2 new manoeuvre cards for all AC - 30 degree Left and Right turns?

[Bruce]

Just thinking out loud, especially in the context of bombing and photo-taking missions.
Getting bombers and photo AC reasonably well lined-up to take a run at the target(s) can be extremely difficult and very risky, especially given that enemy fighters and AA fire are usually involved.
By adding just 2 new manoeuvre cards to each AC's deck - a gentle 30 degree Left and Right turn - bombers and photo-takers would have a better chance.
This would also, in my opinion, make it more reasonable to require greater accuracy of bombers and photo-takers to achieve their missions.

I'm going to try it in my PBeM and in-person games in 2015 and see how it works; the 30 degree Left and Right will be House Rule manoeuvres for all AC.

Any thoughts my friends?

[Teaticket]

The easy way to get around new cards is to let the photo/bomber not have to take the entire turn on the card lining up the target. Once the target is lined up he straightens out.

[Biggles downunder]

Oh yes - I could have done with that rule last Monday night - just could not get my Gotha 'on target'!

[Teaticket]

I always have a hell of a time trying to line up photo/bomb runs. I am trying this out just letting them line up short of the planned turn. I think it had to be easier to line up a photo run in real life than it is in the game. A pilot can see where he needs to fly and does so. We are too restricted by card maneuvers in this case.

[flash]

Have a look here for an alternative option Bruce, may help with your PBeM without need for umpteen new cards.
This was the gist of it:

[Nicola Zee]

Just thinking out loud, especially in the context of bombing and photo-taking missions.
Getting bombers and photo AC reasonably well lined-up to take a run at the target(s) can be extremely difficult and very risky, especially given that enemy fighters and AA fire are usually involved.
By adding just 2 new manoeuvre cards to each AC's deck - a gentle 30 degree Left and Right turn - bombers and photo-takers would have a better chance.
This would also, in my opinion, make it more reasonable to require greater accuracy of bombers and photo-takers to achieve their missions.

I'm going to try it in my PBeM and in-person games in 2015 and see how it works; the 30 degree Left and Right will be House Rule manoeuvres for all AC.

Any thoughts my friends?

I agree. But, I would only add these cards to the movement decks of planes known to be stable. I think it's appropriate that some planes such as the Sopwith Camel are difficult to line up for a bombing or photo run. Most bombers and observation planes were relatively stable because they were designed to be just that.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I have always felt it to be unrealistic for aircraft not to be allowed a slighter turn than the cards suggest.
To use the arrow head as the maximum allowed and accept a slight loss of distance for a slighter turn seems like a good trade off to me.
Rob.

[LOOP]

I have always felt it to be unrealistic for aircraft not to be allowed a slighter turn than the cards suggest.
To use the arrow head as the maximum allowed and accept a slight loss of distance for a slighter turn seems like a good trade off to me.
Rob.

This was exactly my first thoughts..
Cleaver, easy and effective.

[grumpybear]

We tried 30 degree turns of a while, found it was helpful sometimes. Due to bad flight planning not always so now don't use them

[steel_ratt]

It would be useful in situations other than lining up a bombing run. Ever found yourself weaving back and forth trying to fly along the edge of table 30 degrees off from any direction you can fly? Or doing the same thing trying to follow a plane that has done a 90 degree turn while you can't?

I do like the fact that you would only have one turn each way in the deck, just to 'straighten up' to a specific line.

[Bruce]

That was fast ... THANK YOU ALL. I really like Peter's elegantly simple solution; it does not require new manoeuvre cards and I think it can be used equally well for in-person games (where goodwill prevails) and PBeM games.
AND, in keeping with Nicola's thinking, I'll start by giving the right to use "Peter's new type of turn" only to 2-seaters assigned to do the bombing/photo-taking and only once per Turn. Fighters in general and fighters tasked with light-bombing missions, e.g. SW Camels doing close-support or harassment bombing duty (as dicey a job as balloon busting I would think) will have to cope without "Peter's new turn" ... at least that's my thinking right now.

As usual, I'm overwhelmed by your help; we are a darn good group of people on this excellent site.
Bruce from Ottawa, Canada

[Bruce]

Hmmmmmm ... Jon has just made a very good point. I may change my mind.
Gawd ... it's a great game, eh.

[Nicola Zee]

That was fast ... THANK YOU ALL. I really like Peter's elegantly simple solution; it does not require new manoeuvre cards and I think it can be used equally well for in-person games (where goodwill prevails) and PBeM games.
AND, in keeping with Nicola's thinking, I'll start by giving the right to use "Peter's new type of turn" only to 2-seaters assigned to do the bombing/photo-taking and only once per Turn. Fighters in general and fighters tasked with light-bombing missions, e.g. SW Camels doing close-support or harassment bombing duty (as dicey a job as balloon busting I would think) will have to cope without "Peter's new turn" ... at least that's my thinking right now.

As usual, I'm overwhelmed by your help; we are a darn good group of people on this excellent site.
Bruce from Ottawa, Canada

This forum is the best I post on - supportive, well-informed and always helpful. It is - as you put it - a darn good group of people. I rarely now bother posting on BGG.

PS I suspect one reason this forum is so excellent is the posters tends to be a bit more mature.

[Bruce]

Never had it suggested that I was "a bit more mature" before; I hope that isn't just a gentle way of saying "old".
I might need to have a good cry if it was. 67 is far, far from being mature or so my better-half tells me.
Although I do get-on very well with my 2+ year old grandson.

[Nicola Zee]

I hope I was not implying old - more like matured like a good wine

[Teaticket]

I hope I was not implying old - more like matured like a good wine

Jeez, now he's calling you an old wino.

[Bruce]

Perhaps "mellow" is better, and was what Nicola implied by "mature" .
I think we're a respectful, welcoming, well-studied, helpful, friendly group that might best be described in one adverb-adjectival pairing as "intelligently mellow".
At least it works better for me ... not that "mature" is that bad, as long as it doesn't mean "old".
"Old" is like 100 or more.

[Nicola Zee]

Perhaps "mellow" is better, and was what Nicola implied by "mature" .
I think we're a respectful, welcoming, well-studied, helpful, friendly group that might best be described in one adverb-adjectival pairing as "intelligently mellow".
At least it works better for me ... not that "mature" is that bad, as long as it doesn't mean "old".
"Old" is like 100 or more.

"intelligently mellow" works for me - but maybe my husband would not agree with that description of me.
Intelligent maybe - mellow sometimes not

[steel_ratt]

As long as we're not calling a bunch of people who play with toy planes "mature", then we're ok. Most of us probably make the sound effects too.

"Nnnnnnnnrrrrr... rat-a-tat-tat. I hit you!" (proffers the A damage deck)
"Did not! You missed me!" (shows the 0 jam card)

[Nicola Zee]

As long as we're not calling a bunch of people who play with toy planes "mature", then we're ok. Most of us probably make the sound effects too.

"Nnnnnnnnrrrrr... rat-a-tat-tat. I hit you!" (proffers the A damage deck)
"Did not! You missed me!" (shows the 0 jam card)

"Most of us probably make the sound effects too" O come on - all of us have done that at some point! I'd be more worried about someone who didn't.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Never had it suggested that I was "a bit more mature" before; I hope that isn't just a gentle way of saying "old".
I might need to have a good cry if it was. 67 is far, far from being mature or so my better-half tells me.
Although I do get-on very well with my 2+ year old grandson.

Thank goodness for that Bruce, I was starting to get worried.
From another 67 year old.
Rob.

[LOOP]

lets sum this up in a new saying.

"you are only as old as your next sound effect"

[rcboater]

It irks me that you can't turn a SPAD (or other planes with only 60degree turn cards) 90 degrees. If you start the game pointing West , you can never fly a north-south line. I like the idea of being able to do a partial turn, as shown by Flash, above-- but how do you plot that using your existing cards?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

It irks me that you can't turn a SPAD (or other planes with only 60degree turn cards) 90 degrees. If you start the game pointing West , you can never fly a north-south line. I like the idea of being able to do a partial turn, as shown by Flash, above-- but how do you plot that using your existing cards?

To expand on my post 7, just move your plane as far along the arrow curve as you wish without exceeding the limit of the arrow head Bill.
Rob.

[LOOP]

It irks me that you can't turn a SPAD (or other planes with only 60degree turn cards) 90 degrees. If you start the game pointing West , you can never fly a north-south line. I like the idea of being able to do a partial turn, as shown by Flash, above-- but how do you plot that using your existing cards?

I agree.
Flash's 30-turn combined with a turn-marker.
One straight (to hide the fact that you are planning a turn), one 30 and one 60) would solve this.
I'm going to make some markers and do some testing

[LOOP]

To expand on my post 7, just move your plane as far along the arrow curve as you wish without exceeding the limit of the arrow head Bill.
Rob.

But than means you can do a very short turn. No longer than the stall-card.

[Nicola Zee]

But than means you can do a very short turn. No longer than the stall-card.

A good point. How about with the 60 degree turn you can choose to change the facing of the plane? But, only so the angle of the facing from straight ahead becomes less than it would have been. The max change would be where it faces straight ahead (angle zero) - which results in a kind of slightly shortened side slip.

[flash]

That's about where Joaquim started here on this thread Nicola. The problem I had with that is that you've already turned 60º & then been tweaked to the facing it would have for a 30º turn. In other words it's moved too far over for a 30º turn.
However you doit you'll still need a marker of sorts to tell what the move will be which is the real down side, but I'd hide it under the card on the cockpit so as not to give the game away.

[LOOP]

A good point. How about with the 60 degree turn you can choose to change the facing of the plane? But, only so the angle of the facing from straight ahead becomes less than it would have been. The max change would be where it faces straight ahead (angle zero) - which results in a kind of slightly shortened side slip.

I don't like that. The game is all aboute pointing your guns in the excact direction. There must be some fixed direction when turning. Otherwise it will give the attacking AC
too big advantage. It might be the difference between a single A-card or a double or a miss

[Nicola Zee]

That's about where Joaquim started here on this thread Nicola. The problem I had with that is that you've already turned 60º & then been tweaked to the facing it would have for a 30º turn. In other words it's moved too far over for a 30º turn.
However you doit you'll still need a marker of sorts to tell what the move will be which is the real down side, but I'd hide it under the card on the cockpit so as not to give the game away.

Thanks for the link to the thread. I get it now. The result describes an arc as the further from straight ahead, the shorter the distance forwards.
I like markers but Loop has a good point that the planes should not be too manoeuvrable - so, I'd limit it to at most once per turn and only for planes with a rep for good stability (SE5a and Spad XIII perhaps included?)

PS Added
An alternative to markers would be to allow the player to adjust after the step - but this may be too powerful and also requires some kind of order of adjustment if two are played in the same step.

[rcboater]

I like markers but Loop has a good point that the planes should not be too manoeuvrable - so, I'd limit it to at most once per turn and only for planes with a rep for good stability (SE5a and Spad XIII perhaps included?)

PS Added
An alternative to markers would be to allow the player to adjust after the step - but this may be too powerful and also requires some kind of order of adjustment if two are played in the same step.

Sorry, but this is too detached from reality to make any sense to me. Any plane that could do a 60 degree turn could do a 30 degree turn instead if the pilot so chose. I would argue that every plane in the game should be able to make as many 30 degree turns as it likes, at any time.

I think Loop's comment ties in with my question about how to plot the move. My initial reaction was the same as Loop's-- if we let pilots just plan a 60 turn card, and then adjust the angle of the turn actually performed while moving, it could give the guy who moves his plane last a real advantage.*

All I am looking for is a simple way to plot a 30 degree turn instead of the 60- preferably one that doesn't tip your hand ahead of time. Obviously, the addition of left and right 30 degree cards to every deck is one solution, but comes with it's own logistical challenges. (I've got a lot of different decks and planes-- where do I get all these extra cards?) Another option would be to come up with some sort of modifier-- maybe say that adding a nonsensical second card along with the 60 turn means to make it a 30 instead. How you actually move it would still need to be sorted out--- maybe just make a few generic 30 degree cards to use as play aids- so you can grab one when needed.


*- I do disagree with one of Loops' comments-- the game is not about "pointing your guns in the exact direction"-- rather I'd say it is about "pointing your guns in the general direction." No WW1 plane with fixed guns had an arc of fire like the ones used by the game. The way I see it, the generous arc of fire is a (very clever) way of compensating for the limited turning options given by a card-based movement system. Rather than complicate the game with a mechanism that would force you to turn exactly 52.5 degrees to exactly line up your guns on a target, the game instead forces you to turn 60 degrees and then compensates by giving you a generous cone of fire. The result is simple and playable-- a key piece of the genius that is this game system.

Having said the above, there are a few times (such as the topic of this thread) where the maneuver system is too restrictive......

[LOOP]

*- I do disagree with one of Loops' comments-- the game is not about "pointing your guns in the exact direction"-- rather I'd say it is about "pointing your guns in the general direction." No WW1 plane with fixed guns had an arc of fire like the ones used by the game. The way I see it, the generous arc of fire is a (very clever) way of compensating for the limited turning options given by a card-based movement system. Rather than complicate the game with a mechanism that would force you to turn exactly 52.5 degrees to exactly line up your guns on a target, the game instead forces you to turn 60 degrees and then compensates by giving you a generous cone of fire. The result is simple and playable-- a key piece of the genius that is this game system.

Having said the above, there are a few times (such as the topic of this thread) where the maneuver system is too restrictive......

What I meant with "exact" were infact just what you call "general" It was just poor English on my part.....

[flash]

I took it that you meant that placement had to be exact Per, using the ruler against the base as in the photo would hopefully sort a lot of that out.

[milcoll73]

But than means you can do a very short turn. No longer than the stall-card.

my thoughts on that were that you have to complete at least 50% of the maneuver and for sideslips the a/c must end up facing the same general direction in which it started.

[Willi Von Klugermann]

Have a look here for an alternative option Bruce, may help with your PBeM without need for umpteen new cards.
This was the gist of it:

I like this option a lot. Thanks for posting Dave.

[milcoll73]

*- I do disagree with one of Loops' comments-- the game is not about "pointing your guns in the exact direction"-- rather I'd say it is about "pointing your guns in the general direction." No WW1 plane with fixed guns had an arc of fire like the ones used by the game. The way I see it, the generous arc of fire is a (very clever) way of compensating for the limited turning options given by a card-based movement system. Rather than complicate the game with a mechanism that would force you to turn exactly 52.5 degrees to exactly line up your guns on a target, the game instead forces you to turn 60 degrees and then compensates by giving you a generous cone of fire. The result is simple and playable-- a key piece of the genius that is this game system.

i completely agree with this plus id go so far as to say knowing full well the lack of precision of placement is also accounted for as part of the play mechanism. it adds a bit a variability to any given maneuver that could easily account for air currents and meteorological factors. the only thing i wonder about is why additional crewman firing arcs do not seem to be similarly treated.

[LOOP]

What I meant was that the arrows on the movment-decks show you where and in what direction you shall put your AC.
It is an "exact" possision. When you plan your move you can estimate where your opponent will be if he/she do a sertain move.
It also means that you can estimate where their firingarc will be for the same type of move.
If you are allowed to turn your AC with the arrow as turningpoint, your generaldirection will change and therefor your firingarc will change. (i'm not talking mm:s)
If the way you do your turns isn't regulated to be done the same way every time (either you do a 45,60,90 or 30dgr turn) your AC will turn into a helicopter that can do a hoverturns.
The 30-turn you present in your pic, Flash, is an exelent example of a fully functional, fully regulated way of making a 30-turn.
You have a fixed speed and a fixed direction. I think it's brilliant!

Hope I'm making some sense now

[rcboater]

Loop, I understand and agree with you completely.

The mechanics of the 30 degree turn as shown in the picture look great to me. I'm still looking for an easy way for players to plot it, so there is no question about whether a pilot planned to do a 30 or 60 degree turn when the card is revealed....

[flash]

They could simply invert the card on the cockpit board once everyone has selected their cards & declare it as such as once cards have been selected they cannot be changed (other than with tailing).