LePrieur rockets and manoeuvrability

[Prodromoi]

Well, I wasn't intending to specifically read up or investigate LePrieur rockets but it just so happens that they've cropped up in some books that I've been referring to recently and I noticed something that isn't reflected in the WoW rules that probably ought to be; namely that the manoeuvrability of planes equipped with rockets was adversely effected until the rockets had been discharged.

For example, on the subject of LePrieur rockets:
"The effect of this extra load was to make the machine singularly unhandy when fighting..."

and

"Later, in 1917, Buckingham incendiary ammunition was used for destroying balloons. This change was greatly appreciated by the R.F.C., because the handiness of the machine was not impaired, as was the case when the Le Prieur rockets were carried."

Both are quotes from Sixty Squadron R.A.F. : A History Of The Squadron From Its Formation by Group Captain A J L Scott, published 1920

So, while the RAP gives rules for aiming and hitting, it seems to omit any impairment caused by the extra loading on the plane. Having pondered for a while, I've come up with a few potential ways of addressing this, and am interested to hear comments, preferences and alternatives.

1. Use the same rules for fully loaded bombers, as per page 38 of the RAP. "An airplane with a full load cannot do Immelmann turns." also "must use at least two non-steep manoeuvres, rather than one, between steep manoeuvres."
2. Must play a straight or stall after any curve or sideslip.
3. Remove one of every manoeuvre card for which there is a multiple in the deck until the rockets are fired. (Thus reducing max speed as well as manoeuvrability.)
4. Treat as if suffering from engine damage (must play a stall each turn).

Obviously additional rules always benefit from being kept simple. I quite like option 1 since it re-uses an existing rule. I haven't found any evidence yet that indicates whether a rocket-armed biplane was able to reach full normal speed or not; I imagine it would have had a slight impact but perhaps not enough to be reflected in the scale of the rules.

Other comments and suggestions welcomed!

[flash]

As a pre-existing rule for something of similar ilk option 1. would seem to fit the bill very nicely. You might want to consider the effect on climb rates for those using altitude rules - maybe double it for the N.16, from 2 to 4.

[grumpybear]

No 1 fits the bill for me, also climb rate should be slower. How much slower 2 to 3 or 4

[fast.git]

I agree with Dave and Darrell. I like Option #1... easy, and requires no new rules.

[David Manley]

+1 for option 1

[Stumptonian]

Haven't used my N.16s yet - subscribing to this thread for future reference.
I think I will add my +1 for Door Number One

[zenlizard]

I'll pile on for rule #1. And yeah, I also agree about climb rate. I don't remember offhand, are the rules for fully-loaded bombers also applicable here?

[tikkifriend]

Rule 1 for me .

[Angiolillo]

Ancillotto used a machinegunless Ni-11 for his famed mission against a balloon that earned him a golden medal.
I asked Nexus to put the machinegun on the kodel, but also to attach a card with a special rule asking the player to choose either the machinegun or the rockets to avoid penalties, and giving a penalty on maneuvrability if the player choosed to keep both.
Interesting that this thread starts just while we are producing that new little model!

[Prodromoi]

Interesting info Andrea, thanks. Do you happen to recall what manoeuvrability penalty you applied for the guns+rockets option? (Was it the same as the bomber penalty as I suggested in the first post, or a separate rule?)

As for the comments about climbing, that hadn't occurred to me at the time I wrote the post - thanks chaps. I feel that doubling the climb rate could be a bit harsh. Perhaps a penalty of just +1? As the only planes that - so far - we've seen that were rocket-equipped were ones with a climb rate of 2 - (SPAD, Nieuport etc) that's effectively adding an extra 50%.

In contrast to your reference to Ancilotto, Andrea, none of the books I've been looking at lately (though I wasn't looking specifically for LePrieur info, they just kept making an appearance!) indicated that the RFC pilots removed their guns to offset the weight/drag of the rockets.

[Prodromoi]

I'll pile on for rule #1. And yeah, I also agree about climb rate. I don't remember offhand, are the rules for fully-loaded bombers also applicable here?

I've just checked; fully loaded bombers incur a +1 penalty to their climb rate (p38 RAP). So I suggest we stick with that for rockets too. (There is an extra bit about gaining altitude when bombs are dropped, but that wouldn't apply in this case.)

[zenlizard]

+1 to climb rate across the board is probably the best idea. While it's true that this is proportionally a larger penalty in those aircraft with a lower climb rate, this is more a by-product of the old bugaboo of statistics in general: It's easier to notice a greater trend when your number base is smaller.

[fast.git]

One of the best things about this game is that it follows the KISS theory... well, in most cases (I'm looking at you, altitude. I vote for for keeping it as simple as possible.

[Angiolillo]

Here the Nieuport on which Ancillotto won is golden medal, just back from the mission in which he flew across the exploding balloon and still with its leftovers hanging on the wings. No machinegun. Varriale's and Gentilli's book on Italian Aces have the same pictures, both clearer.



A hint about removing machineguns is there:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1713



Shall we keep the penalty only until rockets are fired? I kept them for the whole session. Rockets do not seem much weight (cardboard with 200 grams of powder inside each- maybe 2/2,5 kilos for 8 rockets?), so firing should not change too much abroad, while the 8 wooden poles and other stuff that were still in the plane after firing should be reason for most of the loss of agility. Do you please have direct sources on that detail?

I put a penalty that would work fine with a Nieuport 11 - right sideslips (cards 13/20, 14/20, 17/20) can not be used the same turn of left sideslips (cards 15/20, 16/20, 18/20). It is meant for Nieuports - on other planes the impact of that rule would be quite different.

[fast.git]

I don't have any specific contrary evidence on hand, but - so far as I can remember - Albert Ball didn't mention any significant loss is maneuverability to his Nieuport (16 or 17, I think) once the rockets had been fired.

Interestingly enough, he mentioned on a number of occasions firing them at enemy scouts. He never scored a victory in such a way, but remarked that others had.

[Angiolillo]

Interesting, but when I tried to find evidence of any plane downed by Le Prieur rockets, I do not remember finding any.
By the way, firing incendiary/exploding ammunition or devices against pilots was against the St.Petersburg convention, and so a crime of war. That's why incendiary bullets were used against balloons flying with the order by HQ for doing so, and not against other planes (a special rule wiull come for that too, soon).

I'd also say that no all planes had the same problems with additional equipement. An additional MG on top of the upèper wing on a Nieuport 11 as the one on pictures, already cumbered by rockets, couldhinder it whole a second machinegun on a Hanriot, down on the fuselage, was feared of criplling its agility while it didn't, Scaroni showed that well. So in the game I usually decided to avoid penalties for additional weapons, but we can make exceptions.

A little note. The pieces of canvas of the enemy drachen on Ancillotto's wings, that you see in the photos, were kept. A coat was made out of them and given as a gift to the Duke of Aosta, commander of the 3rd Army. Many years later, my friend Paolo Varriale (author of the abovementioned book) had it in his hands when visiting the ace's family - it's been him to tell us the shade of yellow for our Wings of War balloon.

Love and KISS,

Andrea

[milcoll73]

Here the Nieuport on which Ancillotto won is golden medal, just back from the mission in which he flew across the exploding balloon and still with its leftovers hanging on the wings. No machinegun. Varriale's and Gentilli's book on Italian Aces have the same pictures, both clearer.



A hint about removing machineguns is there:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1713



Shall we keep the penalty only until rockets are fired? I kept them for the whole session. Rockets do not seem much weight (cardboard with 200 grams of powder inside each- maybe 2/2,5 kilos for 8 rockets?), so firing should not change too much abroad, while the 8 wooden poles and other stuff that were still in the plane after firing should be reason for most of the loss of agility. Do you please have direct sources on that detail?

I put a penalty that would work fine with a Nieuport 11 - right sideslips (cards 13/20, 14/20, 17/20) can not be used the same turn of left sideslips (cards 15/20, 16/20, 18/20). It is meant for Nieuports - on other planes the impact of that rule would be quite different.

ive heard of pilots collecting a souvenir or 2 from a downed enemy but this is ridicules!!!!!!

[Angiolillo]

Well, in this case it has not been te pilot to take a souvenir, it has been the plane!
Actually Ancillotto went so close to the balloon to be sure to hit it with its erratic rockets, and was so concentrated on the target, that when the drachen exploded he realized that he was so close that going across the explosion was the only way.
Star Wars air combat scenes dod mot invent anything.

[milcoll73]

they do say the machines have a mind of their own! im surprised micheal bay hasnt made a movie just for that one scene (say, now thats a good idea)

[Flying Helmut]

It would be a better idea if anyone OTHER THAN Michael Bay made it!