Ares Games
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: If I ruled the world..... discussion on "advanced" WGS (that will never happen)

  1. #1

    Default If I ruled the world..... discussion on "advanced" WGS (that will never happen)

    WGS to me seems flawed compared to WGF.
    It keeps things simple, the concept is good, but as a simulation it leaves a lot to be desired.

    First, there's inadequate simulation of "Energy Tactics" where fast fighters can dash in, fire, and bug out. That's a big part of WWII air combat. It also means that many maneuvers, zooming to lose speed, turning tightly at low speed, then diving to gain speed aren't possible.

    There's inadequate simulation of roll rate, where one plane can quickly get into a turn, even if not a very tight one, whereas another takes a while to enter, but then "turns on a dime".

    The simplification that aircraft have about the same performance at low altitude as they do at high is just not valid in WWII.

    Firing is broken. Aircraft with 2 rifle-calibre mgs will hardly ever get kills, those with 4 x 20mm will always hit significantly. In fact, instead of being 16 times as good, they should be maybe 4 times. Rifle-calibre guns can fire long continuous bursts, with cannon you run out of ammo so continuous spraying isn't feasible. The concept of having separate "rolls to hit" for each gun isn't appropriate: Having more guns increases damage when you do hit, but has almost no effect on chance of hitting.

    No account is taken of self-sealing tanks, or armour plate, both of which are crucial.

    "Fast" vs "Slow" is good, but you really need 3 speeds for an adequate simulation, - Fast, Cruise, Combat, with time taken to accelerate between them. The current rules are good in concept, but need tweaking for dives especially.

    Altitude is essential. Climb rates important, dive rates even more so.

    ---

    Solutions-
    I'd extend the "steep" concept a bit, so maneuvers of that nature have either "left","right", "climb", "dive" them as pre-requisites.
    Have decks that have separate cards for each speed band.
    Have decks that have multiple turns (etc) for each altitude band, just as they do for fast,slow now.
    Have "special" cards for aircraft types to add flavour, but cut down on the sideslips that attempt to do this now. The attempt works poorly, the difference between A,B,E,F,G,H decks almost nothing.

    Example -
    Spitfires could always get away from Bf109s by a climbing turn to the right. So have one special combat speed card in the deck for spitfires.
    Zeros had lousy roll rates, but once in a turn at combat speed - less than 150mph - could out-turn anything. And they could follow spits in a climbing turn to the right, and do the same to the left too, which the Spit could not do.

    Problems - larger decks. Slightly more complications (one type might be able to do a 15 degree turn initially, then a 45 thereafter, whereas another could do a 30 initially, but still a 30 thereafter - the difference between a P40 and a Fw190)

    Keep the idea of A,B,C,D firing chits, but add E, and x1,x2,x4,x6,x8,x10,x12,x16 counters.
    A - rifle calibre MGs
    E - mixed rifle calibre/ HMG or Cannon
    B - HMG
    C - 20-23mm cannon
    D - 30-37mm cannon

    Only have different chits for those guns with different ballistics - choose one, except at short range.

    Examples :
    D520 has 1x20mm, 4xrifle calibre mgs. These have different ballistics. So at long range, either Cx1 or Ax4. At short range, Ex2
    P-51 has 4xHMG. At long range, Bx4, at short, Bx8

    I'm sure this can be simplified. The aim is, one chit drawn, then a multiplier (depending on range and number of guns).

  2. #2

    Default

    Zoe;
    Not to sound condescending, but you need to pick up a copy of Check Your 6, or Fighting Wings.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  3. #3

    Default

    Too complex. One's hex-based. Andrea's idea of movement cards, and composing maneuvers with them is a stroke of genius. We need to retain the ease of play.

    Yes, I have a copy of Air War. Played many a game with 1/300 Sabres vs Migs on poles, similar to ICOG.

  4. #4

    Default

    Could the manoeuvre deck have three speeds. Like SGN?
    This would mean replacing all the decks though

  5. #5

    Default

    Your ideas are interesting Zoe. But I think turning WoG in simulator would make the game too complex. Of course I agree with you in some aspects like the decks that are too similar.
    I know some thing are strange but I dont know if this would work. Maybe we could make a test?
    Thanks


    Nick

  6. #6

    Default

    I thought that self-sealing tanks and armour were included in the calculation of the 'hit points' for each plane.

  7. #7

    Default

    It's still the same old story, a fight between a game and a simulation. I understand your point fully, Zoe. But I vote for the gaming aspect of the game, taking into account the over medium level of complication of the advanced rules, which are often difficult to follow in a group of casual gamers...
    Adding more realism would surely inflict the decrease of game speed and fun, I am affraid.
    <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."

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Too complex. One's hex-based. Andrea's idea of movement cards, and composing maneuvers with them is a stroke of genius. We need to retain the ease of play.

    Yes, I have a copy of Air War. Played many a game with 1/300 Sabres vs Migs on poles, similar to ICOG.
    I think I sold mine years ago...I hope. Speed of the Heat, and the Air Superiority series are much better IMO.
    I agree with the genius of Andrea. CY6 is a similar concept (a limited set of moves for each plane, though based also on it's speed), but with hexes.
    I still think you're looking at a complete redesign of the game, esp. the movement decks.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  9. #9

    Default

    I must say, as non-flyer in real life, I find this level of complexity satisfying. I started playing SGN and I find it a bit to complex, for example. Good point (as I always underline) of WoG is house rule friendliness, but only to the limit that such changes don't turn WoG to a some different game.

  10. #10

    Default

    Oh yes, I'm talking about a re-design, using the same (or even simplified) mechanics, but with new components. A completely new game. Similar enough to WGS so it would not only compete with it, but also incorporate (morally if not legally) Andrea's IP. More similar than X-wing.

    Thinking about it - a basic fighter, bomber and heavy fighter deck for each speed.
    Then a set of "specials" that would be unique to each aircraft to differentiate them.
    Different decks for different altitudes for each aircraft, composed of the basic deck for that type/speed, plus specials.
    Markings on each card (rather than in the rules or in tables) to give restrictions on pre-requisites, using icons (as in the steep etc markings on existing cards)

    Let's look at an A6M2 Zero, the deck for medium altitude

    2 climb cards, both going up by 1 - slow speed
    2 straight, slow
    1 straight, slow ending up medium
    1 dive card, down 1, slow ending up medium
    1 dive card, down 2, medium ending in fast
    1 dive card down 2, fast ending fast
    1 straight, fast ending medium
    2 straight, medium
    1 straight, medium ending slow

    1 vertical climb up 1 medium ending slow previous must be climb
    as above, left turn 60 degree doesn't count as a turn.
    as above, right turn 60 degree doesn't count as a turn.
    1 vertical dive down 1 medium ending fast previous must be dive
    as above, left turn 60 degree doesn't count as a turn.
    as above, right turn 60 degree doesn't count as a turn.
    1 45 deg right skid (previous must be straight) - doesn't count as a turn.
    Left and right(so two of each, one to left and one to right)
    1 30deg, fast ending medium
    1 30deg, fast ending medium, up 1
    2 30deg, medium (can't do from opposite turn)
    1 30 deg, medium ending slow, up 1
    2 30 deg, slow (previous cannot be opposite turn)
    2 45deg, medium ending medium (previous must be turn)
    1 45 deg, medium ending slow (previous must be turn)
    1 45 deg, slow (previous must be a turn)
    1 60 deg, slow (previous must be turn)
    1 sideslip medium ending medium down 1


    Again, this can be simplified, but that allows all the maneuvers an A6M2 could pull including loops etc. It disallows maneuvers it couldn't pull.

    It may be wrong in detail, and that's a lot of cards - maybe only have 30 and 60 degree changes?

  11. #11

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    I thought that self-sealing tanks and armour were included in the calculation of the 'hit points' for each plane.
    Not really as the Zero seems to be based on the later model with SS tanks etc & does not have the 90 degree turn of the early model
    which would match up with the Wildcat.

  12. #12

    Default

    @Zoe,

    Three different speeds and planes more maneuvarable. Basic game spirit preserved, but with some more planning to think of. Decks acceptable to handle, up to 40 cards, all relevant data written on cards. Seems that your WoG revised could work. Did you already have it play-tested? And have you been working on WW1 in the same manner?

  13. #13

    Default

    No playtesting, I'm looking to see if the concept is viable.

    One change - have a "Repeatable" attribute, then a "repeat" card in the deck. It means that you only need 1 card not two for each of those, plus the "repeat card itself.
    Thus a straight move at cruising speed - instead of needing 2 straight-medium cards - needs one "repeatable" straight medium, and a "repeat previous" card. A steady turn left needs a "repeatable" medium speed turn plus the same "repeat previous" card, a hard left turn a "repeatable" slow turn plus a repeat, same for right - saving at least 4 cards (thus reducing production costs), lowering size of deck(ease of handling), making it obvious what is a "steady" as opposed to "steep" maneuver... Each card is also unique, no repeats. Adding a large card number not needing a microscope to see makes keeping decks of the same type from being accidentally mixed.

    This is viable for WGS. I don't see it needed for WGF. The only fault there, a minor one, is in the (lack of) loss of altitude in steep turns, and energy from continuous dives for a few aircraft. Not worth the complication. Different decks for different heights likewise, yes, a benefit, but not enough to justify it.

    Always seek to simplify, not complicate. This concept does away with the "no consecutive steeps" rule, and a lot of other special cases (slow after a reversal going up). Those are now handled by the deck, not the rules text, and exceptions can be made without complexity.

    Climb rates can be catered for in quanta of 1-4. A single non-repeatable climb of 1 means climb 1. A single repeatable climb of 1 means climb 2. A repeatable climb 1 and a nonrepeatable climb 2 requiring a prerequisite climb means climb 3, and a repeatable climb 1 and a repeatable climb 2 with climb prerequisite means climb 4.

  14. #14

    Default

    Speaking of "repeatable", you may also need "blanc" card in the deck, to play after every repeatable. So your next maneuver, one after repeatable, is kept secret until revealed.

  15. #15

    Default

    Way ahead of you on most of this -- I've been working on ways of creating "unified" movement decks for WG1 and WG2; a unit may use its "maximum speed" arrow, or any "slower" arrow. (Speed indicated by chits; I'm also considering a dial a la _X-Wing_, but with speed numbers only.) This actually cuts down the number of cards which need to be printed -- one need only make 2 or 3 (depending on whether it's WG2 or WG1, respectively) of Straight, Sideslip each way, Shallow Turn each way, Tight Turn each way, and Immelmann/Chandelle/whatever-one-calls-the-airborne-Bootlegger-Reverse.

    Firing: Draws of different letters may *NOT* be used together. Cannon against fighter-sized targets treat each range as the next increment longer (cannon would not become effective dogfighting weapons until Vietnam, when they became Oversized Machine Guns).

    Altitude: I've said it before, I'll say it again -- The Current Altitude Rules Do Not Work, period, end of discussion, next case. I have a much-simpler system in mind, which also as it happens allows for combat in the Z-axis (the phrase "energy combat" sounds like _Star Fleet Battles_). Also, some consideration is given for the 16,000'-altitude mark, above which one needs supercharging (to include turbos) in order to not lose performance too much. (Trivia: At 16,000' AMSL, exactly half the planet's air is below one, and half above; now consider how far one has to go to get from 16K' to "space", *and* it's the outside of a curve, and one realizes why supplemental oxygen is required up there. :) )

  16. #16

    Default

    Zoe I like your idea...but it would be a different game then. I did some house rules for Wildcats and Zeros. Having a high and low speed token with an orange dot or diamond on it. The slow speed with the orange dot was a climb speed that could be used with any card that was not a diamond. The high speed with the orange dot was for dives with any card that was not a diamond. This was to let the plane climb or dive one token and not a peg. Now the Zero could power climb with a climb card and the climb speed token having it climb 2 climb tokens. And the Wildcat could power dive using the dive card and the dive token and dropping one peg and one climb token. It seemed to take the game into the vertical more so than before. RedCoon used it well against me.
    But I do like the concept that you bring. And I would love to play it with ya.

    Thomas

  17. #17

    Default

    I think the only real issue with WGS (and WGF as well), is the altitude rules. It's really hard to get that right in what is essentially a 2D game. the current damage system works okay, and if limited ammo is used (with the ability to fire cannons separately from MGs), it works even better.

    You need to get your deck sizes down to the sub 30 range (25 being ideal). Not only is it a production cost barrier, it's a barrier to new players and the causal gamers. Having to hold 2/3 of a poker deck in your hands and trying to select one or two card as your maneuver is going to be overwhelming to many people. I also think all of the prerequisite cards are going to cause a lot of card shuffling/handling. A lot of players will be trying to organize their decks after each card played to make it easier to find the cards they can use next. A double whammy if the decks are 30+ cards. And I'm not so sure having to learn/remember what 3-6 different icons mean on a card is easier than remembering that you can't do two consecutive moves that have the the same icon.



Similar Missions

  1. History Channel "The World Wars"
    By Black Sheep One in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-14-2014, 14:21
  2. National: 4 NUOVE ESPANSIONI "CUSTOM" per "Wing of Glory"
    By mumo in forum Italian Wing
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 12:58
  3. WGF & WGS: Wings of Glory at "Etna Comics" and "Settimo in Gioco" (Italy, September 2012)
    By Angiolillo in forum Site News and Announcements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2012, 09:19
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 02:39
  5. Knights of the Air "world wide" campaign?
    By Nightbomber in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 13:57

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
  •