Rain of Destruction: What was meant to be

[Angiolillo]

Well the Pe3 was discarded even before choosing planes for RoD. No statistics at hand.

For Ju.52 I'd put the two pilots and one gunner in dorsal position.

Sometimes, there were other strange positions for gunners...

[Angiolillo]

do you ever bring out the prototype and play it for nostalgia's sake?

I even brought it to a couple of convention, and it arised curiosity. But at home no, I play more with minis.

[OldGuy59]

A quick rough draft of the Pe-3:

WGS WorkPetlyakov Pe-3a Card.jpg  Views: 188  Size: 218.8 KB  ID: 148922" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

Stats need to be verified.

For the Ju-52, I found listings of three crew: Pilot, Co-pilot, and Radioman. However, I have found version of the plane with a Dorsal turret, Ventral turret (dustbin), and waist guns. Who operated these, in whatever version? Did the Co-pilot and Radioman man the turrets, and a single additional gunner operate the waist guns? Was there a separate Bombardier (probably)? That is my quandary.

[Thunderbolt]

Andrea, thanks for all that info! Rep is coming!

[Angiolillo]

For the Ju-52, I know that you are trying to be more accurate than me. Well, in our simplified crews I usually ignored the radiomen, bombers and such if they did not handle a gun. I'd go for the standard dorsal turret. Then, when different weapons are in use on specific specimen, I'd study what exactly happened with them.

[Angiolillo]

Here an old preview with a Battle of Britain Fiat Br.20:

http://www.gioconomicon.net/modules....ails&album=428

[Barkmann]

Alas I have just these low res drafts. Not a really printable layout.
The box would have included two classes of planes: some heavy fighters and some bombers. Or, in game terms, some planes that just needed a card and some that needed a managing consolle too (while Flight of the Giants had just planes with consolles). The real difference being the active crew in the game (pilots and gunners).
Larger planes were to be released later on. And now they are, as minis.



Generally true, but to be precise it was not cancelled because of a planned change of marketing policy, taken one day by a board of managers. It was cancelled because it was a Nexus Editrice project...

Attachment 148912

...and back in 2010 Italeri, only owner of Nexus Editrice, decided to suspend all new releases of all lines - Wings of War and others - because of cash flow problems even if every issue of WoW was actually always active in financial terms. Then a very awkward period followed, Fantasy Flight Games made an offer to buy the company on terms that could not be accepted (at least by all designers in Nexus' catalogue) and in the end we broke our contract Nexus while they went into temporary receivership. Several companies, huge and small, were warmly interested in Wings of War (and in the Sails project), including FFG - but their decision to go on with X-Wing without licensing WoW any more as they initially offered, and other signs on how they often deal with designers, made them not so desirable publishers for us. Some of these publishers made interesting offers, some tried to use less convincing arguments (I have been told by a large company "Make a deal with us or we will reprint Blue Bax calling it Wings of War and putting your miniatures in the box without acknowledging you anything", with not much respect for the intelligence of the public, besides for us, for Phil Hall and for the law).
In the meantime, all of you went on playing and supporting the game, giving us great trust in the future - I appreciated a lot.
In the end, Ares Games was founded and employed the same great staff that has took care of WoW since 2002, so we went on with them. The result has been great - the game was back into shops in a few months, even if not with the best choice of models at first, and a flow of new stuff (including Sails of Glory) has been coming since then. In the meantime, FFG and their partners (first of all Giochi Uniti, that distributed WoW in Italy) took 3 years to release again Blue Max with the idea of replacing WoW with it - this give a hint, IMHO, of how low would have been that flow of new stuff if they managed our game.
Ares Games has simplified the lines from ww1 cards / ww2 cards / ww1 miniatures / ww2 miniatures to just the last two, adding a third one (Napoleonic sea battles with miniatures) - and that's enough to me, given the effort. Besides all the rest, it helped managing the game and making clear to new players how to enter the game. Rain of Destruction was not released as such, but the Bf.110 and Beaufighters in Airplane Packs and the B.25 and He.111 in special packs come from it. And more will follow.

Amazing post Andrea!! Its great to see the path where WoG start and everything. Its good everything is ok with the game, even if the game its just with minis, what counts its the quality which is high above clouds.
Thanks


Nick

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Andrea, thanks for all that info! Rep is coming!

And then some.
Rob.

[Caveman]

Your not lost, that info has not been given out yet (to me either). There was a stipulation that the 3rd bombers would of course depend on how well the B-17 and Lanc sale.

Seems like a good excuse, I mean reason, to assemble a B-17 combat box.

[Diamondback]

And that tells you why I haven't bough an Italeri or Fantasy Flight product since the shutdown. I consider few sins truly unforgivable, but Blue Falconing ranks right up there with Oath-Breaking and Treason among them.

[grumpybear]

From what I have read and seen of Rain of Destruction would like to see it in production some how

[milcoll73]

And that tells you why I haven't bough an Italeri or Fantasy Flight product since the shutdown. I consider few sins truly unforgivable, but Blue Falconing ranks right up there with Oath-Breaking and Treason among them.

blue falconing?

[Zoe Brain]

What would be good... figure out which aircraft are NEVER going to be made by Ares. Not for at least 5 years, anyway. I don't see things like Curtiss Hawk IIIs or Ca21s, P-43s or even Beauforts being commercially worthwhile.

Then work out stats for them. No need for artwork at this stage.

This will allow Ares to "grow the market" for free using hobbyists, while not eating into the profitable sales of anything else. The only people who will go to the time and trouble of making cards, stands etc to go with 3rd party models will buy the "official product" anyway, in case the decision is wrong.

While people are snapping up cheap Academy 1/200 B-17Es for repaints, they're also buying Ares models- possibly more than they would otherwise - as Bomber Boxes become viable. Instead of 1 B-17E as a straggler, 3 of them and 9 Academy models for a formation of 12.

[Zoe Brain]

blue falconing?

Buddy F***ing is the alternate term, so I'm led to believe.

[Naharaht]

Thank you for revealing all these things to us, Andrea.

[milcoll73]

Buddy F***ing is the alternate term, so I'm led to believe.

ahhh thanks

[csadn]

Japanese Fiat Br.20: 85 were acquired as "Army Type I Heavy Bomber", and used in the Sino-Japanese War; all were out of service by Pearl Harbor.

Ju-52s with dorsal turret and ventral "dustbin": In '34, the Ju-52/3mg3e "bomber" was produced; engines were 525-HP BMW 132A-3, and dorsal and ventral mounts were single 0.31-cal. MG 15s. Bomb load was six 100-kgs. 450 total built. 20 went to Spain in '36, initially as transports for the cross-Med airlift, and later as bombers (KG 88); but poor performance led to their being taken off front-line status. Note the dustbin projects beneath the landing gear; for takeoff and landing, it was retracted.

[Naharaht]

Some later Ju 52's had a machine gun mounted above the pilot's cockpit and side guns, apparently including some ambulance planes.

[OldGuy59]

David,
Great pictures, and I used similar ones for one scheme. However, no mention of crews or manning of guns?

A draft card can be found on this thread: Official Ju-52 (1-200) Painting Thread

[Angiolillo]

Japanese Fiat Br.20: 85 were acquired as "Army Type I Heavy Bomber", and used in the Sino-Japanese War; all were out of service by Pearl Harbor.

Remember that when Rain of destruction was due to be out, we already had several Chinese fighters such as I-16 and Gladiator. A new pack with early Japanese fighters was planned too.

[Zoe Brain]

Remember that when Rain of destruction was due to be out, we already had several Chinese fighters such as I-16 and Gladiator. A new pack with early Japanese fighters was planned too.

Ki-10? Ki-27 certainly, probably A5M too. Did you get as far as determining stats?
The Ki-27 is in the K speed band, but as it was possibly the most maneuverable aircraft of WWII -though grossly underarmed and extremely fragile - perhaps a different deck?

Sources differ over various marks of A5M. Some say better than early model I16s, others only comparable.

In any event, for the Chinese we have I-152, I-153, I-16 (official), CW21a, Gladiator(official), Hawk III, B-10 all from Shapeways.
For their opponents, Ki-27 Nate, Br20 Ruth, G3M Nell, a good A5M substitute (Ki-33) Claude, Ki-21 Sally, Ki-30 Ann, Aichi D2A Susie, A8V ****, mainly from AIM.


I think the odds of Ares ever producing a Seversky A8V are approximately nil.
That's only a partial list too.

[Angiolillo]

No. A5M was surely in the plan, Ki.27 considered.

[Honza]

Andrea thanks a million for letting the cat out of the bag!

[Boney10]

Although not big into WGS ,
I do have a largish collection for BoB, 12 Spits, 5 Hurricanes, 9 ME109, 3 each of Ju87, HE111 and ME110, so quite pleased to see the Do17 was planned and henceforth coming addition to my collection.
But may I ask why the Do17 and not the Ju88?
Not complaining here, I will get the Do in the future, just wondering

[Oberst Hajj]

Perhaps because there were more Do 17s used in BoB then Ju 88s?

Battle of Britain

By August 1940, (Ju 88) A-1s and A-5s were reaching operational units, just as the battle was intensifying. The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its higher speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. Ju 88 losses over Britain in 1940 amounted to 313 machines between July–October 1940. One notable incident involved ground fighting between the crew of an A-1 and soldiers from the London Irish Rifles during the Battle of Graveney Marsh on 27 September 1940. It was the last action between British and foreign military forces on British mainland soil.[30] Do 17 and He 111 losses for the same period amounted to 132 and 252 machines destroyed respectively.[31][32] A series of field kits were made to make it less vulnerable, including the replacement of the single MG 15 rear machine gun by a twin-barreled MG 81Z machine gun, and additional cockpit armour.
A German crew rest next to their Ju 88A variant, summer 1942

It was during the closing days of the Battle of Britain that the flagship Ju 88 A-4 went into service. Although slower yet than the A-1, nearly all of the troubles of the A-1 were gone, and finally the Ju 88 matured into a superb warplane. The A-4 actually saw additional improvements including more powerful engines, but, unlike other aircraft in the Luftwaffe, did not see a model code change. The Ju 88 C-series also benefited from the A-4 changes, and when the Luftwaffe finally did decide on a new heavy fighter, the Ju 88C was a powerful, refined aircraft.

[Diamondback]

Remember that when Rain of destruction was due to be out, we already had several Chinese fighters such as I-16 and Gladiator. A new pack with early Japanese fighters was planned too.

Andrea, was that the rumored "Ground Attack" booster, or another one that wasn't named?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Perhaps because there were more Do 17s used in BoB then Ju 88s?

The whole thing has been very informative thanks Keith.
I'm learning more about WW2 all the time.
Rob.

[csadn]

Remember that when Rain of destruction was due to be out, we already had several Chinese fighters such as I-16 and Gladiator. A new pack with early Japanese fighters was planned too.

I do remember that the early-war fighters were out (and the constant carping about them "when we could be playing Mustangs and Swallows, WAH"... [eyeroll]), and there was some discussion of what bombers would go with them; the Br.20 in IJ service was mentioned.

[Barkmann]

Remember that when Rain of destruction was due to be out, we already had several Chinese fighters such as I-16 and Gladiator. A new pack with early Japanese fighters was planned too.

Thats very cool Andrea!! What about a booster with American early planes like P-26 Peashooter and P-36, etc?
Did you think of making something like that?;
Thanks


Nick

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

The initial Ju 52 was a single-engine aircraft. Since it lacked performance, and the state of technology couldn't deliver higher performance engines yet, Junkers decided to add 2 additional engines, both mounted on the wing. The designation then received the '/3m'. The seventh Ju 52 airframe was used for the first 3-engine prototype, powered by three Pratt & Whitney Hornet radials, rated at 550 hp (410 kW) each. A number of subversions were built for various (export) customers: · Ju 52/3m ce: Version for A.B. Aerotransport of Sweden, Aero O/Y of Finland, and Deutsche Lufthansa. It had cowled engines and spatted mainwheels. · Ju 52/3m de: Version for Lloyd Aero Boliviano with uncowled engines and unspatted wheel · Ju 52/3m fe: unknown features and customers The Ju 52/3m ge was the first version that entered production in large numbers. It was powered by 3 × BMW 132A-1 (license built Pratt & Whitney Hornets) radial, rated at 660 hp (492 kW) each. It could carry 17 passengers, reach a max level speed of 155 Mph (250 km/h), and had a max take-off weight of 22,046 lb (10.000 kg) In the meantime the Luftwaffe had expressed it's interest for the Ju 52, to double as aeither a transport or a bomber. The bomber role was to be fulfilled until the Dornier Do 11 would be ready, but problems with the Do 11 meant that more emphasis was placed on the bomber role. Therefor the Ju 52 was fitted with 3 cells capable of carrying 3,307 lb (1.500 kg) of bombs in the fuselage. Defensive armament consisted of: · 2 × 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) MG 15 trainable rearward-firing guns in an open dorsal position, 1.050 rounds total · 1 × 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) MG 15 trainable rearward-firing gun in a semi-enclosed, semi-retractable ventral 'bathtub' position, 750 rounds Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g3e	Improved version of the Junkers Ju 52/3m ge. It had more modern radio equipment, upgraded bomb-release mechanisms, and was powered by 3 × BMW 132A-3 radials, rated at 725 hp (541 kW) each. The internal fuel capacity of 544 Imp gal (654 US gal, 2.475 liters) made a tactical radius of 311 miles (500 km) possible at a max cruising speed of 152 miles (245 km/h) at 2,950 ft (900 m). Other technical details are as follows: A span of 95 ft 11.5 inch (29,24 m), aspect ratio of 7,74, area of 1,189.41 sq ft (110.50 m²), length of 62 ft 0 inch (18,9 m), height of 18 ft 2,5 inch (5,55 m), empty weight of 12,610 lb (5.720 kg), max take-off weight of 23,146 lb (10.500 kg), max level speed of 172 Mph (277 km/h) at 2,950 ft (900 m) declining to 165 Mph (265 km/h) at sea level, economical cruising speed of 130 Mph (210 km/h) at optimum altitude, max range of 621 miles (1.000 km), climb to 9,845 ft (3.000 m) in 17 min 30 sec, and a service ceiling of 19,360 ft (5.900 m) Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g4e	This version was mostly used by the Condor Legion in Spain. It had a number of internal improvements, and a tailwheel in stead of a tail skid. This version was not u\only produced by Junkers, and the number exceeded 500 aircraft. In 1937 it was slowly withdrawn from it's bomber role, and served more as a transport, bomber-crew trainer, or in the airborne forces role. 12 Aircraft have been converted to Convoy Escorts. These aircraft, like the YB-40 with the B-17, defended it's brothers during sorties. For that reason the 'Geleitschutzflugzeuge' were fitted with the ventral 'Dustbin' again, 2 more 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) guns in the beam positions, and a 20 mm trainable cannon in the nose. Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g4e (MS)	This version was converted for Mine-sweeping duties. For that reason it was fitted with a large Dural hoop braced beneath the wing and fuselage. This hoop was than energised by an additional motor that was installed in the fuselage. The magnetic field that was generated that way, triggered magnetically fused mines. Number converted: unknown
Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e	This version was an improvement upon the Junkers Ju 52/3m g4e. It had more comprehensive radio equipment, a de-icing system that used the exhaust, provision for an interchangeable wheel ski or float landing gear, provision for 2 × 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) trainable lateral-firing guns in the beam positions, and an uprated powerplant: 3 × BMW 132T-2 radials, rated at 830 hp (619 kW). The land planes had a max take-off weight of 23,148 lb (10.500 kg). Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e (MS)	This version was converted for Mine-sweeping duties. Number converted: unknown
Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e (See)	This version was the Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e with floats in stead of a landing gear. The max take-off weight was 24,250 lb (11.000 kg) Number converted: unknown
Junkers Ju 52/3m g6e	This version is almost identical to the Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e, and was produced in parallel with it as well. The difference was the fact that it was a purely land based aircraft, and had simpler radio equipment. Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g6e (MS)	This version was converted for Mine-sweeping duties. Number converted: unknown
Junkers Ju 52/3m g7e	From 1941 onward, the Junkers Ju 52/3m g7e was built. It was based on the Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e, but had a number of improvements: an autopilot, a larger starboard-side loading hatch, and a rearward extension of the upper part of the central engine. On some aircraft there was an open position created in the cockpit's overhead glazing, to accomodate 1 × 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) MG 15 trainable rearward-firing gun. Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415 Junkers
Junkers Ju 52/3m g7e (MS)	This version was converted for Mine-sweeping duties. Number converted: unknown Junkers
Junkers Ju 52/3m g8e	Based on the Junkers Ju 52/3m g7e, this vaersion had an additional loading hatch in the cabin roof. At first they were powered by the same engines (BMW 132T-2), but later this was changed to 3 × BMW 132Z radials. Also at a certain moment the 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) gun in the dorsal position was changed to 1 × 0.51 inch (13 mm) MG 131 gun for better defensive armament The Junkers Ju 52/3m g8e had a number of Standardbausätze, which all added another letter to the designation: · F: Fallschirmjäger- und Luftlandetransporter (paratrooper and airlanding transport) · H: Hörsaalflugzeug (classroom aircraft, or trainer) · K: Kistentransporter (crate transporter) · N: Nachshubtransporter (supply transport) · R: Reiseflugzeug (courier aircraft) · S: Sanitätsflugzeug (ambulance aircraft) · St: Staffeltrupp transporter (squadron detachment transport) Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g8e (MS)	This version was converted for Mine-sweeping duties. . Number converted: unknown
Junkers Ju 52/3m g9e	This version replaced the Junkers Ju 52/3m g8e in 1942. It was powered by 3 × BMW 132Z radials, had a glider-towing coupling, and had a strenghtened landing gear for a max take-off weight of 25,353 lb (11.500 kg) Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g10e	Based on the Junkers Ju 52/3m g9e, but fitted with alternatively skis or floats. Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g11e	No information Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g12e	Equal to the Junkers Ju 52/3m g9e, but fitted with 3 × BMW 132L radials, rated at 800 hp (597 kW) Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g13e	No further information Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
Junkers Ju 52/3m g14e	The final production version. This version featured armor protection for the pilot, and had a standard defensive armament of 1 × 0.51 inch (13 mm) MG 131 in the rear dorsal position, and 3 × 0.312 inch (7,92 mm) MG 15 each in one of the beam positions, and 1 in a low-drag copula over the cockpit. Number built: unknown out of a total of 5.415
AAC.1 Toucan	Postwar version of the Ju 52/3m, built by a French company. number built: 400 out of 5.415
CASA 352	Postwar version of the Ju 52/3m, built by a Spanish company. number built: 170 out of 5.415

Apologies if people already have this but this is all I could find and little detail on crew size I'm afraid.

[Hedeby]

Just read through this thread for the first time - boy what an education !

Also nice work on the Junkers 52's Neil

[Angiolillo]

do you ever bring out the prototype and play it for nostalgia's sake?

Usually not. Did it once for a game show in Pisa, to play with the public. I might bring it to Prague next spring, if anybody is interested to try it.

[Thunderbolt]

Thanks for sharing infor on Ju-52. I will make use of it once I will paint my Ju-52 models by Zvezda.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

NP. I have 3 to paint and now I'm stuck as to which ones to go for!

Thanks for sharing infor on Ju-52. I will make use of it once I will paint my Ju-52 models by Zvezda.

[OldGuy59]

I am working on the Ju-52 cards, just having a problem sorting out crews and gunners for the management cards.

Neil, I did run across the info you posted, but as you noticed, no where near enough crew info for a management card. I'll cobble some management cards together for three different gun configurations and let you guys pick them apart. Life, College, and BottosCon this coming weekend will delay any work, but I am working on this. I have a few draft color schemes already posted on the Ju-52 painting thread.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

I'm wondering as the war progressed and the JU52 became more vulnerable that with the up-arming they up crewed. With the waist gun I would imagine only 1 gunner who could move from left to right. Whereas the other positions had a dedicated gunner. A front firing gun could have been maned by co-pilot or the original 3rd crew member.

[Xen]

Further talks with Ares revealed that the Dornier Do.17 and Petlyakov Pe-2 are already in the pipeline, but after "the 3rd batch of bombers"

THIS IS HUGE!!!! I think the B17 and Lancaster will be big sellers. I've seen some pessimism here, I can't fathom how they would not sell? They are archetypal planes. People will buy these minis even just as paperweights or mantlepiece ornaments. Not all will be gamers who buy these. Mainly due to the quality, and size. I get the feeling though that the B-25's and Heinkels did not sell very well. B-25's hold little interest for me, Heinkels however, I own 3 of them, and if we had more eastern front minis to attack the white one I would buy 2 more of that one.

[Xen]

Do.17 will be a favourite for me, Ill have that on the table as often as possible. and, we all know where I stand on the Russian stuff. WGS is looking so strong right now in terms of projected releases... Can't wait!!!

[OldGuy59]

If Do-17 cards were being made, any suggestions on color schemes and units?

[Honza]

Then i'll get B-17 to get Dornier.
Not that bad a situation, hahaha.

[CappyTom]

I have a bad feeling about this...

No. I believe that the sales of these bombers are going to do great! I will be getting plenty. I want this game to keep going.
Don't give up!
Thomas

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Only just got back to this thread thanks to a reminder from Mike.
Thanks for all the info on the 52 Neil, and great news also about the Dornier.
Rob.

[Nightbomber]

If Do-17 cards were being made, any suggestions on color schemes and units?

My initial idea is: the early war 1939/40 scheme: RLM 70/71/65 typical camo, Mike.

[Oberst Hajj]

THIS IS HUGE!!!! I think the B17 and Lancaster will be big sellers. I've seen some pessimism here, I can't fathom how they would not sell? They are archetypal planes. People will buy these minis even just as paperweights or mantlepiece ornaments. Not all will be gamers who buy these. Mainly due to the quality, and size. I get the feeling though that the B-25's and Heinkels did not sell very well. B-25's hold little interest for me, Heinkels however, I own 3 of them, and if we had more eastern front minis to attack the white one I would buy 2 more of that one.

From 2012 to today, here is what I have sold for the B-25 and HE 111 minis:

Doolittle: 10
Baur: 6
Stab./KG53: 21
1./KG53: 9

With the exception of the Stab./KG53 HE 111, they have all been poor sellers for me. Those numbers do not reflect the initial pre-orders I took though (I don't have that data available due to a system "upgrade").

As for the new heavies, pre-orders have been sub 30 for each one. Not bad, but not very good either.

[csadn]

With the exception of the Stab./KG53 HE 111, they have all been poor sellers for me. Those numbers do not reflect the initial pre-orders I took though (I don't have that data available due to a system "upgrade").

As for the new heavies, pre-orders have been sub 30 for each one. Not bad, but not very good either.

That's because this game is not well-designed for running bombers -- bad enough having to figure out what maneuvers they're doing, but having to keep track of what crew is at which position? The bombers look impressive, but don't play worth a hoot.

[Oberst Hajj]

That's because this game is not well-designed for running bombers -- bad enough having to figure out what maneuvers they're doing, but having to keep track of what crew is at which position? The bombers look impressive, but don't play worth a hoot.

When I run WGF bombers at Origins, I never use the crew rules. Everyone stays put, and the closest crew member is killed with one is drawn on a damage card. Very dumbed down, but it works well for a fun game that is not bogged down by the "targets".

[Xen]

closest crew member is killed with one is drawn on a damage card. Very dumbed down

doesn't sound dumbed down to me, sounds like an improvement. I also struggle with the crew rules on WGF too.

[Jager]

When I run WGF bombers at Origins, I never use the crew rules. Everyone stays put, and the closest crew member is killed with one is drawn on a damage card. Very dumbed down, but it works well for a fun game that is not bogged down by the "targets".

That might be a "must do" house rule when the B-17s hit the game matt!
Karl

[csadn]

When I run WGF bombers at Origins, I never use the crew rules. Everyone stays put, and the closest crew member is killed with one is drawn on a damage card. Very dumbed down, but it works well for a fun game that is not bogged down by the "targets".

[nod] If I ever ran a bomber, I'd consider doing that.

[Lord_Ninja]

If I could afford it, I would have a flight of each bomber. I currently only have a Doolittle bomber which I modified to have it's proper tail guns. When the big heavies come out I will probably invest in them first and then go back and get the mediums. With a flight of four each I was thinking of modifying the rules for simpler use hoping to have the bombers flying on an ''A.I.'' of sorts.