Anyone tried assigning maneuvre cards in a different way?
In the game you pre-allocate your 3 maneuver cards at the start for that game turn- has anyone ever tried allocating only one card per maneuver phase (like in the X-wing miniatures game). Just been toying with the idea of experimenting with this variant on play - any thoughts?
I haven't done this... I think the reasoning behind the three-card sequence in WGF was to model the maneuverability (or lack thereof) of the kites. By that reasoning, the two-card sequence in WGS was intended to model faster, more powerful aircraft.Originally Posted by strontiumdog
In the game you pre-allocate your 3 maneuver cards at the start for that game turn
I think.
Done this at club level in the past, it works great and the lads liked it a lot. The only proviso was that the game turn still lasted 3 moves and you lay the card on the cockpit so it wasn't available again until the next turn - this stops you getting more special moves than you should get in a turn and helps track special damage etc. It makes for a far more dynamic game as you can react immediately to moves and pretty much eliminates the wide separation that can occur when you get it wrong !
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Yes done this and yes it can be more exciting, makes you think a bit more.
Personally I prefer the three card version though, makes it a bit more sedate and more in the way of new fangled machines, in my humble that is
I have yet to try this and can see the merit. Might keep some of my more easily distracted friends focused
On one hand I find it upsetting, yet comical when I get to my third maneuver, have totally anticipated the enemy wrong, and end up way out in left field.
I'm of this mind as well...
...but I do like this variant. Will have to give this a little more thought.
The Misses & I have played that way.liked it very much.also used in a three player game each flying a pair of planes.which worked real well.we like to play no jams also.moves the game along!
Haven't tried this variant, but would like to.
I do feel that having to predict your enemy's moves, and getting it spectacularly wrong (funny!) make for a very entertaining game.
I suspect that one-card-only would produce a more deadly, serious combat.
We tried it a long while ago no one cared for it so went for 3 card planing
Had not thought of doing that but have played One card at a time in WW2 games to help new chums get their heads around the play.
I think this could be fun. I'll give it a try sometime.
I like what Flash says about using the 3 cards at a time to keep the planes from doing maneuvers they really couldn't.
Although, I like the 3 card system for its unpredictability. When I get it wrong, it's obvious, but when I get it right, it is sooo satisfying. Rat-a-tat-tat!
1 card play is deadly when you get behind your opponent, as it should be. I have tried a variant where an ace that is behind you but not tailing in the rules depiction still gets the choice of maneuver card to play as if he was tailing.
See you on the Dark Side......
That's a nice twist. Consider that idea borrowed.
Thanks for the input guys nice to see the varying views on the subject. Might give it a go next time i play, certainly i would discard each card used like you say Flash.
Cheers!
Yes, I've done it. It really does feel more like a dogfight IMHO.
Only used for special occasions with like-minded players
Good collision avoidance tactic ...
For my _Crimson Skies_/_WoG_ crossover: Rookie pilots had to plot two cards in advance; regular pilots, one card; Aces, no cards.
I like the idea of this and will have to give it a try sometime.
As DM said, it does really give the feel of a dogfight and can be...unforgiving...But it keeps everyone engaged, in more sense than one !
Stick with the three card turn discard as that's vital to the game mechanics & tracking everything. I think you'll enjoy it.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Whilst browsing through my files I found this about the three card system that I have attributed to Andrea - though I can't remember now where I found it, except it's probably from a similar discussion, I thought you chaps might find it interesting in light of the subject discussed:
Andrea:
....To understand why three cards were chosen to compose a turn: In traditional air wargames as Blue Max or Dawn Patrol or Aces High, the manoeuvres you do in a turn are roughly equivalent to the ones you can build with the three cards of a WoW turn, but you fire at the end of movement only. In Wings of War the turn has been split in three steps and so you fire in each of them: at one third of the movement and at two thirds of the movement, besides than at the end. This allows you to fire to fire during the turn at a target that you do not have in sight at the end of the turn: in previous simulations quoted, you could not fire at them at all. You can also deal more damage to planes that you followed all along the turn, and not just got in sight at the very last minute: more realistic, and making a deflection bonus less necessary.
So actually the three cards are three thirds of a traditional simulation turn. This is how the simulation has been conceived.
Not to say that it is the best system, just to understand the reasons why it has been designed in that way. Years later, the more "nervous" system for WW2 has been conceived.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Thanks for that, Dave. I think I knew that at one point, but had since forgotten.
That is very clever Dave
Even though that clears up the reason for three cards, it does not preclude the one card option, as it does not effect the game mechanism. I play a card and then place it in the slot on the cockpit mat. At the end of the turn you have three cards. It does mean that you can react to fire, and turning restriction cards more quickly, however.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Certainly not Rob
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I know this is a very old thread but offer the excuse of newness-to-the-forum to read and add to it.
I have found in solitaire play that playing one card per plane at a time lets me more easily handle a larger number of aircraft with my available maneuver decks, and gives the appearance of each 'pilot' reacting immediately to the prior action. So it ends up, for example, going like this: plane 1 card; anyone fires; plane 2 card; fire; plane 3 card; fire; plane 1 next card; fire, and the cycle continues...
Not sure I like the idea of this, if I'm following correctly. One plane moves, everyone can shoot, even if they haven't moved? Then, the next plane moves, and everyone can shoot again? If that is the case, then you are allowing wwwaaaayyyyy more shooting than should be possible.
If you implement ammo limits, everyone would run out of ammo in a turn or two.
Each three moves is a six-second turn, and you are allowing everyone to react to movement around them like they are all on copious amounts of Speed. No-one would be able to pull the trigger that many times, and the guns would melt from the heat. The damage cards are designed with a representative damage based on an average of the amount of bullets machine-guns could fire in a two second burst. Allowing everyone to fire after every single plane moved would require you to cut the damage down by the number of planes flying on the table, as well.
But, that is just if I misunderstood what you are describing.
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
Sorry for not being clear, Mike. I should've emphasized that I have explored picking card-by-card for each plane so they all seem to move constantly and incrementally in relation to one another, and if, after a card is played, someone is in range, that fire is resolved. And I certainly fudge things - for example, a plane with a tally on another can fire again after a few more cards are played.
I think I like the 3 card system, as it makes planes act more like real planes with real pilots to me. I think players like to get stuck in and stay stuck in, where a real pilot, fighting for his life, might dodge out of action for a breather, or to check his plane for damage, or simply get confused!
Have to look at it closer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks