Ares Games
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 79 of 79

Thread: RAP 2.0. Any ideas?

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    I like your spin implementation - it's elegant in its simplicity....
    Thanks Nicola, that was the plan ! People have taken the idea and added their own tweaks re possible damage/recovery etc. Some suggested its use as a deliberate escape tactic when in serious trouble; My main interest was developing the card placement for both types of spin.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Looks Like it. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
    Oh, so we're a democracy now too
    I guess YOU can start making the lists, then
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  3. #53

  4. #54

    Default

    This is not my idea but, one I will champion.

    A RG (rear gunner) deck of 50 or so cards. Weaken the rear gunners so "B" gun aircraft are not overwhelmed.

  5. #55

    Default

    Re Spins - there are two types. First, the traditional "going down in flames" type spin, a vertical dive while rolling. This loses altitude fast, wings may fall off fragile aircraft, but is relatively easy to recover from. Second, the more dangerous "flat spin" where the aircraft has its nose level rather than pointing down, and is dropping slowly but vertically, continuously yawing. This can be recovered from by most aircraft, but not all - especially modern ones, that require a "spin chute" to be deployed. The recovery is to convert it into the first type of spin by putting rudder and stick "into the corner", and hoping the control surfaces can bite sufficiently.

    The vertical spin can be simulated by playing a 60 degree turn, reversal, 60 degree turn and losing 3 (if using optional height rules) or 1 (if not). It can be recovered from at the beginning of any turn by using a power dive (stall, reversal, dive). Aircraft using X decks without 60 degree turns can't do this, they're toast.

    A flat spin - the plane doesn't move, it drops 1 peg vertically, facing any direction the nearest opponent chooses. It can be fired at, but cannot fire. Rules for recovery need to be worked on, but recovery is into a vertical spin, then into a power dive, so if you're less than 8 above the ground, oopsie..... you lose 1 for each turn of flat spin, 3 for the vertical spin, 3 for the power dive. Not recommended without lots of altitude to play with.
    I suggest Aces with acrobatic maneuvers recover whenever they want to, those Aces without after 2 turns, others after 3 turns.

    As to when to go into a spin of either type - flat spin as a consequence of doing an illegal maneuver involving a turn (otherwise A damage), vertical spin whenever you wish or as a result of a boom card/ 0 damage/pilot killed. Engine failure or recovery after boom or 0 points - use the "out of control" sequence of playing at least one stall card and one dive card every turn.

    You can actually simulate the "cornfield bomber" incident this way.


  6. #56

  7. #57

    Default

    Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

    After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

    Any thoughts?

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    You can actually simulate the "cornfield bomber" incident this way.
    WHOA! Don't diss my peeps in the Six community and our bird like that!

    Rest of the Story: The recoil from ejecting was just enough to bring the bird straight and level, and it returned to straight-line flight until running out of fuel.

    By the way, after replacing some sheetmetal, that particular aircraft did return to service.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcoon2 View Post
    Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

    After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

    Any thoughts?
    Try going "the whole 9 yards". Issue each player 9 tokens/pegs/jelly babies. Each time they fire they surrender a token until they're out. This encourages people to get in close to make the most of the two damage card/tokens rule. In campaigns, more experienced pilots get more tokens/pegs/jelly babies as they have "learned" to use shorter bursts.

    Rear gunners could have one or two reloads if it fits the type.

    You will also find people don't hang around the fight if they're out of ammo... Maybe this was Hedeby's excuse at Doncaster?

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcoon2 View Post
    Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

    After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

    Any thoughts?
    I believe that ammo rules have been discussed in the house rules section. I'll look for the threads soon.
    karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  11. #61

    Default

    Is there a chance to make damage more severe? To make extracting 0s from the deck official?
    And/or introducing point blank range, but without making chances for jamming bigger? Something like three damage cards, but jam on third card doesn't apply to shooter, but to target?

  12. #62

    Default

    [QUOTE=Nicola Zee;310344]Many people - especially those who have flown planes - regard the official altitude rules as too limited to be anything like realistic. It would be good to have extra dive and climb cards to better reflect reality but if you really want to cover the bases (e.g. turning dives and climbs and have super divers like the Spad XIII dive more than other planes) the extra cards become a bit of a pain.

    It has been suggested that tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards can work.


    i really like that idea as its a simple fix for a simple (yet elegant) system. alls that would be required is printing of dive tokens as the climb tokens already exist.

  13. #63

    Default

    the only things i think need a bit of revision is the writing of the altitude section. as written its a bit vague and makes altitude seem more complex than it is and therefore is a bit intimidating for new players.

    the other is the 3 staged layout of the rulebook. its awesome for new players to introduce the different stages of the game but for more experienced players trying to look up a rules clarification it can be difficult to find the exact passage pertaining to said rule, especially if you cant remember at which stage it was introduced. maybe have the latter part of the book include ALL the rules under 1 heading so one wouldnt have to refer to the basic or intermediate sections when looking for a specific clarification.

  14. #64

    Default

    [QUOTE=milcoll73;312527]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Many people - especially those who have flown planes - regard the official altitude rules as too limited to be anything like realistic. It would be good to have extra dive and climb cards to better reflect reality but if you really want to cover the bases (e.g. turning dives and climbs and have super divers like the Spad XIII dive more than other planes) the extra cards become a bit of a pain.

    It has been suggested that tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards can work.


    i really like that idea as its a simple fix for a simple (yet elegant) system. alls that would be required is printing of dive tokens as the climb tokens already exist.
    Thanks for the thumbs up. The trouble with the official climb and dive movement cards is it adds cards to the plane's main movement deck where it takes time to find them but only allows the planes to climb and dive 1 level. By placing a marked (but face-down) token on a standard straight movement card (to turn it into a dive), and a marked token on a stall (to turn it into a climb), players don't have to look for the specially colored movement cards. It's actually faster. Its a simple way of enabling planes to do double climbs (two stalls marked as climbs). As dives are not steep, super-divers (e.g. Spad XIII) have 3 dive tokens and can do 3 dives in a row. For planes not great at diving (e.g. Alb DVa) a dive is a steep manoeuvre and so cannot do 2 dives in a row. This is the house rule I've been using for about a year.

    I use a slight simplification. There is no need to have two sets of separate marked tokens (one marked for dive and one for climb) as with this house rule only stall cards can be climbs and only straight cards count a dives and so you can tell which is which if they have a marked token. You do need a set of blank tokens so you have a token to put on top of a Stall of Straight movement card for level flight. Both sets of marked and unmarked tokens do need to have the same tops so other players cannot see which is which.

    It plays a very similar game to the official dive and climb rules but enables a bit more options and a little more realism.

  15. #65

    Default

    The simplest system is climb = up 1 peg, dive = down 2 pegs.

    The problem with additional climb/turn maneuvers is that if you turn, you lose lift, so turn slower. Dive/turn is a bit better, but you tend to gain speed and thus increase turn radius. Having dive/climb cards is actually more accurate, just as long as you realise that you're composing a maneuver out of 3 cards, rather than doing 3 distinct maneuvers.

  16. #66

    Default

    [QUOTE=Nicola Zee;312643]
    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post


    I use a slight simplification. There is no need to have two sets of separate marked tokens (one marked for dive and one for climb) as with this house rule only stall cards can be climbs and only straight cards count a dives and so you can tell which is which if they have a marked token. You do need a set of blank tokens so you have a token to put on top of a Stall of Straight movement card for level flight. Both sets of marked and unmarked tokens do need to have the same tops so other players cannot see which is which.

    It plays a very similar game to the official dive and climb rules but enables a bit more options and a little more realism.
    I have been using a system similar to indicate climbing and diving turns for a while now since I realized that for 300 aircraft I would need to print 1200 new cards even if I only used one turn each way.
    It really is no more bother than using a speed indicator card in WW2.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  17. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    The simplest system is climb = up 1 peg, dive = down 2 pegs.

    The problem with additional climb/turn maneuvers is that if you turn, you lose lift, so turn slower. Dive/turn is a bit better, but you tend to gain speed and thus increase turn radius. Having dive/climb cards is actually more accurate, just as long as you realise that you're composing a maneuver out of 3 cards, rather than doing 3 distinct maneuvers.
    How do you dive 1 level in the circumstance when you don't want to go down 2 levels? Dive tokens marked 1 and 2 could work.
    How do you factor in the different climb rates of the planes? Maybe not a big issue for WW2 planes but a major factor in WW1. A Fokker DVII climbs a lot faster than a Gotha heavy bomber.

    Having dive/climb cards is no more accurate than dive/climb tokens to convert the same manoeuvre cards to dive/climbs; functionally it's exactly the same. If you only allow the Stall card to be a Climb and the long Straight card to be a Dive its exactly the same - no difference really at all.

    You do have a point about turning dives and turning climbs. I'm against turning climbs as it is unrealistic to go forward the same while going up - the exception is the short turning stall for the Fokker DVII.
    Diving side-slips are realistic - especially as the length of the sideslip arrow on the card is actually longer than the straight; but I'd restrict these to a drop of 1 level.
    Diving turns I think are OK as long as the turn is not 90 degrees but its not really necessary to have turning dives. Currently I've made it an Ace ability which can only be used for fighters.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 09-30-2014 at 09:22.

  18. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    ..Diving turns I think are OK as long as the turn is not 90 degrees but its not really necessary to have turning dives....
    Really ?! In a word...Vrille

  19. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Really ?! In a word...Vrille
    I'm not saying it's wrong - just not as important as other things such as being able to dive more than one level in a turn (and for me the overdive rule is just not realistic for anything but the early part of the war). It's more of a nice to have and if Zoe and others don't want it, I'm OK for it to be left out. Ideally, I would like a diving sideslip as it was (and still is) a standard way for a plane to lose height without gaining speed.

    And with my house rules, a turning dive is still possible if you're an Ace - a novice pilot is unlikely to do a Vrille.

  20. #70

    Default

    Maybe not, though I thought that was a basic move, but being able to curve down behind your target is a nice thing to be able to do - calling it a dive may be overstating it perhaps.

  21. #71

    Default

    Just wondering ... What ever became of all the ideas proposed in this thread? I thought the discussion was fascinating in places, and I'd hate to see it be forgotten.

    Did the Unofficial Rules Committee ever look over the proposed ideas and come up with a comprehensive set of what they think makes sense to them?

    In the meantime, I'll be giving the CanCon rules a try this week and see how they turn out.

    -- Eris

  22. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    Did the Unofficial Rules Committee ever look over the proposed ideas and come up with a comprehensive set of what they think makes sense to them?
    There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.

  23. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    To create a newer version of the rules may just add constriction, stifle creativity and, of course, cost the end user more money. Maybe what we need is not RAP 2.0 but something like a downloadable FAQ sheet from ARES/Andrea with their recommended House Rules to cover all these issues.
    Back in the '80s I was so looking forward to Avalon Hill's "Revised Rule Binder" for Squad Leader. The rules had changes with each new module and it got really confusing to remember what was what. Instead they brought out Advanced Squad Leader for $$$$$ and killed the game for me.

    Downloadable FAQ sheet sounds like a good idea.

    One thing I wish they had done was print the damage card decks A/B/C/D with different coloured backs for easy resorting.
    But now that I have purchased two RAP just to get more B decks (and C D as bonus) I really don't want to do that again ...

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    Just wondering ... What ever became of all the ideas proposed in this thread? I thought the discussion was fascinating in places, and I'd hate to see it be forgotten.
    Agreed... especially as I'd done exactly that! Well worth a reread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.
    That's what I thought, too. I remember discussing the potential need for such a group on a number of occasions, however... It's something I wouldn't mind having a hand in should such a group come into being.

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.
    Official Unofficial? That's like "Jumbo Shrimp" or 'Original Copy" or "Random Order" -- the two words cancel each other out, right?

    Seriously, though, I don't care who considers the proposed rules changes expressed by people in this thread ... but somebody needs to do it, I think, and (like has been suggested) either post the results on this board somewhere (preferably in a special sub-forum) and/or send the resulting list of optional rules to Ares with the request that it's posted on the company's official website.

    Just thinking, y' know ...

    -- Eris

  26. #76

    Default

    What I do really like as far as ammending rules are concerned is what DoW company made with Battlelore (1.0) rules. They officially published rules variants like: Middleages tactics or Battle Savvy troops. One could use them or not - depending on players' choice. They really enriched the game's experience. Why not do it with WoG?
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  27. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    Seriously, though, I don't care who considers the proposed rules changes expressed by people in this thread ... but somebody needs to do it, I think, and (like has been suggested) either post the results on this board somewhere (preferably in a special sub-forum) and/or send the resulting list of optional rules to Ares with the request that it's posted on the company's official website.
    Sound thinking. It would be a monumental task, though. There are a ton of house rules kicking around.

  28. #78

    Default

    Blank Manoeuvre cards to replace lost ones. I know that there were a few supplied in the Famous Aces set but they have 'Wings of War' printed on the back.

  29. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightbomber View Post
    What I do really like as far as ammending rules are concerned is what DoW company made with Battlelore (1.0) rules. They officially published rules variants like: Middleages tactics or Battle Savvy troops. One could use them or not - depending on players' choice. They really enriched the game's experience. Why not do it with WoG?
    Do you mean, for example, historical missions (like Shot Red Baron Down!) or really a set of rules?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Missions

  1. Seires 9 any ideas
    By Mike George in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 08-10-2014, 03:20
  2. Looking for convention ideas...
    By KiltedWolf in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-07-2010, 05:54
  3. Ideas on AA and infantry?
    By Gravitypool in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2009, 01:26

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
  •