Zero

[Honza]

I am reading Closterman's Fires in the Sky and he describes Zero as the most maneuverable fighter of the WWII.
What do you think? Its maneuver deck definitely doesn't stand out. Did you guys modify this to make it feel a bit more realistic?
Maybe one less hit total (no armored plates, no self sealing tanks) and some at least 60° turns? It was designed to attack and run away.
I believe it would outmaneuver even Spit. Zero was a fighter that was somehow special, the game doesn't seem to respect that.
Banzai.

[ptownhiker]

I agree that the Zero gets no love in the game. I am not sure why. Its staying power at having nearly as many hits as the other planes seems a bit much, too.

[Warhawk]

I believe a few members have toyed around with this concept, making the Zero more vulnerable but adding in a sharper turn. It was mentioned to me last week but I haven't looked into the thread. Maybe the Midway Rising campaign?? Anyhow, I know what you mean, the phrase "never get into a dogfight with a Zero" stands out in my mind. Allied forces employed Claire Chennault's boom and zoom tactics that his Flying Tigers used in China to successfully destroy Zero's. They would fly high, pounce on their target and then use the weight of their P-40's to dive away from the fight and hopefully gain enough airspeed to launch another attack. It's quite interesting how each side tried to use their aircraft strengths while denying the enemy the same capability.
Good question, I'm interested in people's comments on this one.

[Warhawk]

Err correction, I don't think the Flying Tigers encountered Zeros but what I meant was other allied forces used these tactics to attack Zeros themselves.

[gully_raker]

G'day Chaps!
Yes the Zero's stats are a bit messed. They were given the Damage & manoeuvres for a late war Zero after the armour & self sealing tanks were added but show the early war "2" model on the Aircraft card & base.

Most of us particularly those in the Fire in the Sky solo campaign use a lower damage for Zeros in 41 & 42 & mid 43 plus a 90 degree turn in both directions. Zoe's suggestion was 12 damage points but some use 14.

Suggest this is a good balance against P-40's, Wildcats & Dauntless.

[Teaticket]

Baz, has anyone made the 90 degree cards? If not what WWI deck, if any, would you take a 90 from?

Thanks, Peter

[fast.git]

Folks have debated the maneuverability of the early Zero (A6M2 - Model 21) on several occasions... I believe the PTO solo campaign utilizes house rules which give the Zero a 90 degree turn in each direction. Here are some thoughts on this matter (shared by Zoe):

The A6M2 "Zero" has been treated very badly, turning as if it was an A6M5 with additional skin thickening, clipped wings (higher wing loading), and self-sealing fueltanks. On the other hand, its damage points are consistent with the tougher A6M5 too. In fact, it should have a 90' turn added (wing loading 22) at low speed, but only about 10 damage points. Same with the Hayabusa I, wing loading 23, but no armour. The stats for the Hayabusa II are about right, this had armour on that decreased turn ability.

I'll have to contact Andrea on this one. He asked me some time ago if anyone had worked out a formula, similar to the WWI Official Unofficial stats. At a guess, I think the stats for the A6M5 were used for the A6M2, and the Morane 406 stats for the Dewoitine 520, and he suspected those mistakes had been made.

I'm not certain that all agree with the reduction to 10 (I'm cool with anywhere from 10-12), but most agree that the Zero should be more fragile and more agile than it is currently represented.

[fast.git]

"There's just no use trying to dogfight a Zero..."

Here are a couple of links to the US War Department's Official Training Film 1-3302 (1943):

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwo5uqOywFI
• http://indyvindy.com/recognition-of-...ter,-1943.html

It's credited as a 1942 film, but identified as 1943... either way, check out Lt. Saunders!

[Casey]

Baz, has anyone made the 90 degree cards? If not what WWI deck, if any, would you take a 90 from?

Thanks, Peter

Peter,
You may find the 90° turns in the Fiat CR42 and Gloster Gladiator maneuver's deck.

[Gotham Resident]

Earlier today I had asked Skafloc the same question about which deck it was that had the turn. He confirmed it was the L deck. That is the Gloster Deck. (He said he reduces damage to 12).

[Warhawk]

I don't own either of the biplanes but just out of curiosity is the 90 degree turn a slow speed only maneuver?

[Casey]

I don't own either of the biplanes but just out of curiosity is the 90 degree turn a slow speed only maneuver?

No both speeds, high and low.

[Honza]

Guys i am really glad i have asked. The 90° turn and 10-12 hits would definitely help make Zero being Zero. Since the L deck has both slow and fast 90° turn on one card, as well as the new logo design on the back (where the rest of the deck would have the old logo), i would consider printing the whole deck out and adding a self-designed 90° slow /60° fast card in it.

[Marechallannes]

I like the Zeros how they are for the balanced gameplay.

Some historical facts can't be displayed by the standart Wings of Glory rules and you need to improve by house rules.

Most gamers do not care.

Personally I see the historical incorrect higher hitpoints of the Zero as a balance for the better trained pilots.

[fast.git]

Personally I see the historical incorrect higher hitpoints of the Zero as a balance for the better trained pilots.

That's a fair point, Sven. Do you play with the additional 90 degree turns, or the Zero as is?

[Marechallannes]

I play it without house rules.

[Teaticket]

Peter,
You may find the 90° turns in the Fiat CR42 and Gloster Gladiator maneuver's deck.

Thanks Casey!

[Gallo Rojo]

Ok, this is what I do regarding the Zero and its foes:

Short intro: thing you have to keep in mind when talking about "zero's outstanding maneuverability" is what we actually mean by it. 'Maneuverability' is a complex term.
Firstly, you have the capability of turning tight. Now the Zero-sen was excellent on that regard. It was probably the fighter that could do the tightest turns at low speed in WW2 -- keep in mid I already said two factors here: tight turns & low speed. At high speed Zero wasn't that good turning tight.
Secondly, you have the roll-rate, and that gives the plane the capability to turn to one side and then to the other (I'm over-simplifying). Zero had a very poor roll-rate, especially at high speed.
To sum up: with Zero you had a plane that could turn very tight at slow speed, not so much at high speed, and had troubles to turn from left turn to right turn and vice-versa especially at high speed.

In contrast, many Zero adversaries had good roll-rate, but couldn’t turn tight. F4F Wildcat could turn from right to left and vice-versa at high speed, but not at low speed (side note: Fw-190, usually regarded as a very maneuverable fighter, was really good at that: its legendary maneuverability was due its capability of changing direction very fast at high speed, due to an excellent roll rate... but a Fw-190 would still be out-turned by a Spitfire at low speed, something similar regarding Zero vs F4F or Zero vs P-40, which had a good roll rate)

So how to make a house-rule to make Zero 'more-maneuverable' vis a vis its enemies in WoW (namely F4F Wildcat and Curtiss P-40)?

At slow speed:
1)
Allow Zero to go from any maneuver to the tightest slow-speed turn at will
Do not allow its adversaries (F4F or P-40) to do the same: i.e.: F4F and P-40 must have to play a wider turn, and only later to play the tighter turn

2)
Allow Zero to play as many tighter-turn cards in a row at slow peed at will
Do not allow its adversaries to play more than one tight-turn card in a row, in other words play the tight-turn as if it were a ‘steep’ cad: i.e.: a F4F or a P-40 can play a tight-turn card, then a wider-turn card, then another tight-turn card, etc. That is actually historically accurate since F4F would stall if keeping turning tight at low speed. You can apply this rule by simply removing one tight-turn card from F4F and P-40 maneuver decks.

3)
Allow Zero to change direction from turning left to turning right and vice versa at slow speed
Do not allow F4F and P-40 to chage change direction from turning left to turning right and vice versa at slow speed

At high speed:

Allow F4F and P-40 to change direction from turning left to turning right and vice versa at high speed
Do not allow Zero to chage change direction from turning left to turning right and vice versa at high speed

[Warhawk]

That sounds a lot like the veer rate in Sails of Glory for those who have had the chance to play. Not allowing drastic changes in direction due to the maneuverability of the ship. Each card is assigned a number 1-10 for example. The lower numbers being the left turns (1 is the sharpest left) higher numbers being the right turns. If your veer rate is 5, you subtract or add 5 to the last card played to see which ones you are allowed. So if you played a 1 (tight left) last turn you can only go up to a 6 which is just a very slight right turn.
Maybe something like this could be applied much like what you described? As a roll and/or turn rate.

[Gallo Rojo]

That sounds a lot like the veer rate in Sails of Glory for those who have had the chance to play. Not allowing drastic changes in direction due to the maneuverability of the ship. Each card is assigned a number 1-10 for example. The lower numbers being the left turns (1 is the sharpest left) higher numbers being the right turns. If your veer rate is 5, you subtract or add 5 to the last card played to see which ones you are allowed. So if you played a 1 (tight left) last turn you can only go up to a 6 which is just a very slight right turn.
Maybe something like this could be applied much like what you described? As a roll and/or turn rate.

Interesting. I haven't played SoG so I don't kno wthe mechanics but yes, it does sounds like what I've described
What I tried to do here is modifying some aspects of the game mecanichs while keeping others.
But to be perfectly honest I'm not a WW2 player, I think tactics in WW2 were way to diferent to what the game mechanics allows us to do
In WW1 still works
Now this is what I do in WW1 WoG to take the roll-rate (rr) into account:
I've divided planes in XX cateories according to their rr:
excellent rr: they can turn and counter turn (turn left and then right, both 60º or 90º turns, it doesn't matter). This are basically very maneuverable planes: Fokker Dr.1, Sopwith Triplane and Camel. These basically play by the rulebook
very good rr: they cannot turn and counter turn. ie they have to play any other card in between a left turn and a right turn (or vice-versa). Yet they can play a turn to one side and a side-slide to the other side in a row. These are scouts (fighters in WW2)
good rr: they cannot turn and counter turn, nor can they play a side-slide to one side and a turn to the other in a row... but they can play a side-slide to one side and a side-slide to the other side in a row. This would be two seaters and like
bad rr: they cannot do any of the above, including playing a side-slied to the right and then a side-slide to the left or vice-versa. This would be some especially big or clumsy two seater, or bombers carrying full bombs load, or some 'agile' multy-engine/multy crew (such as Caudron R-11) that do have side-slide cards in their maneuver decs ('Giants' do not have them)

I think that can be applyied to WW2 as well, using some imagination and checking for data.

Something I like about this house rule (in addition to realism) is that narrowes the maneuvers a plane can do, so allows for easier anticipation about where your target can be. i.e.. if a figther you're chasing has performed a right turn you know it cannot left turn as the next maneuver

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Although I do not have any planes for the Pacific, I have been following this very interesting discussion, and it has told me a lot about the various virtues and vices in several aircraft that I may encounter in the future.
Thanks for the info chaps.
Rob.

[Naharaht]

Perhaps Ares might consider correcting the Zero's statistics and manoeuvre deck, if they ever reprint the series 1 models.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

They might do if the members on here who have their ear had a word with them.
Rob.

[csadn]

To sum up: with Zero you had a plane that could turn very tight at slow speed, not so much at high speed, and had troubles to turn from left turn to right turn and vice-versa especially at high speed.

[nod] One major failing of the Zero which was never fully corrected: It was very heavy on the controls at high speeds. Servo tabs were installed on early models, but later deleted when it was found the lowered load was causing pilots to overstress the airframe. I can't find any info on whether or not power-assist was ever installed.

So how to make a house-rule to make Zero 'more-maneuverable' vis a vis its enemies in WoW (namely F4F Wildcat and Curtiss P-40)?

Uh-huh -- and what happens when the F6F and F4U minis finally get released?

This is why WW2 doesn't sell: The system cannot effectively portray both horizontal and vertical combat; and given it's a tabletop game, it inevitably sides with horizontal, which means US acft. get shafted.

[gully_raker]

No both speeds, high and low.

Actually Olivier according to Zoe's research ( see posts above) it should be a 90o Slow Turn only.

[Gallo Rojo]

Uh-huh -- and what happens when the F6F and F4U minis finally get released?

To begin with, the Zeros are toasted. As it was in real life.

but secondly...

This is why WW2 doesn't sell: The system cannot effectively portray both horizontal and vertical combat; and given it's a tabletop game, it inevitably sides with horizontal, which means US acft. get shafted.

I agree with you: the game system doesn't captures altitude well... boom&zoom tactics are dificult to re-create... not to mention many other tactics
This kinda works for a fun WW1 'sort-of-simulation' ... but it doesn't in WW2

[fast.git]

Ok, this is what I do regarding the Zero and its foes...

That's pretty intense, Ezekiel. Lots to digest.

This is why WW2 doesn't sell: The system cannot effectively portray both horizontal and vertical combat; and given it's a tabletop game, it inevitably sides with horizontal, which means US acft. get shafted.

I wonder if Zoe's simplified WGF altitude rules can be adapted to this... good divers ("sturdy") vs. not?

To be fair, I've not played with Zoe's rules... but I love the look of them and will be giving them a go this weekend.

But of course! http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=2069

Here's the original thread (post #13): http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...ghlight=cancon

[Honza]

I was thinking about how to include a homemade card into an original maneuver deck, without your opponent being aware of what i am planning.
I will probably make two special cards out of some extra original cards (for example the climb rate cards included in Nexus WWI decks), which will have a big left or right arrow on it. After i flipped such a card, i will use the homemade 90° turn to carry out my maneuver instead.

[Gallo Rojo]

I was thinking about how to include a homemade card into an original maneuver deck, without your opponent being aware of what i am planning.

scan the back of an official card
reduce to proper size using any pictures processor of your choice
produce the front of your card any way you like -- scan from a 90 degrees one, or make one yourself using a pics-processor
print both pics into a good quality sticker paper if you have a good printer, or print it at kinkos or any print-shop
paste printed pictures to a poker card and cut with scissors

I have done several that way and nobody notices the difference while playing

[Flying Officer Kyte]

If you have any problems doing a card Jan let me know and I will knock you a couple out.
I do whole decks of specials for myself like that for the Swordfish etc.
Rob.

[gully_raker]

I was thinking about how to include a homemade card into an original maneuver deck, without your opponent being aware of what i am planning.
I will probably make two special cards out of some extra original cards (for example the climb rate cards included in Nexus WWI decks), which will have a big left or right arrow on it. After i flipped such a card, i will use the homemade 90° turn to carry out my maneuver instead.

Jan one easy fix is to just draw in a 90o turn on one R & one L normal turn in say a green texta & give the Zero a choice of either turns depending on circumstance.
Thats what I do but it will be only a SLOW turn.

[Honza]

Thanks guys i am not sure if i wanna replace the original turns or if i wanna just add the 90° turns. In any case i love the new wind blowing from Nippon.

[Honza]

We have played this goldie oldie Pacific mission yesterday ...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/...ack-us-carrier
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepag...ack-us-carrier

... with the new bad ass Zeros incorporated. The Zeros were 12 hits, they had left and right 90° turn and "A" deck side slips.
The were not overpowered at all, actually Americans won twice. It was really fun, and i love the new Zero conception.

[EddieRickenback]

Hey guys, I love the posts. Have been playing WW1 version for a long time but just broke out the WW2 version. Just to play test some home rules, I had a couple of P40's jump a couple of zero's. Was amazed to find that the zero's C deck would not out turn the P40's H deck! Once the P40 was on the tail of the zero, he had no trouble staying there through the tightest turns the zero could throw. Definitely something that needs to be fixed. I like the 90 degree turn idea. I will try to make a couple of cards and see how well it works.

I want to try making the cards using a L deck for the 90's. Any particular sticker paper you recommend for making the cards?

[Honza]

How about this? 90° slow and 60° fast. I tried to keep the original lengths of the arrows.
Would you leave it as a steep maneuver?
Upon testing, we also added the long side-slips, replacing the short ones.



These card would replace turns 8/18 and 9/18 , side-slips 15/18 and 16/18

[Naharaht]

Thank you for designing these cards, Jan.

[Jager]

For the extreme sideslips, I would make those difficult too (<>), so it mirrors the O deck (Spitfire Mk.IX).
Karl

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Four very useful cards.
Thanks Jan.
Rob.

[Honza]

For the extreme sideslips, I would make those difficult too (<>), so it mirrors the O deck (Spitfire Mk.IX).
Karl

yes, that makes sense, thank you.

I will post it for print soon, just wanted you guys to proof read
I guess these may be a nice gift for the Prague Con participants, i have to employ Zdenek, our wing publisher.

[EddieRickenback]

Awesome cards! Thanks!

[ptownhiker]

Those cards are an excellent addition to the Zero's maneuver deck. Combined with the reduction in hit points, they feel "right" to me in terms of what I have read about the Zero's performance.

[Nightbomber]

Job at ARES' development team awaits, Jan! Well done.

[Kleebatch]

uhm just a note on the sideslips, those are fast speed maneuvers and from what i read here that's exactly where the Zero had problems

To sum up: with Zero you had a plane that could turn very tight at slow speed, not so much at high speed, and had troubles to turn from left turn to right turn and vice-versa especially at high speed.

so perhaps those shouldn't be available?
just a thought

Claudio

[Honza]

Thanks Claudio, can you help us with a link to the source article please?
Edit: sorry i've got it it - is has been written up here by fellow Ezekiel.

The thing is that the side-slip that is actually included in the C deck seems to be way faster than the long side slip that we added - despite both being high speed maneuvers.
Ezekiel suggests letting do Zero some stuff and not letting the Wildcats do the same and vice versa. It is definitely a proper approach, but
i would simplify it by changing just one of them - Zero, as it's maneuver deck is a little far from what it should be.

[Kleebatch]

I understand your reasoning, and i must say i'm not familiar with planes from the pacific theater.

The reason of my doubt was (and i could be wrong) that i feel extreme sideslips are mostly a representation of high roll speed at high speed, wich is the opposite of what the "zeke" could do.

Those 60/90° turns i saw above would already give an edge vs. pretty much anything but a gladiator/cr42 in a doghfight

[Jager]

I have to say that on reflection, the 90 degree turn, even, or especially, as a slow is too much an advantage for the Zero. Earlier discussions, with a possible agreement from Andrea (can't quite remember) concluded that the Zero, like the Mk.I spitfire, needed a 60 degree turn. I think the 90s should remain the advantage for the biplanes.
Karl

[Honza]

I disagree. The fact that you take the hit number of Zero down to 12 is a great disadvantage that balances the new maneuvers. The 90° turn is a steep maneuver that can be executed just at slow speed and it is just one. This is how is Zero supposed to work - outmaneuver your opponent, hit and run. If you get hit, you are in troubles.
We were testing these cards, and the Zeros were anything but overpowered. They were just more fun to play, and they actually lost in the very same mission they won last time without any mods - they just burned down way sooner.

[Honza]

I put the cards here at BGG for download. 300 dpi, Euro A4, pdf. If you prefer jpg, then grab them here.

[gully_raker]

Great work Jan!

[Kleebatch]

hi all, i just had a thought that might be a good compromise about the 90° turn:

Why not make it a special card (like the immelman card) that can only be used as part of a fixed sequence?

the sequence would be: 1) 45° turn at slow speed 2) 90° turn 3) 45° turn at fast speed

as a result our "zekes" would not be able to just turn 90° like a biplane, but would be still able to do a complete 180° turn in 3 moves,

this would give it an edge against any other monoplane fighter that need 4 moves instead to do the same.

As i said, just a random and probably crazy thought