Out of the Sun

[Charlie3]

It seems that every book I have read about aircraft combat, has the same favorite attack in it. Diving in out of the sun, or having the sun at your tail so that the opposing aircraft have to look at the sun.

So I had a thought today, Cut a 4 inch (10cm) circle out of yellow paper, felt, craft foam, or foam core board with a red center dot on it. Place the Sun on one of the short sides of the game table (east and west) depending on what time of day it is supposed to be or along one long side (south) for mid-day. If a plane falls within a line of sight from a firing aircraft to the center dot of the sun, the attacking pilot/observer is at a disadvantage for firing.

That being outlined, what would be best rule for a firing disadvantage? One of the objectives of this site to toss around ideas and opinions, and since I know there are plenty of both here, let's here some on this subject.

[Scoop]

Personally I think it's too complicated. You propably need a die to determine if the pilot can fire or not, or he can only fire at half range while looking at the sun. You also have to think about clouds and altitude then.

[usmc1855]

I agree with scoop, in that altitude would need to be considered as a factor, more specifically, the altitude differences with the planes. Obviously the attacker with the sun at his back would have to be diving from a higher altitude, and I'd thank that either the maneuver in card in play at the time he fires, or the card immediately prior to the one on which he is firing, would have had to be a Dive card... all of this while in a direct line with the placement of the sun.

What effect would this have on the defender ? Perhaps he could not fire in the first maneuver phase in which the attacker is firing on him, thus simulating the effect of being temporarily 'sun blinded'.

[Oberst Hajj]

To keep it simple, I would say that altitude does not need to effect it. Two planes can be at the same altitude with the sun directly behind them... it just needs to be earlier or later in the day. Think about driving to work heading east in the mornings... the sun is right in your eyes.

As for game mechanics, I would say use the reverse of the Ace Skill Bull's Eye when the defender fires "in to the sun". Basically, the plane that is firing on the one coming out of the sun draws two damage cards, and the target plane decides which one to keep. It's simple and uses optional rules that are already in place.

[Scoop]

Sounds good.

[krolik]

To keep it simple, I would say that altitude does not need to effect it. Two planes can be at the same altitude with the sun directly behind them... it just needs to be earlier or later in the day. Think about driving to work heading east in the mornings... the sun is right in your eyes.

As for game mechanics, I would say use the reverse of the Ace Skill Bull's Eye when the defender fires "in to the sun". Basically, the plane that is firing on the one coming out of the sun draws two damage cards, and the target plane decides which one to keep. It's simple and uses optional rules that are already in place.

This sounds reasonable to me if you want to add in something like this. Keep it simple works well with this game.

[The Blue Baron]

Nice ideas!

[Charlie3]

To keep it simple, I would say that altitude does not need to effect it. Two planes can be at the same altitude with the sun directly behind them... it just needs to be earlier or later in the day. Think about driving to work heading east in the mornings... the sun is right in your eyes.

As for game mechanics, I would say use the reverse of the Ace Skill Bull's Eye when the defender fires "in to the sun". Basically, the plane that is firing on the one coming out of the sun draws two damage cards, and the target plane decides which one to keep. It's simple and uses optional rules that are already in place.

Sorry I had to take a time out after starting this post...

I agree with the Col. on the sun in your eyes bit, and really like the idea of the reverse Bull's Eye rule for shooting at a target in the sun.

However, what about a shooting advantage to the attacker. I was thinking about a +1 to the damage card because the target pilot can't really see the attacker well enough to try to avoid his attack.

[Charlie3]

... You also have to think about clouds and altitude then.

Sounds simple enough, if a cloud is in the LOS between the sun and aircraft, no bonus. We occasionally have cloud banks on our table to fly through and they block LOS anyway.

I can't imagine in game terms that one altitude level will make much difference to being blinded since you really can't look in the general direction of the sun and not have a glare problem.

[Oberst Hajj]

You could go with the +1 to the attacker, but I don't think it is really needed. The game does not contend with planes jinking and evading beyond the maneuvers players pick... so I would not add that in my self.

[MayorJim]

Nice idea...but w a y too much "extra" stuff for my pea brain to deal with. I realize that a lot of folks are into the "super realism" part of this game...I'm just more into the "let's have fun" and not worry about the details part...

[grumpybear]

I agree with MayorJim . Having played many complex games it is nice to have a simpler one.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I agree with MayorJim . Having played many complex games it is nice to have a simpler one.

Yes after years of setting up huge tables full of wargame armies, it makes a refreshing change to be able to achieve a result in half an hour or so. Thewn we tinker with the rules. It seems to be a fact that we are never satisfied to leave any rule set alone. Are we being insulting to the designer by doing this? One assumes that he has spent many hours factoring in all the nits we pick and reducing them to a minimum by tweaking the rules to reflect each variation. Then we go and want chapter and verse on the drag effect of the paint used on different wing surfaces. As if that makes any difference to your chances of ending up as a smear on the landscape." It was the Red Baron wot done it again sir".
Rob.

[flash]

I very much agree with what you say Rob but I think it's human nature - the anorak within us all to tweak the rules to our liking !

So for those that like to do so I would suggest in answer to Charlies question about the shooting advantage to the attacker:
Instead of +1 to a card why not give him the Bulls Eye Ace Skill for that attack ?

[Charlie3]

Yes after years of setting up huge tables full of wargame armies, it makes a refreshing change to be able to achieve a result in half an hour or so. Thewn we tinker with the rules. It seems to be a fact that we are never satisfied to leave any rule set alone. Are we being insulting to the designer by doing this? One assumes that he has spent many hours factoring in all the nits we pick and reducing them to a minimum by tweaking the rules to reflect each variation. Then we go and want chapter and verse on the drag effect of the paint used on different wing surfaces. As if that makes any difference to your chances of ending up as a smear on the landscape." It was the Red Baron wot done it again sir".
Rob.

I think the very essence of a successful game is that we want to "tinker" with it, to make it our own. Oh and that drag effect thing is 4 for all colors other than RED which is only 2 hence the success of the all red plane!

[Bartman]

We use a parasitic drag variant based on the differing lead levels contained in the various manufacturers paint types used by each of the major production factories represented by the aircraft cards available.

[wargamer]

We use a parasitic drag variant based on the differing lead levels contained in the various manufacturers paint types used by each of the major production factories represented by the aircraft cards available.

obviously y'all need to downgrade down to a more simplistic game like canvas eagles

[Bartman]

Hahahaha!

I had to post that. I just had to post that Al

[Hunter]

We use a parasitic drag variant based on the differing lead levels contained in the various manufacturers paint types used by each of the major production factories represented by the aircraft cards available.

What? Does this mean the pilot has a tapeworm or something like a Remora? LOL

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Hahahaha!

I had to post that. I just had to post that Al

I know exactly how you feel.Bart I loved it.
Rob.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

An old thread but a new take on coming 'Out of the Sun':

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I like the simple answers Carl, and this is one that I will adopt unless a cloud is between the two aircraft and the Sun.
Rob.

[Flying Helmut]

Nice idea, except for the die roll part;


NO DICE!!!!!

I will need a card draw alternative.

[Mike George]

Get cards with 1-8 on them and draw one at random!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Place a D damage card face down at each of the points then turn them over. The highest number = Sun location.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Actually you could do it with five. The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Roll a six and it is a cloudy overcast day.
Rob.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Actually you could do it with five. The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Roll a six and it is a cloudy overcast day.
Rob.

The idea of the 8 points was that one would never be sure exactly where the sun was in relation to the map. If you were running a scenario you could fix the Sun in a given point, or as you say declare cloud cover and have no sun at all.

[tikkifriend]

As a bear with very little brain I can appreciate that the position of the sun is worthy of inclusion but I think I would struggle with another advanced/house rule in the game.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

As a bear with very little brain I can appreciate that the position of the sun is worthy of inclusion but I think I would struggle with another advanced/house rule in the game.

You could also use it just for the first turn of a battle where it has been determined one side has the advantage of attacking out of the sun.

[Bunnyman]

It looks like the rules already accommodated your request. On page 19., "Firing from above", When an airplane fires at a target one altitude level below, it receives the +1 Aiming bonus for the first phase of fire. The attacker doesn't have to wait for the target to be in his/her sights for the 2nd phase.

I also like the "Reverse Sniper" idea for the defending plane, shooting into the sun, having to issue damage card(s) to their target who gets to secretly choose which one(s) (s)he wants.

[Bunnyman]

This is great. Not only will my opponents and I be maneuver into advantageous firing positions, but we will also try to do so with the sun behind us - cool! It's fun to tinker with a game I love, especially since it's the only game I play regularly.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Glad this old thread is still of use to someone Mike.

Rob.

[Bunnyman]

Rob,

I intend to go through all of the threads, one at a time and oldest to newest. It will take some time, but I already found the experience to be worthwhile.

Mike.

[OldGuy59]

Whatever is decided, please keep in mind that the game has been designed not to use more than a single +1 modifier on any attack. The below is one example:

Aim Bonus:
Q: In a situation of aiming at short range:
The two cards damage received damage bonus of +1?
(example (CD 1p +1) + (CD 2p +1)=5 points of damage).
A: Correct, at close range both cards receive the +1 bonus.
NB. Bonuses are not cumulative so for example if diving and having an Aim bonus you don't get a +2 (Source: Andrea)
AND a zero is always a zero, so no +1 on them..!

Source-> >> FAQs & Points of Interest <<+>>Ace Skills & Optional Rules<<

There might be a place for a "Tactics" card? Like the "Flying Doctrine" card for not performing Immelmann Turns in RFC two-seaters.

[OldGuy59]

Draft attempt?



Thoughts?

[Bunnyman]

Mike,

Thank you for sharing this custom made Wings of Glory Aerodrome House Rule card with me. It looks very professional, and I will include the information with my house rules. I look forward to play testing them with my group.

Mike G.

[zenlizard]

Mike's write-up does make a lot of sense, and is in line with the game's original concept of "elegant simplicity":

AS LONG as "sun behind the attacker" is easily and clearly defined. I think that's what this whole thread has struggled with since the beginning.