Ares Games
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: So we've had fire and Immelman turn...

  1. #1

    Default So we've had fire and Immelman turn...

    Today I'm going to poke the bear by presenting an even more unlikely scenario with some dire results!

    What happens if a player's plane is on fire and has engine damage... and they fail to plan the required stall?

    Strict interpretation of the rules means that this one does involve a double penalty for the same maneuver: no stall -- illegal move, replace with straight and take damage -- illegal straight, repeat.

    Does this seem a little extreme? Or should the illegal move be replaced with the required stall?

    If errata were to be published to clarify the illegal move rule (to include Immelmen, fires, twin rudder jams, and engine damage), how would you phrase it?

  2. #2

    Default

    If you are on fire you can play a stall as it is not a straight. It has the small diamond symbol for a steep maneuver, not a forward pointing arrow.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    What happens if a player's plane is on fire and has engine damage... and they fail to plan the required stall?
    Ok, I am gonna eat the bait

    For my personal taste, a plane on fire WITH engine damage it's a dead duck. I would simply declare a KIA and would remove the mini from play even before to forget to play the required stall card.
    They used to fly on wooden and fabric thingamy, back then.
    (Also, I am wondering why the Engine Damage has to be kept secret ... a plane with engine damage does sputter oil and/or does leave a trail of smoke. But this another issue )

    Back to this example.
    Forgetting to plan the required (mandatory) stall in case of engine damage falls under official Optional Rules on page 18: the plane did lose control and it is removed from play.

    But what if players don't use Optional Rules?

    Strict interpretation of the rules means that this one might involve a double penalty for the same maneuver.
    No stall = illegal move = structural damage hence replace with straight and take one A Damage Card. Sacrosanct. No one could deny this.

    But, then, why should I be double penalized for one straight card that Rules mandatorily inflicted to my already crippled and roasted aircraft??
    It's not my fault if someone else bast ... er ... player set my beloved machine on fire.

    THIS is why Fire Damage Rules should state that "Fire Damage prevents you from planning a straight in the next planning phase. It should not prevent you from playing one that is already planned or mandatory".

    Mau
    Last edited by Mau Fox; 11-26-2014 at 11:53.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    ..If errata were to be published to clarify the illegal move rule (to include Immelmen, fires, twin rudder jams, and engine damage), how would you phrase it?
    Think we need a sticky for results from FAQ and rule queries - but it would need Andrea or someone to ratify the answers as many of us cannot agree on a solution to the issues raised !

    As to that quandary you've posted, if you replace the illegal card with an illegal card that penalty would repeat until destruction occurs would it not ?!

  5. #5

    Default

    I would honestly say that any illegal move when the aircraft has/is suffered/suffering special damage basically is destroyed, the wings peel off or the fuel ignites engulfing the plane etc.

    Side note......

    However what I can't understand is the plane destroyed rule for engine failure.... now for duels, yes the plane is no longer able to produce power/lift and therefore remain in the air, however these kites could glide for ages........ and I was wondering for campaign games or scenarios if this could not be represented in some way.... basically 3 maneuver cards played after the aircraft is technically out of the game and that's were it comes to rest, opposition are able to strafe it as a ground target etc.

  6. #6

    Default

    Good point about gliding. I've been reading a lot of accounts of dogfights recently and this was very common. Engine damage should require a stall OR a dive... but that's another kettle of fish.

    As far as the double penalty goes, I'm actually quite ok with that. The plane is, as Maurizio puts it, a dead duck already. A few extra damage cards is only hastening the end of a plane that should be out of contention anyway. If the pilot still survives it will make a great war story!

    Can anyone think of a way to incur even more penalty cards?!

  7. #7

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarEast View Post
    I would honestly say that any illegal move when the aircraft has/is suffered/suffering special damage basically is destroyed, the wings peel off or the fuel ignites engulfing the plane etc.

    Side note......

    However what I can't understand is the plane destroyed rule for engine failure.... now for duels, yes the plane is no longer able to produce power/lift and therefore remain in the air, however these kites could glide for ages........ and I was wondering for campaign games or scenarios if this could not be represented in some way.... basically 3 maneuver cards played after the aircraft is technically out of the game and that's were it comes to rest, opposition are able to strafe it as a ground target etc.
    Some of us have experimented with more elaborate gliding rules in the past and there is an old thread on the subject where it was discussed in detail.
    There are some house rules to be found in the files section as well.
    Essentially though if a plane has its engine knocked out it just becomes an easy kill for the opposition anyway and the `plane destroyed` result just simplifies things.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steel_ratt View Post
    What happens if a player's plane is on fire and has engine damage... and they fail to plan the required stall?
    To discover that requires a certain level of honesty on the part of the wounded aircraft's player, given that engine damage is secret.

    Generally, because our players experience is quite limited, we're a bit soft on misplanned moves if the player spots them before the offending card is played, and just allow them to replace it with a straight; obviously if they're on fire that's an illegal anyway, so take a card.

    In the case of a missing stall, if any cards had already been played, I would suggest to the other players simply replacing the last manouvre with a stall, rather than a straight (fire or not) because it makes the most sense.

    We're pretty easy going about these things.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarEast View Post
    However what I can't understand is the plane destroyed rule for engine failure....
    Presumably it just doesn't just represent the engine stopping, but also more dramatic failures which include fires, explosions and major structural failures.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarEast View Post
    ... however these kites could glide for ages........ and I was wondering for campaign games or scenarios if this could not be represented in some way.... basically 3 maneuver cards played after the aircraft is technically out of the game and that's were it comes to rest, opposition are able to strafe it as a ground target etc.
    Think 3 card used for gliding is the same as making a landing: Dive - Straight - Stall.
    Dive to gain airspeed; straight to maintain height & use airspeed; stall = loss of airspeed. And repeat to landing. Would think you could use a turn in stead of a straight so you can head for home ?
    Not sure they made great gliders though; I'm sure if you stuck a car engine in the front of a glider the length of time it stayed up would be proportional to its starting altitude, the amount of damage it carried and the skill of the pilot !

    "He is wise who watches"

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Ok, I am gonna eat the bait


    (Also, I am wondering why the Engine Damage has to be kept secret ... a plane with engine damage does sputter oil and/or does leave a trail of smoke. But this another issue )
    I think this is to make the enemy pilot spot the oil and smoke by noticing the stalls every round. If he don't
    then he is an unobservant pilot.

    [/QUOTE]

    THIS is why Fire Damage Rules should state that "Fire Damage prevents you from planning a straight in the next planning phase. It should not prevent you from playing one that is already planned or mandatory".

    Mau [/QUOTE]

    I totally concur with you Mau.
    I have always interpreted the rules to exclude Obligatory movements from the equation. This is not the players fault and as such if carried out accordingly any extra resulting sanctions caused by them should be ignored.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I think this is to make the enemy pilot spot the oil and smoke by noticing the stalls every round. If he don't
    then he is an unobservant pilot.
    Ciao Rob,
    this is a valid point of view.
    It fits within the bounds of realism in game terms and appeases my, sometimes, hyper-realistic approach to the game.

    Thanks!

    Mau

  13. #13

    Default

    I don't think that a straight should be substituted for a "missing" stall.

    If the pilot has failed to plan the required stall, then which ever card he has planned instead is a faster card than the stall (except for a climb, which I don't think should be allowed with engine damage) or one of the 'L' deck shorts (left, right or ahead). This means the plane is not 'slowing down' owing to its engine damage.

    Substitute the required stall for the last card planned, and let it go at that, OR play TWO stalls next turn (cards 1 & 3) to correct the plane's required slower speed. This will give the effect of unexpected, uncontrolled engine output across two turns, and will allow enemy planes to "punish" the stall omission if they wish to, by knowing with much greater accuracy where the damaged plane is going to be in the next turn!
    The omitting player will quickly learn not to do it again!!!

  14. #14

    Default

    We already have Unofficial Official Stats Committee. Maybe Unofficial Official RULES Committee is needed?

    Btw, I don't se a problem in inflicting double penalty in situation described at post #1 . Plane's burning faster, and also suffers structural damage, already damaged.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    We already have Unofficial Official Stats Committee. Maybe Unofficial Official RULES Committee is needed?
    Thanks for your kind offer to head up a Committee to sort out the mass of Unofficial rules for us Пилот.

    I have been thinking that it must be very confusing to new members to have to plough through so many disparate threads, all reiterating different solutions to the same oft reoccurring questions.
    With this in mind, and remembering that the very nature of Unofficial rules is to give a series of options for members to choose from, and not to straight jacket them into accepting any one system, I suggest that if you really feel that a title is needed, how about taking a leaf out of the Ares Official rules book and call yourselves " The Unofficial Optional rules Committee."
    I would think it would be most helpful if you could assemble a team to help you trawl through the myriad of past posts and produce a summery of all the best suggestions for rule amendments. The pilots could then see the different options at a glance and decide which ones were best suited to their own style of play.

    Just as an aside, the Stats Committee is however, Official as far as the Drome is concerned, and is there to guide players to choose the most correct historical fit for aircraft stats that we can. I don't feel that a comparisons can be drawn between the two Committees as such.

    Thanks very much for your offer to help with this arduous and thankless task.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Thanks for your kind offer to head up a Committee to sort out the mass of Unofficial rules for us Пилот.

    I have been thinking that it must be very confusing to new members to have to plough through so many disparate threads, all reiterating different solutions to the same oft reoccurring questions.
    With this in mind, and remembering that the very nature of Unofficial rules is to give a series of options for members to choose from, and not to straight jacket them into accepting any one system, I suggest that if you really feel that a title is needed, how about taking a leaf out of the Ares Official rules book and call yourselves " The Unofficial Optional rules Committee."
    I would think it would be most helpful if you could assemble a team to help you trawl through the myriad of past posts and produce a summery of all the best suggestions for rule amendments. The pilots could then see the different options at a glance and decide which ones were best suited to their own style of play.

    Just as an aside, the Stats Committee is however, Official as far as the Drome is concerned, and is there to guide players to choose the most correct historical fit for aircraft stats that we can. I don't feel that a comparisons can be drawn between the two Committees as such.

    Thanks very much for your offer to help with this arduous and thankless task.
    Rob.
    That is an inspiring idea, Rob. A 1-2 sheets document/table with options or suggestions to choose from before a game starts. Plus something like a short and simple campaign rules. With all the rules gathered playing through solo campaigns it would be nice to compress them and present in an easy formula.
    <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."

  17. #17

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    I don't think that a straight should be substituted for a "missing" stall.
    An illegal move is an illegal move and should be punished but I agree with you Tim. A missing stall shall be replaced with a stall (and then punished with an A-card)
    But I don't think an AC shall be given extra penaltiy-cards if the illegal straight allready is planed later in the same turn the AC is set on fire. Perhaps the pilot can be allowed to change any forbidden straight to a sideslip during that turn. If you don't have a right AND left rudderdamage
    Last edited by LOOP; 02-03-2015 at 04:52.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Thanks for your kind offer to head up a Committee to sort out the mass of Unofficial rules for us Пилот.

    I have been thinking that it must be very confusing to new members to have to plough through so many disparate threads, all reiterating different solutions to the same oft reoccurring questions.
    With this in mind, and remembering that the very nature of Unofficial rules is to give a series of options for members to choose from, and not to straight jacket them into accepting any one system, I suggest that if you really feel that a title is needed, how about taking a leaf out of the Ares Official rules book and call yourselves " The Unofficial Optional rules Committee."
    I would think it would be most helpful if you could assemble a team to help you trawl through the myriad of past posts and produce a summery of all the best suggestions for rule amendments. The pilots could then see the different options at a glance and decide which ones were best suited to their own style of play.

    Just as an aside, the Stats Committee is however, Official as far as the Drome is concerned, and is there to guide players to choose the most correct historical fit for aircraft stats that we can. I don't feel that a comparisons can be drawn between the two Committees as such.

    Thanks very much for your offer to help with this arduous and thankless task.
    Rob.
    So, Пилот, where to sign up?

    Mau

  19. #19

    Default

    Having in mind many times proven value of Flying Officer Kyte and great knowledge of period he has, I suggest him as team leader on this subject, specially in determining which rule deserves to be rated as very useful

    Of course, I'll be glad to help in research. So, if anyone else is interested, I suggest to exchange PMs.

  20. #20

    Default

    Much as I am flattered by your suggestion Пилот I must decline, as I felt that it would impinge on my other administrative work here on the Drome. Time seems to be one of the things which I do not have in abundance these days.
    I'm sure that if you feel that you can't head up the group, someone else will step up to the plate and accept the challenge.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Much as I am flattered by your suggestion Пилот I must decline, as I felt that it would impinge on my other administrative work here on the Drome. Time seems to be one of the things which I do not have in abundance these days.
    Thank you anyway Rob

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I'm sure that if you feel that you can't head up the group, someone else will step up to the plate and accept the challenge.
    Rob.
    I guess that Nemanja has the necessary experience to head up the forming group as well as I am willing, and hopefully others, to help him.

    Mau

  22. #22

    Default

    Interesting conversation... and a good idea.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    We already have Unofficial Official Stats Committee. Maybe Unofficial Official RULES Committee is needed?

    Btw, I don't se a problem in inflicting double penalty in situation described at post #1 . Plane's burning faster, and also suffers structural damage, already damaged.
    +1 damage from aiming and +1 from firing from higher altitude are not cumulative.

    So why should be the A-damage for a wrong maneuver and the resulting A-damage from the straigh penalty maneuver - when on fire - should be cumulative?



    We don't get the extra bonus.

    We don't get the extra penalty.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  24. #24

    Default

    Although this has only happened in a couple of games we have played, the house rules that we have used is that the plane automatical goes into a dive (ignoring any other manouvers you have got planed) After that in the next turn it is stall dive stall, if the plane manages to survive this it may attempt a landing. Irregarless the plane is still shot down. However I do like the other suggestions that have been proposed

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    We don't get the extra bonus.

    We don't get the extra penalty.
    Amen to that, brother.

    Mau

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    if the plane manages to survive this it may attempt a landing.
    That is interesting Alastair. Wondering how many of us do use the landing procedures.

    Mau

  27. #27

    Default

    Only the planes with altitude 3 and higher...
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  28. #28

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Wondering how many of us do use the landing procedures.

    Mau
    Not even once

  29. #29

    Default

    When I am down to 1 or 2 damage point I try to fly at level 1 If that don't work I land

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    Not even once
    You should try sometimes Per-Gunnar. It gives a nice feeling when you switch off the engine after a safe landing.
    From above, the landing strip it's not that large

  31. #31

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    You should try sometimes Per-Gunnar. It gives a nice feeling when you switch off the engine after a safe landing.
    From above, the landing strip it's not that large
    I take your word for it.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Wondering how many of us do use the landing procedures.
    Not once, but I may give them a go next time we play. Just finished reading Peter Hart's Bloody April: Slaughter in the Skies Over Arras, 1917 (http://www.amazon.com/Bloody-April-S...964AW5QNWZT1Q5). Mr. Hart went into some detail about the challenges facing RFC artillery cooperation aircraft and their crew. They flew in all sorts of weather, against impossible odds (in terms of aircraft capabilities), and their days often weren't done until after nightfall. Landing was another hazard to be successfully negotiated.

    I'm thinking of adding this element to our Tuesday Night Dogfight! and see what everyone thinks.

    The book was extremely good, by the way.
    Last edited by fast.git; 02-09-2015 at 18:07. Reason: Spelling... always with the spelling...

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Just finished reading Peter Hart's Bloody April: Slaughter in the Skies Over Arras, 1917 (http://www.amazon.com/Bloody-April-S...964AW5QNWZT1Q5).
    The book was extremely good, by the way.
    That's a book I am gonna have. Thanks for pointing!


    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    I'm thinking of adding this element to our Tuesday Night Dogfight! and see what everyone thinks.
    If you do it, please let us know what they think.

    Mau



Similar Missions

  1. Fire and Immelmann Turn
    By Marekski in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-26-2014, 08:57
  2. The Stall-Turn or Hammerhead Turn Maneuver
    By usmc1855 in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 12:13
  3. The Immelman... Illustrated
    By usmc1855 in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 18:51
  4. Immelman and aiming
    By Air Battle Mgr in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 10:15
  5. Immelman turns
    By mattcalaho in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-22-2010, 23:28

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
  •