Thoughts on the WWI Card system

[McLaddie]

I'm interested in what veteran WoG players and WWI airwar enthusiasts think about the three card commitment played before new cards are chosen, particularly compared to the WWII 2 card rotation system.

I understand that the three cards are representing planes that are slower and maneuvers having to be more deliberate. What that the rationale? As the systems are more than time and distance representations, but the numbers of decisions and when they can be made, were WWI pilots forced to 'plan' further ahead than WWI pilots because of their particular aircraft?

Not a criticism, but rather an invitation on others' thoughts and if different variants have been tried as house rules.

Bill

[Sagrilarus]

I'm interested in what veteran WoG players and WWI airwar enthusiasts think about the three card commitment played before new cards are chosen, particularly compared to the WWII 2 card rotation system.

I understand that the three cards are representing planes that are slower and maneuvers having to be more deliberate. What that the rationale? As the systems are more than time and distance representations, but the numbers of decisions and when they can be made, were WWI pilots forced to 'plan' further ahead than WWI pilots because of their particular aircraft?

Not a criticism, but rather an invitation on others' thoughts and if different variants have been tried as house rules.

Bill

It presents a very different atmosphere to the game, more jovial and lighter of spirit. I think looking at WofG as a sim is a long long stretch. As a game WGF is great family entertainment. It think that was more on the designers' minda than reality.

[McLaddie]

It presents a very different atmosphere to the game, more jovial and lighter of spirit. I think looking at WofG as a sim is a long long stretch. As a game WGF is great family entertainment. It think that was more on the designers' minda than reality.

I can understand and appreciate that. I didn't start playing it because I was looking for a simulation. However, a lot of threads here do seem to deal with WoG as a sim. Just read one on how to do new maneuvers, a Falling Leaf and Barrel Roll and another dealing with why one plane is given a higher structure rating than another. The designer chose the card system for a reason. I mean, the WWII 2 card rotation system is entertaining too. Has the designer said why the difference? There was some effort at representation, right?

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I can understand and appreciate that. I didn't start playing it because I was looking for a simulation. However, a lot of threads here do seem to deal with WoG as a sim. Just read one on how to do new maneuvers, a Falling Leaf and Barrel Roll and another dealing with why one plane is given a higher structure rating than another. The designer chose the card system for a reason. I mean, the WWII 2 card rotation system is entertaining too. Has the designer said why the difference? There was some effort at representation, right?

The two card system introduced with the WW2 game was designed to be played at a faster pace to complement the faster speeds and more responsive handling characteristics of aircraft of that era, compared with those of the First World War.

[OldGuy59]

This answers the question best (IMHO):

Maybe you already read something like that somewhere else, but here you have (again) an explanation:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/10501696#10501696

[David Manley]

See my comment on TMP regarding our "single card" WW1 variant.....

[flash]

This answers the question best (IMHO):

Certainly does Mike, saved me a lot of explaining !

I'm interested in what veteran WoG players and WWI airwar enthusiasts think about the three card commitment played before new cards are chosen, particularly compared to the WWII 2 card rotation system...
Not a criticism, but rather an invitation on others' thoughts and if different variants have been tried as house rules.

I'm fine with three cards but have played a number of 1 card selection games at a club level, it does mean that you can respond rapidly to a changing situation, however that can be a double edged sword in that others can respond to your moves in similar fashion. The lads playing it enjoyed it, particularly those who struggled to cope with visualising the three card planning required for the standard game and I suppose it levelled the playing field a little.

[surfimp]

In terms of making a fun game, I think the 3 card system of WGF is a great mechanic. It offers a good deal of control, but also requires you to really commit to something, and it can lead to some really delightful gameplay when something unexpected happens.

In terms of simulating real aircraft - IMHO, there are great computer flight sims for that, which will do a far better job than any tabletop miniatures game can ever hope to achieve.

With that said, I feel that WoG is actually a pretty darn good tabletop simulator. It's not perfect, and in truth all of these planes are far more agile than the 3 card system gives them credit for, but at the same time the planes manage to "feel right". You definitely get the sense that you're zooming your plane around the table and engaging in a thrilling and for the most part fairly realistic dogfight. Tactics that work in real life and/or a computer sim will work on the table, too.

My only real complaint is that there's a bit of a strong tendency for the game to devolve into a series of back-to-back Immelmanns with head-on passes in between. Depending on the planes involved, it can be nearly impossible to "safely" disengage from such a sequence - as it's hard to get out of range of the guns if you choose not to mirror your opponent's Immelmann. So, rather than suffering damage without inflicting some in return, the "better" move (based on the game mechanics) is often to accept the head-on by matching your opponent's Immelmann with one of your own. Such sequences become very swingy (whoever gets stuck with the worse damage draw loses) and are not very historical.

There are ways to mitigate the above via the altitude rules and similar, but it's really my only criticism of the card planning mechanics, which otherwise feel very good to me at doing what they're meant to do in a satisfying way.

[Nicola Zee]

I have always played using the 3 card system but next week at a con I will be running a Zeppelin scenario using a 2 card system.
The 2 card system is play 2 and the last card played remains out and cannot be played that turn

As the Zeppelin takes up a lot of space on the table I'm using the 2 card system to reduce the chance of planes flying into it.
My husband and I have tried the scenario and it worked well in that the planes could target parts of the zeppelin much more accurately.

It will be interesting for me to get feedback from the players about which they prefer. I like the chaos and unexpected outcomes of the 3 card system but I suspect some of the players may prefer the greater control of the 2 card system.

[Zoe Brain]

Look on it this way - you could have a deck of 50 different cards, each of which represents a 6 second maneuver, such as a gentle climbing right turn, a sharp left break etc. Then play one at a time, with opportunities for shooting after moving 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 of the move distance for the card.

Or you can have a deck of about 20 cards, and "compose" your gentle climbing right turn with a climb, right turn, and right sideslip, and your sharp left break with 3 successive left turns, playing 3 at a time, with a firing opportunity after each card. There a small difference,the climb should really be spread over the whole turn instead of suddenly taking full effect at some 1/3 move point, but prdtty close, and there's even more flexibility in composing your own maneuver than you'd get from a deck of 50 single cards.

For WWII, a decision point every 2 secs with a 2 sec delay while the zircraft does what you last commanded it toworks. When nightfighting, consider using 2 decks and playing 4 cards at a time,simulating the fact that visibility is so poor, you don't get instant recognition of what the target is doing,so reaction tiimez are longer.

A Decision point every 6 seconds is about right for WWI.

[McLaddie]

Mike:

Thank you for the link to Andrea's explanation. That really helped.

All:

It is fun to hear what others have been doing with the rules. One friend suggested that as a compromise, if a straight card is played on the first card, the third card can be changed after the first is played. [Sort of a neutral flight that leaves open options in movement. Pilot looking around etc.] But, we haven't played the three card system enough to really 'grok' it, if I can date myself. The explanation helps describe what we are pretending to do.

Bill

[skyking20]

Lots of valid comments here. I think one idea that has been left out is the idea that all of this was new. These men were not only pioneers in flying but the first to actually fight in the skies. By WW2 you have an added about 25 years of flying experience and technical development. Also aircraft maintenance was a new art form. So the honing of instincts, feeling confident about the craft and its condition are added to the experience, or lack thereof, of the pilot.

[Sagrilarus]

Lots of valid comments here. I think one idea that has been left out is the idea that all of this was new. These men were not only pioneers in flying but the first to actually fight in the skies. By WW2 you have an added about 25 years of flying experience and technical development. Also aircraft maintenance was a new art form. So the honing of instincts, feeling confident about the craft and its condition are added to the experience, or lack thereof, of the pilot.

I'll lean into that concept as well with the maturing of the art of air combat. By World War II pilots were sitting down in briefing rooms to be told the exact best practice for the aircraft they were encountering. I don't see anything similar in World War I memoirs, where that kind of conversation was informal, and generally on a face to face basis between pilots. Air Combat as a business process became formalized and optimized by the time you reach World War II.

At least for some combatants. The Japanese seemed to lag in this part of the picture, and that did them no favors later in the war.

I'll be honest, I think the designers were more concerned about the spirit of the gameplay when they came to this decision, and I know a couple of designers that sit back watching playtesters and count smiles. I think with the brightly colored airplanes and the nearly 100 years of removal from the war they opted for a more family-friendly, lighter play. Andrea could speak to this of course. The WW2 version of the game gave the opportunity to produce a different play from very similar rules, providing a second game that didn't directly conflict with the first. The fact that air combat changed greatly in the interim made the changes easy to justify.

[Ken at Sunrise]

Mike I read your link to Andrea's explanation also.

Wow, that is a welcome revelation. Now I understand it better and it makes far more sense. I was comparing the single turn of other games to each played card of this game. Explaining it as he, Andrea, did actually makes this system seem better. I was pondering why we don't have different throttle speeds in WoG WWI. But I suppose we do since it takes three cards to equal one turn of other games. Three Straights is fast. A Straight, Stall and another Straight is a middling speed. Finally Stall, Straight followed by another stall would be a slow. Clarity in knowledge.

Thank you for citing the explanation.

[McLaddie]

[QUOTE=Lots of valid comments here. I think one idea that has been left out is the idea that all of this was new. These men were not only pioneers in flying but the first to actually fight in the skies. By WW2 you have an added about 25 years of flying experience and technical development. Also aircraft maintenance was a new art form. So the honing of instincts, feeling confident about the craft and its condition are added to the experience, or lack thereof, of the pilot.[/QUOTE]


Good point, Lance, one I hadn't considered. I imagine doing the Immelman for the first time would have been a sphincter-cramping experience.

Bill

[McLaddie]

I'll be honest, I think the designers were more concerned about the spirit of the gameplay when they came to this decision, and I know a couple of designers that sit back watching playtesters and count smiles.

John: That certainly is one way of knowing 'how it is going' with a game design. The designer of "Settlers of Cattan" did the same thing.

[gully_raker]

Mike I read your link to Andrea's explanation also.

Wow, that is a welcome revelation. Now I understand it better and it makes far more sense. I was comparing the single turn of other games to each played card of this game. Explaining it as he, Andrea, did actually makes this system seem better. I was pondering why we don't have different throttle speeds in WoG WWI. But I suppose we do since it takes three cards to equal one turn of other games. Three Straights is fast. A Straight, Stall and another Straight is a middling speed. Finally Stall, Straight followed by another stall would be a slow. Clarity in knowledge.

Thank you for citing the explanation.

Plus of course Ken the different speeds of the various aircraft are shown by the length of the "Straight" Arrow on the different manoeuvre decks.

[Ken at Sunrise]

Plus of course Ken the different speeds of the various aircraft are shown by the length of the "Straight" Arrow on the different manoeuvre decks.

Oh of course, to be sure quite true. But specifically, I was referring to an aircraft flying straight; knowing this explains different speed for a given aircraft.

[Mike George]

The system as is, is GREAT. What we need is a good campaign system, putting every thing together.

[Canestri10]

I have a question regarding the WW1 cards.

I was away on my Summer camping holiday introducing the game to family member using the Red Baron duel pack. He loved it btw but we found that there were no sharp left turns for either planes to be found in any of the decks. His Fokker had 2 sharp rights and my Camel had 3 sharp rights.

Why? We pretty much came to a point on the mat where we both needed it or we flew off the edge. Is my pack missing cards or is there a logical explanation for this that I'm missing?

Any help would be appreciated thanks.

[Teaticket]

I have a question regarding the WW1 cards.

I was away on my Summer camping holiday introducing the game to family member using the Red Baron duel pack. He loved it btw but we found that there were no sharp left turns for either planes to be found in any of the decks. His Fokker had 2 sharp rights and my Camel had 3 sharp rights.

Why? We pretty much came to a point on the mat where we both needed it or we flew off the edge. Is my pack missing cards or is there a logical explanation for this that I'm missing?

Any help would be appreciated thanks.

The Dr1 and Camel were both powered by rotary engines which were notorious for their torque to the right. You are not missing any cards, that is the characteristic on how the planes flew.

[Teaticket]

The system as is, is GREAT. What we need is a good campaign system, putting every thing together.

Check oput the solo campaign rules. Rules for when planes should break off, (not fight suicidal battles) buliding up ace skills, results from being shot down but not necessarily dying, (it is an option though!) recovery from wounds, losing turning ability due to rudder jams... lots of good stuff. There are a lot of scenarios for these campaigns so it is easy to pick out ones you think are interesting for a campaign of your own.

[Canestri10]

The Dr1 and Camel were both powered by rotary engines which were notorious for their torque to the right. You are not missing any cards, that is the characteristic on how the planes flew.

I knew there was a logical explanation! Cheers Peter