card system and cards as is, accurately, enough, shows the infancy of flying, speed, manoeuvring.
So I am happy as is

[Teaticket]

Another no from me. I don't think WWI planes had the control options. House rules are fine for those that want to fiddle but I think the RAW are fine.

[tikkifriend]

no for me to.

[gully_raker]

I also agree with the majority so far. The cards as designed give a great range of manoeuvres that are applicable to each aircraft.

[john snelling]

Apart from everything else a lot of WWI planes, mainly the ones with rotary engines didn`t have proper throttle controls as such, just a so called "blip switch" which cut the engine for a few seconds.
The way the rules work as they are manages to simulate this fairly well by playing the stall card, while some in-line engine planes did have proper throttles is it worthwhile to introduce a whole additional level of complexity just to cover a few individual planes?

That is what I was thinking.

[LOOP]

I also say no. It works great as it is.
And if you want to you CAN change your speed as it is today. Just use the stall-card. Ok you can't do "real" slow turns (exept for the DVII) but you can do: turn, stall, turn. + stall, turn, stall.
A 180 dgr turn. Perhaps not the nicest turn on earth but still a slow turn.......

[csadn]

Should I try to do up some test decks?

Shouldn't be too difficult -- for an example of How To Do Variable Speed, I can send you my _Crimson Skies_/_WoG_ crossover rules (if it isn't in the Files section). Also shows how the cards can be done to keep card-count down.

Accel. and decel. for WW1 units is easy enough -- accel. 1, decel. 1 plus 1 for each wing after the first (all that drag, you see ).

[OldGuy59]

Chris,
Thanks for the offer, but with all the negative replies, I will shelve this idea for when I have too much time on my hands, and not enough planes or banners to do.

[csadn]

Chris,
Thanks for the offer, but with all the negative replies, I will shelve this idea for when I have too much time on my hands, and not enough planes or banners to do.

Eh -- just because the majority believes it doesn't make it so.... ;)