Ares Games
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: more wacky wing ideas

  1. #1

    Default more wacky wing ideas

    In the short time I have been in this group I have noticed a bit of talk about how a crossover wouldnt really work. Being a WGF mostly player I do understand a bit about the WGS rules. I dont really know much about the movement cards but I am picking up one of the WGS games this weekend. Anyway I have a vision of two playmats with each player controling 1 WWI and 1WWII plane one on each mat. The crossover would be in the form of some type of wondering worm hole that opens every so often allowing planes to cross. It needs alot of work but eventually I will give it a shot .
    Last edited by spookiedfx; 09-18-2015 at 18:05. Reason: double post

  2. #2

    Default

    Kermit,
    Just so you know, the movement scales in the two versions are different.

    WGF: 1/900 scale, approximately

    WGS: 1/2250 scale, very approximately

    So, speeds between planes should be very different. With cards the same size, a SPAD XIII flying an A maneuver deck (WGF) is supposed to be moving at 130 MPH. Compare that with a Spitfire Mk.I using an A maneuver deck (WGS) that is supposed to be moving at 360-ish MPH. If I'm not mistaken, the WGS A arrow is slightly smaller (lengthwise) than the WGF A arrow. This should not be!

    Even the Gloster Gladiator Mk.I moves at 250 MPH, and uses the slow L maneuver deck. If it wasn't so restrictive, I'd consider using the WGS XA maneuver deck, for planes that flew around 200 MPH, but again, that is almost double the speed of the SPAD XIII.

    Not sure what you are going to do with this discrepancy. It would be similar to an F-14 and a Zero having at each other.

    PS: The time scale per movement card is similar, though. About 2 seconds each, IIRC. So, if you used the WGS planning system, and the damage chits from the WGS (All WGF planes use A damage chits, regardless of the number of guns), that works out.

    PPS: You might try this idea: Zoe Brain's Slow Aircaft Rules (without special cards needed)
    Perhaps using the L deck, but I haven't done the math on whether that is accurate for speed. It would have the nice tight turns that some of the more maneuverable planes should have (not necessarily the SPAD XIII).
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 09-18-2015 at 20:48.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  3. #3

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Kermit, never say never but on the whole the two games are not interchangeable / compatible with each other. You could I suppose try out a scenario where a WGS aircraft playing WGS Manoeuver cards comes up against a WGF aircraft playing WGF manoeuver cards.

    However another problem arises where in WGF you have to plan three cards whereas in WGF you only plan two according to the rulebook. May I also ask if you have seen the 1980 movie Final Countdown - it's the film where 'This is the USS Nimitz ... Where the hell are we?!' comes from. You may have to have one player focusing on the WGF side of the business whilst another player focuses on handling everything WGS at the same time. I'd jump at the chance to help you out in this experiment - seriously!

    Never say never says me ... Who just successfully put a Vulcan Bomber into the skies of WGS!!!

  4. #4

    Default

    I know the two games in its self would not be compatable without some major adjustments. I appreciate the advice and help, but by telling me it cant be done......well anything can be done altho it may look like lipstick on a pig. Advise is always welcome and any help of course would be greatly appreciated. Since I will be picking up a WGS game today, I will have a better understanding what im working with and what game modifications it would take to make it successful. I do plan on bouncing question, getting advice and playtesting. I look foward to working with anyone willing to experiment with this expansion idea. Thanks guys.

  5. #5

    Default

    As Mike already noted, checking out Zoe's method for slow planes:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post310819
    is a start. I have a excel file for the speeds each WGS deck covers by this method:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=1998
    That should give you a start on what WGS deck could be used for a WW1 plane.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    As Mike already noted, checking out Zoe's method for slow planes:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post310819
    is a start. I have a excel file for the speeds each WGS deck covers by this method:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=1998
    That should give you a start on what WGS deck could be used for a WW1 plane.
    Karl
    Karl,
    Looking at your Base Speed spread sheet, it indicates that the C and D deck fast speed is 130 MPH? Is that accurate?

    That means you could fly a SPAD XIII using that deck. Is this an "in scale" comparison using a two second interval, or what?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  7. #7

    Default

    Well I went out to the local game store and just my luck they were sold out of the starter set. Guess I will just order it online. I did however pick up a couple planes while I was out a supermarine spitfire MK.IXand a fock-wulf FW.190 D9 only because it was between these and numberous zeros. Looks like I may be ordering some planes as well. I was suprised to find the movement decks larger but it makes total sense. So during my most non eventful trip to the game store I did some thinking. If you ignore the model scales between WGF and WGS (1/144 and 1/200) for gaming purposes only and take a look at average maximum speeds lets say between a sopwith camel @115mph and a spitfire @325 mph it shows about 300% increase in total speed with this said and not putting any further thought into it we know WGS planes are about 3 times faster than a WGF plane. So for every single card played for the sopwith, 3 cards would be played for the spitfire. I think this would be the place to start, you could do the math and take into account the scale difference in speed, but if its a crossover expansion one would assume the same scale. The speed I showed earlier are assumption of max speed it may not be the exact speed of these planes.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spookiedfx View Post
    I did however pick up a couple planes while I was out a supermarine spitfire MK.IXand a fock-wulf FW.190 D9 only because it was between these and numberous zeros. Looks like I may be ordering some planes as well. I was suprised to find the movement decks larger but it makes total sense.
    The latest fighter releases for WGS (Fw-190D, Spitfire Mk.IX, P-51 and the Ki-84 are the so-called "fast fighters". Since their top speeds exceeded the length possible with the previously released "Euro-cards", which is the size used in WGF, as well as the previously released DoW/WGS fighters, and all the bombers, Ares used poker-deck sized cards.
    If you want to get in depth with this, check out these file from Zoe Brain:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=1651
    There's also a file with the listed maneuvers for the WGS planes, up to the fast fighters. I can't find it in the files, and since I was going to add the heavy bombers to it, and repost, I might do that today (since I'm still nursing a flu from yesterday, and the bombers have been sitting here for......well months).
    Karl

    PS: Maneuver list is on the base speed chart
    Last edited by Jager; 09-20-2015 at 02:09.
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Karl,
    Looking at your Base Speed spread sheet, it indicates that the C and D deck fast speed is 130 MPH? Is that accurate?

    That means you could fly a SPAD XIII using that deck. Is this an "in scale" comparison using a two second interval, or what?
    well, I'm hoping I did the math right
    Note: I did forget to change the Z decks to the arrow length speeds; they were already slower, and I probably just forgot
    I'll have to do them, and repost; probably after I add the heavies too
    Karl

    PS: I used Zoe's chart for the arrow lengths, not the one that the "Base Speed" file was based on; Zoe's was later, and I'm assuming more accurate
    Also, she didn't have her Z deck measurements on her chart, so that's why they didn't get base speeds
    KwE
    Last edited by Jager; 09-20-2015 at 02:08.
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  10. #10

    Default

    I went off on a tangent on another thread, and now I have a coffee-filled squirrel rampaging through my imagination with a bad idea that won't go away!

    What about this?

    Wings of Glory vs Space 1889/Sky Galleons of Mars

    Name:  hullcutter left.jpg
Views: 153
Size:  57.3 KB

    There are some paper models here:
    OneMonk.com - Paper Models

    If we thought Gothas were tough to bring down, this would be almost impossible. Armed with Gatling guns and grapeshot cannons, and armoured enough to stop cannon balls, you'd have to resort to crew kills to take it out.

    But, if you picked the right ships, there needn't be any sails?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  11. #11

    Default

    I had some gamer buddies years (well, decades) ago doing up some speculative work on the "logical" progression to Space 1914, and Space 1939. Have to wonder if liftwood would have enhanced or degraded the evolution of planes.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  12. #12

    Default

    I can picture a nice Dystopian style Zeppelin carrier!
    See you on the Dark Side......

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    I can picture a nice Dystopian style Zeppelin carrier!

    I was thinking about leviathan-style warships.

    Wait...I have too much to do already!
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I had some gamer buddies years (well, decades) ago doing up some speculative work on the "logical" progression to Space 1914, and Space 1939. Have to wonder if liftwood would have enhanced or degraded the evolution of planes.
    Karl
    Same here -- I even still have the _Space:1889_/_Richthofen's War_ crossover rules I came up with. WW2 runs into the usual problem of "the airplanes are too damned fast"; I had to go full-custom for those. (For purposes of this article: "Airplane" or "aircraft" refers to a heavier-than-air powered unit; "flyer" refers to the cloudship/aerial gunboat as seen in _S:1889_.)

    The main problem for WW1 is: Aside from bombs, WW1 acft. could not carry firepower heavy enough to affect even moderately-armored flyers (MGs all have Penetration 0; unless the flyer is unarmored, forget it); the most an airplane could do is spot for the gunners of a flyer. So, one ends up playing two separate games at one, rather than having real interaction between them.

    WW2 has the same problem as Reality: By now, the acft. are powerful enough, and fast enough, that a flyer can neither run away nor avoid being "fuzzy-wuzzied" by massed air power. (B-25G and H, anyone?) So the flyers don't get to be anything besides pop-up targets for the acft. -- and that being so, there's not much point to including them to start with.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Same here -- I even still have the _Space:1889_/_Richthofen's War_ crossover rules I came up with. WW2 runs into the usual problem of "the airplanes are too damned fast"; I had to go full-custom for those. (For purposes of this article: "Airplane" or "aircraft" refers to a heavier-than-air powered unit; "flyer" refers to the cloudship/aerial gunboat as seen in _S:1889_.)

    The main problem for WW1 is: Aside from bombs, WW1 acft. could not carry firepower heavy enough to affect even moderately-armored flyers (MGs all have Penetration 0; unless the flyer is unarmored, forget it); the most an airplane could do is spot for the gunners of a flyer. So, one ends up playing two separate games at one, rather than having real interaction between them.

    WW2 has the same problem as Reality: By now, the acft. are powerful enough, and fast enough, that a flyer can neither run away nor avoid being "fuzzy-wuzzied" by massed air power. (B-25G and H, anyone?) So the flyers don't get to be anything besides pop-up targets for the acft. -- and that being so, there's not much point to including them to start with.
    Wow, Chris,
    You know how to shoot an idea down in flames.

    Your info does highlight my recent research, and will help sedate that seriously hyperactive rodent. Thanks are in order, saving me spending waayyy too much time to eventually arrive at the same conclusion.

    The paper models would have been cool, though.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Wow, Chris,
    You know how to shoot an idea down in flames.
    Crushing Of Dreams is something I have a*LOT* of experience with....

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Your info does highlight my recent research, and will help sedate that seriously hyperactive rodent. Thanks are in order, saving me spending waayyy too much time to eventually arrive at the same conclusion.
    The rodents I use are renowned for their work ethic, and their tendency to not be hyperactive:



    :)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    The paper models would have been cool, though.
    [sigh] I still want someone to bring back the plastic models which came with _Cloudships and Gunboats_.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    The main problem for WW1 is: Aside from bombs, WW1 acft. could not carry firepower heavy enough to affect even moderately-armored flyers (MGs all have Penetration 0; unless the flyer is unarmored, forget it); the most an airplane could do is spot for the gunners of a flyer. So, one ends up playing two separate games at one, rather than having real interaction between them.
    So you invent the aerial torpedo (which the game has already IIRC)
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    So you invent the aerial torpedo (which the game has already IIRC)
    Karl
    Smutts Torps have one *major* fault: Penetration 1. They're only effective against mostly-unarmored targets -- full damage to Armor 0 or 1; half-damage to 2; nothing for anything 3+. (And if overpenetration rules are used, it's possible the torp will rip right through an Armor 0 target.)

    Coupled to this: An airplane can carry one, tops. Maybe a heavy bomber could carry two, but I doubt it; and the heavy is so unmaneuverable, it's going to be eating FlAK long before it gets into range (or worse, if the flyers are deploying their own fighters...). And the torps are unguided, so any fire much past one turn's movement means "miss" -- and with aerial targets, there's no chance of using water-hammer effect to turn a near-hit into actual damage.

    We played all this out -- I know how it works, and how it doesn't. It's a non-starter.

  19. #19

    matt56's Avatar May you forever fly in blue skies.
    Major

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Matt
    Location
    Ohio
    Sorties Flown
    4,107
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default

    I have always loved the Space 1889 premise - it's wonderful to see a 'sky galleon' in scale! Now THIS would be a mix of 'periods' I'd LOVE to play...

    All the best,
    Matt

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Smutts Torps have one *major* fault: Penetration 1. They're only effective against mostly-unarmored targets -- full damage to Armor 0 or 1; half-damage to 2; nothing for anything 3+. (And if overpenetration rules are used, it's possible the torp will rip right through an Armor 0 target.)

    Coupled to this: An airplane can carry one, tops. Maybe a heavy bomber could carry two, but I doubt it; and the heavy is so unmaneuverable, it's going to be eating FlAK long before it gets into range (or worse, if the flyers are deploying their own fighters...). And the torps are unguided, so any fire much past one turn's movement means "miss" -- and with aerial targets, there's no chance of using water-hammer effect to turn a near-hit into actual damage.

    We played all this out -- I know how it works, and how it doesn't. It's a non-starter.
    So no advance in aerial torpedo tech in 25 years?
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    So no advance in aerial torpedo tech in 25 years?
    Karl
    Maybe -- one would have to extrapolate what a common torpedo of ~1889 could do for damage, then figure out what the damage for a ~WW1 torpedo would be, then factor in the lack of "water-hammer" effect, *then* try to figure out if there was any airplane which could lift even one of those torpedoes (if memory serves, torpedo bombers didn't appear until the war was almost over; and those could only carry one at a time).

    That last was the real cruncher: There weren't any airplanes which could carry more than one torp; and those which could were sitting-ducks for escort fighters (yes, there were "escort carrier" flyers). So the evolution of combat tactics was "flyers fight flyers; airplanes fight airplanes" -- which is pretty-much as it played out in reality.



Similar Missions

  1. Wacky Wings of War
    By spookiedfx in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-07-2021, 10:00
  2. more wacky wing ideas
    By spookiedfx in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2015, 17:42
  3. historical wacky wing question
    By spookiedfx in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 16:34
  4. wacky wing wind
    By spookiedfx in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 00:49
  5. wacky wings 2
    By spookiedfx in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 15:16

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
  •