WGP: Wings of Glory Present? Could it ever work ...

**Tonx** · 04-20-2015 19:29

During my recent tutoring commitment-ridden absence I was delighted to discover that Wings of Glory has reached Qatar ... I think we are best calling this one Swings and Roundabouts because it was hot on the heels of this discovery that the Ground School student concerned and I had quite a fascinating conversation: Initiated by the student instead of me.

Wings of Glory Present or WGP: Could it or would it ever work?

What are your thoughts on say a Gulf War 1 (1991) based Glory Game? Or would as I believe the limitations and / or lack of dogfighting even back then stop at say Korea for the next Wings of Glory development ... If there ever was to be one that is? (S o T - School of Thought.)

His S o T: We have X-Wing and Armada all of which work featuring far faster craft and shot ranges almost measured in light years away from one another ... General sentiment is that with minis such as the BAe Jaguar, Dassault Mirage F1, BAe Systems Harrier and of course the timeless McDonnell F-4 Phantom and Sidewinders / BVRAAMs and Paveway plus Air to Air Refuelling now possible as an inter-aircraft manoeuver a WGP game could work. Especially should dice be introduced to reduce some of those shot-range emulations (BVRAAM all began with the F-14A Tomcat shooting targets 25 MILES away - Beyond Visual Range A2A Missiles!)

My S o T: BAe Jaguar ... Here we go. If a British BAe Jaguar GR.1B at full-tilt with full payload on board initiated a 180-Degree turn over the Humber Bridge, United Kingdom where would the aircraft hit the coast again assuming it has turned northwards. Yep, Alnwick. Nearly in Scotland for those who are not familiar with the town. Now what shape size and form of Gaming Mat would this monstrous manoeuver require??! Note: Jaguar was not supersonic.

His S o T: But the art of dogfighting in the Vietnam era or rather America's lack of it was why the US Navy formed Top Gun, which is still operational at NAS Fallon and this was the first war the F-4 Phantom saw active service in. Top Gun used to be located at NAS Miramar (Fightertown USA) until closure in the mid-1990s moved the facility and combined it with other departments at Fallon, Nv.

My S o T: The Vietnam situation arose primarily because of the MiG 15 / 17 still proving themselves to be adept close-range dogfighters in the hands of the Viet Cong which initially caused panic amongst USAF and USN twin-seater fighter crews alike. Who were as a result clueless in response thanks to the opposition's element of surprize. Now back to that 1 KM x 1 KM Gaming Mat required even for dogfights at the type of subsonic airspeeds the BAe Jaguar fleet was operated at in the UK ...

What does everybody reckon especially the seasoned WGF / WGS players amongst us? Do the aesthetics of Jet Minis

appeal to the less experienced or younger player? Interested in all opinions

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 04-21-2015 00:47

You don't want my opinion Barney.
They only just managed to convince me that aircraft should have one wing.

Rob.

**Diamondback** · 04-21-2015 00:52

I'd venture to say anything Cold War needs to be a smaller scale yet, say 1/300 to 1/350. Unlikely but could be cool... and if they cut an F-106 I'm going to be most vocal lobbying for a prof's old bird to be included despite the 318th having one more famous.

**Tonx** · 04-21-2015 03:27

Cold War - Victors, Valiants and Vulcans ... BRING IT ON!!! I agree that there would need to be further cuts in size having a 1/200 (WGS Scale) rendition of the Avro Vulcan on display in my computer room and considering its size compared with the biggest of the current WGS aircraft available. Also this would help to enhance the aircraft manoeuverability factor within gameplay. Coincidentially not far away is a Corgi Aviation 1/144 Scale Avro Vulcan and this is the same scale as WGF is based on.

F-106 ... Thunderchief if my memory serves me correctly or please correct me if I am wrong? I know the F-104 as the Starfighter / F-101 as the Voodoo from my kit-building days. Both renditions by Matchbox (1/72 Scale.)

I think the best part of the original posting is being able to refuel in mid-air from a tanker / MRTT aircraft whilst playing this 'WGP' idea. Also ... Altitude has only just occurred to me - with service ceiling heights reaching and at times exceeding 40,000 ft how many altitude pegs would that take to reach??! Silently I have to be honest ... I still quite like the way this looks on paper!

**Tonx** · 04-21-2015 03:39

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte

You don't want my opinion Barney.
They only just managed to convince me that aircraft should have one wing.

Rob.

Of course I do - your take on this idea was one I was seriously looking forward to reading!

I think the golden rule regardless of how many wings one happens to be blessed with is too much Bernoulli ... The houses get smaller. Not enough Bernoulli ... The houses get bigger!

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 04-21-2015 03:45

Well to be honest then Barney this old duffer is not really interested in going any further than WW2. Even the later aircraft with extended movement cards are a bit of a trial to me.
Rob.

**Tonx** · 04-21-2015 04:42

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte

Well to be honest then Barney this old duffer is not really interested in going any further than WW2. Even the later aircraft with extended movement cards are a bit of a trial to me.
Rob.

We come back by the looks of this to my '1 Km x 1 Km size of gaming mat concern' as voiced in the original posting. However cutting the scale of Minis

to 1/300 or even 1/350 scale would definitely begin to address this concern and in part even begin to eradicate it. This could also help with altitude concerns as well compared with WGF / WGS and what can be attained and how playing existing Advanced Rules.

Unless of course one wants to potter around in a fleet of Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft - max ceiling height 29,000 feet with the rotordome mounted surveillance radar in operation. Plus 250 Knots Indicated Airspeed (KIAS) limitations. No thanks, I would rather operate the show as a Boeing 707-300 with ceiling height 36,000 to 42,500 and 295 Knots Indicated minimum ... But then as it was once put to me from some 6,000 feet below where I heard this coming from a Frisbee Duty Flying Crew member (NATO E-3 Sentry) 'but then our entire unit would be capable of jack sh*t' ... These facts still shock me even to this day given the reputation of the E-3 also known to many as the AWACS aircraft.

Further Problem: Without the usage of dice how would you emulate the use in aerial warfare of aerial or electronic countermeasures such as 'chaff' when it comes to air-to-air missile attack and the counteraction of 'Boom Cards' ... I cannot think of an alternative way of doing this. 'Boom Cards' are always going to be the most silently dreaded outcome of an altercation whilst playing Glory as well as always there unless abiding by Basic Rules (remove them all!) But as warfare advanced so does the (so to speak) extent of the 'Boom' in 'Boom Card' - or otherwise present day air to air innovations such as BVRAAM would have never even left the drawing board: These things are designed to completely chomp an opponent at the first available opportunity ... Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead. Let's go home! That is unless the Witch / AWACS / whatever is on the receiving end of what just armed and locked itself automatically as it wings it's way forth gets in there first with it's countermeasure devices causing the weapon to miss. Basically aiming itself at a decoy target created a safe distance away from the real target by such countermeasure devices. Just as well the Boeing E-3 Sentry is riddled with them with that pathetic Op Ceiling Height to it's credit!

On reflection this is actually more of an issue than aircraft manoeuverability factors for 'WGP' - this needs to be addressed. Then the sizes of turning circles / gaming mats can be addressed etc. Still like the idea though ...

**Dowters** · 04-21-2015 05:08

Have a look here mate,
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...highlight=jets

Discussion already started and all the cards you need. I think 1/300 is the scale or even 1/600.

**Diamondback** · 04-21-2015 05:49

Originally Posted by Aussietonka

F-106 ... Thunderchief if my memory serves me correctly or please correct me if I am wrong? I know the F-104 as the Starfighter / F-101 as the Voodoo from my kit-building days. Both renditions by Matchbox (1/72 Scale.)

Thud was Republic's F-105 fighter-bomber; the Six was Convair's Delta Dart, "The Ultimate Interceptor" and still the recordholder for fastest single-engine jet. (Set by the 318th FIS, my prof's old squadron, as it happens, though a bit before his time, and I think a little before even my grandfather's tenure with them.)

Countermeasures could be represented by different decks/chits to make a "save" draw against the missile, and even radar can itself be used as a weapon under the right conditions and with sufficient power. (Rumors persist of the F-22 being able to use its radar for an EMP attack, and a Sentry's radar is powerful enough on tightest focus and maximum power to cook an unwary fighter pilot who gets too close and is targeted by it.) Even the F-12 interceptor Blackbird and the F-106 had clear "Do Not Enter" zones when their radars were active, and even to this day radars are usually turned off no closer than Pre-Contact position for inflight refueling.

**guthroth** · 04-21-2015 12:14

I may be the exception, but early - mid WW2 doesn't excite me but ............ Cold war gone hot before 1956 would be REALLY interesting.

Supermarine Attackers, Mig 15s, F9Fs, Douglas Skyraiders, Sea Furys, Banshees, Sabres ........... Do I need to go on ?

**BobP** · 04-21-2015 13:09

I have seen a few games played using 1/300 planes. One was F-4's vs Mig 21's (Vietnam) and another was the Six day war. The GM's did a great job running both these games.

**Jager** · 04-21-2015 14:46

AtA Missiles would be the killer for a modern WoG; lots more things to keep track of, and rules for guidance

Karl

**Diamondback** · 04-21-2015 15:55

BTW, REAL BVR is an 80-mile shot, from a YF-12 Blackbird against a QB-47. Went right through the bombers vertical tail, a live warhead would've obliterated it. F-12's radar and missiles were the direct ancestor of the AWG-9/AIM-54 that gave the Tomcat its eyes and claws.

**csadn** · 04-21-2015 16:20

Jet Combat: If you thought WoG2 was boring....

I was able to attend Enfilade! last year; one scenario I was in was a VN-era _CY6_ event involving a pickup of a downed US crew. I got to fly the A-1 Skyraiders on ground-support detail; I wound up doing more dogfighting with the NVAF than the guy playing the F-4 Phantoms (and more successfully, to boot).

No Jets. Not today; not tomorrow; not ever; *NEVER*!

**grumpybear** · 04-21-2015 17:42

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte

Well to be honest then Barney this old duffer is not really interested in going any further than WW2. Even the later aircraft with extended movement cards are a bit of a trial to me.
Rob.

I also have same problem and won't go past WW2

**Boney10** · 04-22-2015 02:06

I must admit to not being convinced jets would work with the system. Movement yes by reducing scale , but would we lose too much in the model and not be able to see ? The visual aspect I think is important
I am not a bit Airwar man, love WW1 biplanes, even like WW2 early kit, not tried the late war Spits etc with the large cards.
I suppose it would work for Korea but can't see the introduction of missiles enhancing the game experience myself.
So I'll stick to WW1 and BoB. Just my 2d

**guthroth** · 04-22-2015 10:55

I think there is some conflation of suggestions here. I would probably be uninterested in anything involving missiles, but that does not rule out jet warfare.

Me 262s, Arados and He 162s have their place in WW2, and the improvements in aircraft in service up to 1956 were not that great.

IMO Korea would be a great addition.

**Jager** · 04-22-2015 11:20

That's a bit different idea; when the thread title is Wings of Glory Present, and Gulf War I and Vietnam are brought up, missiles pretty much are standard equipment.
Korea and the early 50s are possible to do.
Karl

**guthroth** · 04-22-2015 12:07

True, but many of the posters are simply saying "No Jets". I sincerely believe what they mean is "No Missiles", simply saying No Jets is very obviously throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

**Jager** · 04-22-2015 13:56

Do jets does present some challenges for the WoG game engine; IMO, it feels much better for WW1 than for WW2.
That said, it should be quite doable for 1st and 2nd gen jets. Scale is going to be one of the first things to change, or you will be continually running off the board.
This is a problem identified by players of Fighting Wings, when they fielded Me.262s, Me.163s, Meteors and P-80s

Karl

**Tonx** · 04-22-2015 17:06

Originally Posted by Boney10

I must admit to not being convinced jets would work with the system. Movement yes by reducing scale , but would we lose too much in the model and not be able to see ? The visual aspect I think is important
I am not a bit Airwar man, love WW1 biplanes, even like WW2 early kit, not tried the late war Spits etc with the large cards.
I suppose it would work for Korea but can't see the introduction of missiles enhancing the game experience myself.
So I'll stick to WW1 and BoB. Just my 2d

I would advise that for fun you do try out a late-WW2 type of aircraft even if it is just the once. Because what I reckon you will find is that being a master of WW1 / early WW2 flying skills you would actually be able to operate one of these effectively through knowing the intricacies of flight manoeuvers alone. Especially if you are a good forward thinker too because with all of these skills and factors combined I reckon you would be in for an excellent time.

I bet you have the Gloster Gladiator Miniatures in your collection from the sound of what you enjoy flying the most? Same as me - it was the Gladiator that began it all for me when I first started playing Glory back in February 2015. I still fly this type regularly both in operational and in 'training' sorties even though I have been flying the faster stuff for a while now too. I have only ever played WGF once but really enjoyed doing so

**Dowters** · 04-23-2015 04:25

For what it's worth I think early jets is very do able, some folks on here already field ME 262's, I would love to get a Supermarine Attacker on the table, just love that plane.

**OldGuy59** · 06-02-2015 08:04

Just a thought, when discussing scale.

WGF: movement scale is approx 1/900, using 1/144 models for visual appeal. Map scale 1/1200 to simulate altitude? Time scale is two seconds per card.

WGS: movement scale is approx 1/2200-ish, using 1/200 models.

WGP: what scale to keep the planes on a kitchen table? Map of England 3x5"?

**Tonx** · 06-02-2015 08:42

Originally Posted by OldGuy59

Just a thought, when discussing scale.

WGP: what scale to keep the planes on a kitchen table? Map of England 3x5"?

I think the solution to this may be to use 'generic' rather than specific gaming mats ... The same sort of idea which is used in X-Wing which I believe can fit quite comfortably on a kitchen table despite having shot ranges which sound as if they are measured in light years away from rival craft! Though boring as these would just feature the same type of terrain throughout the area covered generic mats would cancel the need for vast maps of actual countries which as you say would not be able to fit on the average kitchen table. I know this sounds a bit like 'If X-Wing can do it so could we' my most regular gaming environment for playing WGS is only 90 cm x 90 cm which is the dimensions of my kitchen table. Which I cover using a custom made generic mat (made by myself) before scattering the odd bit of 3D-Scenery on it here and there. Ideas such as this for spicing up gaming mats from the otherwise very boring IMHO are mostly down to the creativity of the individual - I borrowed the idea of using 3D Scenery at all for playing WGS from having played Bolt Action previously which is absolutely littered with such effects.

As to the actual scale of the Minis I don't think 1:200 Scale would be practical for the bigger aircraft which would be required in order to enhance the game in the same fashion that Heavy Bombers have been added as enhancements to WGS. This I base on the fact that I am currently looking at a 1:200 scale Avro Vulcan and this as a gaming piece would become very cumbersome to have to move around all the time. It would just become an annoying aspect of gameplay. However the 1:500 scale Corgi Showcase Avro Vulcan which I have parked next to it on a plastic stand would do very nicely. But would 1:500 scale work with the smaller single-seater jet fighters or would too much detailing be lost to make this scale both workable and worthwhile ...

**CappyTom** · 06-02-2015 09:02

I would like to see the North American F-86 Sabre and the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. Those could still do dogfights!

What do you all think?
Thomas

**Tonx** · 06-02-2015 09:16

Originally Posted by CappyTom

I would like to see the North American F-86 Sabre and the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. Those could still do dogfights!

What do you all think?
Thomas

So more of a WGK concept - Wings of Glory Korea which is based on the early 50s as opposed to say the 1990s or similar. I think a WGK concept would work very well as like you say the F-86A and MiG-15 were both very adept close range dogfighters. This concept is also theoretically the next stage to advance towards anyway from WGS should a sequel to WGS ever be required. IMHO the real difficulties begin when too much 'guided ordinance' becomes involved. Even worse when they reach BVRAAM status and shots are being taken at tergets over the horizon from one another. Anything which involves 'up close and personal' with the opposition ... Yes, I agree that this WGK idea would be an excellent one.

Bring on those Douglas A-1 Skyraiders too whilst we are at it. Fantastic aircraft

**OldGuy59** · 06-02-2015 09:31

Barnaby,
Not that you need the link, but I found an interesting site while trying to research jet turning radii.

The site is here: History.Nasa.gov - Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft

Chapter 2 Section 2 is an interesting overview of WWI fighters and performance.

Chapter 11 Section 6 is more pertinent to the discussion on this thread.

**Tonx** · 06-02-2015 09:46

Mike, thanks for that link - I'm off to have a read. Being genuinely interested in this subject any learning opportunity about it further to my Jaguar GR1B / Humber Bridge / Alnwick experience (I was tracking this birdie on radar instead of actually flying it by the way) is greatly appreciated.

**Nightbomber** · 06-02-2015 12:31

You hit the point, Barney, that we have X-Wing miniatures and Armada which cover even faster crafts than Cold War jets. And the games play really well (XW especially and I must confess I enjoy it a lot). That would be hard to picture a modern jet fights using WoG system, IMHO. I do not think anybody would bear the card-in-advance system, seeing his/her minis stopped in motion like we have them in the game. XW is interesting in this matter for it's one-maneuver dial system. So far so good, no need to have faster kites in play, as far as my opinion is concerned.
BTW, have you tried Richard Bradley's XW solo system? [It is (dots were here) brilliant]

EDITED

**Naharaht** · 06-02-2015 19:54

Some thoughts.

There are many 1/700 scale modern aircraft kits available. At this scale a B-52 would have a wingspan of 8cm.

The early homing missiles were unreliable. Many turned out to be 'duds' when fired. Heat-seekers had to be fired from behind the opponent.

I have never played X-wing. How does it handle homing missiles, please?

**BlackSpy** · 06-03-2015 04:59

I don't think X Wing should be thought of as a template for how to handle jets in WoG. X Wing is basically a miniature version of an arcade game. X Wing is really only trying to simulate the dog fights of the film, which were in turn based on the dogfights of WW1. It would be very simple to swap out your X Wing miniatures for WoG miniatures and have a perfectly coherent game. X Wing is a fun and well balanced game but it’s really just a different system for simulating slow manoeuvrable craft with short range weapons.

I think to add jets you have to recognise that because of the change in scale required you have to reimagine the whole theatre. Do you make your square meter of table represent a slice of the world that your planes blitz in and out of (flying off the table becomes the norm, it's where you exit and where and when you re-enter that becomes critical) or do you make that square equivalent to England? How do you play ground defences on a game of that scale, wither on or off table?

Jets might almost work best as one person controlling planes and the other managing the rest of the theatre – like a dungeon crawl game where most players are heroes and one takes care of all the monsters. In summary, I don’t think X Wing is a model that translates to jets or that WoX just needs scaled to fit.

I could quite like the idea of flying into and out of a theatre (off mat), there would need to be some sort of off mat meta-game and then you get your couple of turns blasting over the target zone again.

Why not helicopters instead? Chuck on some tanks, the odd fly past of a jet? That would be an interesting aviation game for the modern age – altitude would be huge in it.

**Tonx** · 06-03-2015 05:19

Originally Posted by BlackSpy

Why not helicopters instead? Chuck on some tanks, the odd fly past of a jet? That would be an interesting aviation game for the modern age – altitude would be huge in it.

I agree - the occasional Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II overflight of this concept would not hurt! However I think the fundamental problem here would be the departure from fixed wing aviation (e g WGF -> WGS) to rotary and the championing of the game / marketing of the game having made this departure from Wings of War evolution and then Wings of Glory tradition. This is why my strongest belief is that should WGS ever need a successor or a sequel the best direction in which to head would be Korea / the early 1950s. In real terms Korea was the next landmark 'war' after WW2 concluded in 1945. But even though this war saw the first deployment of helicopters into combat the primary 'essence' of the concept stays with the fixed wing tradition and would therefore score more points in terms of appeal when it comes to the market / fan base.

**BlackSpy** · 06-03-2015 05:31

Originally Posted by Naharaht

I have never played X-wing. How does it handle homing missiles, please?

In X Wing missiles are basically the same as lasers. But where lasers are vanilla the missiles add variation, an upgrade of some sort (in X Wing you get to spend points buying improvements for your craft, like missiles, a better pilot, more shields or whaever).

The craft in X Wing have various abilities, after moving craft get to take an action to use one of those abilities. Abilities are dependant on the pilot and craft and include things like being a bit more accurate or moving a bit more. Some craft are extra manoeuvrable and for their action can take an evade token that will allow them to mitigate some of the effects of being hit that turn.

A homing missile ignores evade tokens, ie, you can't rely on being nimble to just dodge it. Other missles do extra damage, disable systems so you can only fly straight for a turn or whatever.

Basically, missiles aren't modelled differently to lasers in X Wing, they just enrich the meta game.

**BlackSpy** · 06-03-2015 05:38

Originally Posted by Aussietonka

I agree - the occasional Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II overflight of this concept would not hurt! However I think the fundamental problem here would be the departure from fixed wing aviation (e g WGF -> WGS) to rotary and the championing of the game / marketing of the game having made this departure from Wings of War evolution and then Wings of Glory tradition. This is why my strongest belief is that should WGS ever need a successor or a sequel the best direction in which to head would be Korea / the early 1950s. In real terms Korea was the next landmark 'war' after WW2 concluded in 1945. But even though this war saw the first deployment of helicopters into combat the primary 'essence' of the concept stays with the fixed wing tradition and would therefore score more points in terms of appeal when it comes to the market / fan base.

The cards model would be tricky to make it work, it's true. The game would need to break with tradition to make it work. But honestly, I'd be OK with that. The engine has been applied to the conflicts it suits and X Wing has shown an appetite for varients on it.

**Nightbomber** · 06-03-2015 05:40

Originally Posted by Naharaht

I have never played X-wing. How does it handle homing missiles, please?

There are LOTS of types of missiles and bombs in X-Wing, David. In general each type is represented by a specific card that can be "bought" for points and added to your craft. They have different ranges (1-2-3) and their effects are combined with dice pools and rolls the attacker and defender roll or can not roll (attack and defense dice) or reroll or choose the side of a die. Sometimes they have kind of area effect. That is a solid point for that system.

Smk Me A Kipper · 06-03-2015 14:23

Not to put a downer on the X-wing argument but I recall that Mr Lucas inspiration for the raid(s) on the Death Star and spacecraft dog-fighting came from previously released old WW1/WW2 era combat movies so it comes around full circle. Having said that Korea would be interesting.

Firing missiles at opponents from one table edge to the other less so.

The next card based game I would be interested in would be ACW Riverine

**Dom S** · 06-04-2015 05:00

Spot on Mark - the X Wing example is a blind alley, as it may look like a starfighter, but its flight model is that of a P51 Mustang....

**QB Fox** · 06-04-2015 06:56

Originally Posted by Smk Me A Kipper

I recall that Mr Lucas inspiration for the raid(s) on the Death Star... ...came from previously released old WW1/WW2 era combat movies so it comes around full circle.

The first one is basically nicked wholesale from the finale of 633 Squadron.

LOOP · 06-04-2015 07:23

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte

You don't want my opinion Barney.
They only just managed to convince me that aircraft should have one wing.

Rob.

One wing??? isn't that the old ones???

**Tonx** · 06-04-2015 07:37

Originally Posted by Nightbomber

BTW, have you tried Richard Bradley's XW solo system? [It is a blo...y b...t]

I take it you were not impressed with Richard Bradley's X-Wing Solo system ... I have never played X-Wing but have a number of friends who do and who I could ask about this and other X-Wing related / Armada related matters. Given this what I am beginning to wonder is had I somehow chosen to play XW instead of WGS would I by now have devised my own set of solo / Solitaire rules based on writing training scenarios and missions first ... Are there alternatives available for this way of playing XW or is Richard Bradley recognised as the 'Main Man' in this subject area?

Looks and sounds like a very good game though I feel WW2 Wargames are more my preference in terms of what I prefer to devote time and effort to playing - WGS and Bolt Action in particular.