Ares Games

View Poll Results: For altitude

Voters
116. You may not vote on this poll
  • you use no rules at all

    28 24.14%
  • you use the rules in the rulebook

    54 46.55%
  • you use the rulebook rules, but modified

    25 21.55%
  • you use totally different rules

    9 7.76%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 114

Thread: Altitude rules?

  1. #51


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Jody
    Location
    New Zealand
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default

    yeah i think altitude rules def need tweeking. something more streamlined, perhaps...
    * an altitude dice for each plane? this will make it easy to compare planes at a glance, or something on your planning board? a dial? i know a few systems are out there and have been trialled.
    * planes at higher altitude might get a tactical advantage that translates into more damage or better chance of doing damage (eg. if u draw a zero you can draw one extra card?)
    *i am a little rusty on the altitude rules in the rulebook - can u shoot at half ruler length when u r 2 altitude lvls apart or just when u r one altitude lvl apart? i think u should be able to still hit them when ur 2 altitude lvls apart but u hav to execute a certain manouvre (climb/dive) at the time u fire (simulating shooting from above or below the target).

    just thinking out loud. at present the current altitude rules from the rulebook are over complicated and slow the game down too much.

  2. #52

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azrael View Post
    We are relative newbies to the game so we still don't play with the altitude rules.
    Down at my LGC the majority of those seem to be against playing with them, even the campaign currently running doesn't use them as it they say it dilutes the amount of damage you can dish out.
    I will reserve judgement a little longer.
    Nice if you`re a more experienced player, less so if you are new to the game but then, probably most of us have run in to this sort of thing at clubs at one time or another.
    What they are just saying is that they can win more easily if you limit the options and tactics available.
    To my mind this is an air war game, you cant really play it properly in 2D as you just cant use all of the classic moves of this kind of combat.
    Its like playing chess without the knights because the moves are `too complicated`!
    Last edited by Rabbit 3; 09-21-2011 at 12:30.

  3. #53

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi_Ace View Post
    yeah i think altitude rules def need tweeking. something more streamlined, perhaps...
    * an altitude dice for each plane? this will make it easy to compare planes at a glance, or something on your planning board? a dial? i know a few systems are out there and have been trialled.
    Thats what the pegs (or counters) are for anyway, perhaps the coloured pegs or bigger ones might help?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi_Ace View Post
    * planes at higher altitude might get a tactical advantage that translates into more damage or better chance of doing damage (eg. if u draw a zero you can draw one extra card?).
    No additions or changes are neccessary. Planes at a higher altitude have an automatic positional advantage in being able to pick and chose where and when to attack. You don`t need any artificial rules to simulate this, just be smart enough to exploit it!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi_Ace View Post
    * i am a little rusty on the altitude rules in the rulebook - can u shoot at half ruler length when u r 2 altitude lvls apart or just when u r one altitude lvl apart? i think u should be able to still hit them when ur 2 altitude lvls apart but u hav to execute a certain manouvre (climb/dive) at the time u fire (simulating shooting from above or below the target)..
    As things stand, you can fire at a plane 1 level above or below you if you are at 1/2 a rulers distance or less. Any greater difference is `out of range`. This is because the hight represented by one peg is much greater than the actual scale size of the peg.
    With one or two exceptions most planes of the period represented would not even be able to get in to the position you suggest and be able to shoot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi_Ace View Post
    * just thinking out loud. at present the current altitude rules from the rulebook are over complicated and slow the game down too much.
    To me they are about as simple as they could have been made and still represent what happens in the real world.
    As has already been pointed out, most of the attempts by people to `fix` the rules just make things more complicated.
    Last edited by Rabbit 3; 09-21-2011 at 13:24.

  4. #54

    Default

    For casual games we dont use altitude but we do in campaign games

  5. #55

    Default

    I voted for the box rules but me and my friends us simple rule. Climb and you go up one peg dive and you go down one peg. If there is a two-seater than you double it two climbs and you go up and two dives and you go down.

    Now this is just for WWI.

  6. #56

    Default

    I don't use the altitude rules at all as I do not see any benefit in introducing a complexity which is not needed. I suspect that once the dogfight occurs altitude has pretty much no effect as the whole point is to close and kill, and the best way to do that is to be at the same altitude. OK, if you have a plane in trouble it can dive out of it, but in that case victory is yours any way. But, as I said, I have not played with altitude and have no wish to do so.

  7. #57


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Jody
    Location
    New Zealand
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belis4rius View Post
    I don't use the altitude rules at all as I do not see any benefit in introducing a complexity which is not needed. I suspect that once the dogfight occurs altitude has pretty much no effect as the whole point is to close and kill, and the best way to do that is to be at the same altitude. OK, if you have a plane in trouble it can dive out of it, but in that case victory is yours any way. But, as I said, I have not played with altitude and have no wish to do so.
    i agree that the altitude rules do add too much complexity to the game, its a matter of what suits your play group so you cant tell everyone to play by your rules or that their rules are silly because its totally up to how they want to play wow/wog

  8. #58

    Default

    Hunter and I use the rule book altitude rules for the most part, although we are not beyond tweeking them a bit as we see fit.

  9. #59

    Default

    I like the rules as they are. We use them in most games. In the last game I was using two pups against a Pfalz and an albatros by using altitude I was able to keep above them and reduce their ability to attack me. End result did some real damage to the Pfalz and ended winning the day.
    So altitude works for me.
    Linz

  10. #60

    Default

    I have been playing without the altitude rules, but last time we went the whole hog. After some discussion (the other fellas have played a lot of Canvas Eagles) we decided that shooting UP a level would be half range, but shooting DOWN would be full range. We will see, but I feel it may give too much power to those scouts that can climb really fast.

    Dave

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat of Vengence View Post
    I have been playing without the altitude rules, but last time we went the whole hog. After some discussion (the other fellas have played a lot of Canvas Eagles) we decided that shooting UP a level would be half range, but shooting DOWN would be full range. We will see, but I feel it may give too much power to those scouts that can climb really fast.

    Dave
    I have thought about the up and down shooting quite a bit. I've even gone so far as to inquire with a ballistics "expert" on the effects of shooting up or down. The effects and deflections are exactly the same. So, it's just as hard to shoot down at something as it is to shoot up as something. The range at which a difference does start to appear is well beyond the scope of aerial combat in this era.

  12. #62

    Default

    That is an interesting ccomment Herr Oberst. Having just mentioned Albert Ball in another thread, it put me in mind of my dilemma. To attack in his historically correct method he needs to dive under the opponents belly. A dive in the rules takes him down a level, so he can only ever deliver a long range hit. If he climbs on the other hand he can do it in increments using climb counters but loses any suprise advantage. As I have had to forfit the fixed gun for historical accuracy, this puts his fragile Nieuport at a distinct disadvantage against better armed and more robust opponents. It would be great if the rules allowed incremental dives of up to the one level limit to be performed.
    Any observations chaps?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  13. #63

    Default

    Rob, you can do incremental dives in the form a Split S. Not the best way, but possible.

  14. #64

    Default

    I agree that giving a longer distance to the higher plane than to the lower one has little sense from the simulation point of view. Besides I find quite dangerous, in game balance terms, to have planes that are able to shoot to targets who can not fire back. A bonus yes, free shots no IMHO.

  15. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I agree that giving a longer distance to the higher plane than to the lower one has little sense from the simulation point of view. Besides I find quite dangerous, in game balance terms, to have planes that are able to shoot to targets who can not fire back. A bonus yes, free shots no IMHO.
    At risk of sounding like a bootlicker: D'accord -- I have too much experience with munchkins who invariably find some way to abuse "free anything" rules.

  16. #66

    Default

    I think the altitude rules as they stand are o.k. but then I've never tried any house rules to see if they may work better... I don't use those studid altitude pegs even when I do play the odd game with the minis! I've glued all mine and just use a dial.

  17. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I agree that giving a longer distance to the higher plane than to the lower one has little sense from the simulation point of view. Besides I find quite dangerous, in game balance terms, to have planes that are able to shoot to targets who can not fire back. A bonus yes, free shots no IMHO.

    Yeah, that was my concern. I think they are trying to merge rules from Canvas Eagles in with it as they are more familiar with them. The reasoning was it is easier to aim at a target below you than one above you, as you don't run the risk of stalling. As I said, too much advantage for those faster-to-climb scouts.

    Dave

  18. #68

    Default

    I'm kind of with Max on this. I use the altitude rules occasionally. If I do I use them as written and they work fine. I don't worry about the altitude pegs unless my opponent wants to, instead I keep track of altitude with a die or just note it down on a piece of paper (old school )

  19. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Headroom View Post
    I think the altitude rules as they stand are o.k. but then I've never tried any house rules to see if they may work better... I don't use those studid altitude pegs even when I do play the odd game with the minis! I've glued all mine and just use a dial.
    Yes Max that is exactly what I do dial it up on the bases. With the Oberst's new Cockpits you have a backup dial as well, or you can use that one for fuel or whatever. I have not glued mine as such yet but have added a spot of superglue to the male peg to give a tighter fit.(No funny remarks please chaps)
    Thisd also fits in with my Giant bombers, which i deliberately put on longer acrylic rods, as I feel they look stupid hedge hopping on four pegs. They can now look in sync with the overall game but be dialled up or down to any height without having to remove a large number of pegs. I have adopted the same idea for balloons, and now with the Obersts, new little dials, even they can have their own set.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  20. #70

    Default

    I am with Rob on this one. With the advanced Cockpit I can better keep track of my altitude with out having to fiddle around with the plane stand and causing chaos on the games table with my schakey hands.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    That is an interesting ccomment Herr Oberst. Having just mentioned Albert Ball in another thread, it put me in mind of my dilemma. To attack in his historically correct method he needs to dive under the opponents belly. A dive in the rules takes him down a level, so he can only ever deliver a long range hit. If he climbs on the other hand he can do it in increments using climb counters but loses any suprise advantage. As I have had to forfit the fixed gun for historical accuracy, this puts his fragile Nieuport at a distinct disadvantage against better armed and more robust opponents. It would be great if the rules allowed incremental dives of up to the one level limit to be performed.
    Any observations chaps?
    Rob.
    The problem, Rob. is that this is a common situation in the war that is out of the scale of the game mechanics; there are a number of others, like no contiuous climbing/diving, climbing/diving only on straights etc. It will take more that a bit of chrome to add/correct these, I'm afraid.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  22. #72

    Default

    Here in the Valley we quickly found that the altitude rules were complex and slowed the the game unnecessarily, yet playing without them reduced the game to little more than battleship with collisions. The solution was to simplify the system by using the climb and dive cards to go up or down one level; it sacrifices some realism but makes the game playable. We quickly found that players want to stay in the fight as long as possible, so different climb rates were pretty much irrelevant. Immelmann and Split S moves are preceded by the appropriate climb or dive card and followed by the usual straight card.

    Because the pegs are so fiddly and unreliable, we dispensed with these altogether and use numbered chips to show which flight level we are at. Altitude cuts down the number of collisions significantly, but we went one step further: planes with overlapping bases at the same flight level cut the A damage deck and compare the number shown. The higher number is deemed to have flown over the lower and a collision only happens if both numbers match. It's quick, simple and works!

  23. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grumpybear View Post
    Playing a flying game without altitude is like playing a submarine game without submergeing.
    I totally agree with GrumpyBear. WoG is an aerial game. To leave altitude out of it is to play any land or surface battle. It also takes away much of what differentiates the various planes.

    I, also, have played many different game systems and really enjoy the delicate balance of realism and playability of WoG. The only altitude-related rule modification I (like SkyGuy above) have recently experimented with is that off keeping the climb markers during NORMAL dives; over-dives always remove ALL markers. This is really just a modified incorporation of one of the special ace rules as a norm as opposed to a special ability. It helps with those planes that climb like boulders.

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    That is an interesting ccomment Herr Oberst. Having just mentioned Albert Ball in another thread, it put me in mind of my dilemma. To attack in his historically correct method he needs to dive under the opponents belly. A dive in the rules takes him down a level, so he can only ever deliver a long range hit. If he climbs on the other hand he can do it in increments using climb counters but loses any suprise advantage. As I have had to forfit the fixed gun for historical accuracy, this puts his fragile Nieuport at a distinct disadvantage against better armed and more robust opponents. It would be great if the rules allowed incremental dives of up to the one level limit to be performed.
    Any observations chaps?
    Rob.
    IMHO there is enough 'wiggle room' in the rules as written to allow this: the bases are marked with a lateral "arc of fire" that the real airplanes never had with their fixed machine guns. This should be read in three dimensions, not two i.e a cone of fire rather than a wedge shaped angle. In the ground role, the Vickers and Spandau MG's actually put out a cone shaped 'beaten zone' at combat ranges.

    The game's original 2d arc assumed pilots would make small rudder corrections to get or maintain a bead on the enemy, and we all accept this; it's only logical to assume it also works in the vertical axis too, using the elevators instead of the rudder. Each flight level is actually a bracket of several hundred feet, so you can be within that level and still be slightly above or below your intended victim - (in reality probably jockeying up and down and trying to avoid his prop wash too)

    Watch out for the Hun in the Sun!

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belis4rius View Post
    I don't use the altitude rules at all as I do not see any benefit in introducing a complexity which is not needed. I suspect that once the dogfight occurs altitude has pretty much no effect as the whole point is to close and kill, and the best way to do that is to be at the same altitude. OK, if you have a plane in trouble it can dive out of it, but in that case victory is yours any way. But, as I said, I have not played with altitude and have no wish to do so.
    That's pretty much our view too, except that gives an unnatural advantage to 2 seaters as the best way to deal with them is to come up from behind and below them in their blind spot. Your shots are long range but you can usually get the +1 aim bonus. And of course you're not getting shot at in return!

    That's why we made our house rule of three levels (you're either gonna be above below or on the same level), playing a climb or dive card to go up or down one. Gets rid of a lot of collisions too.
    Last edited by Albert Ross; 08-17-2016 at 10:08.

  26. #76

    Default

    We do not use any altitude rules in our games, as we do not like the added complexity, it does not seem to add enjoyment to our games above using the 2-d rules.
    In my imagination, planes are slightly above or below other planes in games anyway as they bank and weave.

  27. #77

    Default

    I use altitude rules as written every game all the time. When teaching new players I always incorporate altitude from the start. I give them a cheat sheet with the special maneuvers listed where you gain and lose altitude and brief them on the 'red' cards. Not once in 7 years have I had a new player say 'this is too complex'.

    I think issues can arise where players are first introduced to the game playing 2D then try to get their heads around altitude later. Human nature being what it is people prefer what they know and can be resistant to change.
    Last edited by Carl_Brisgamer; 08-17-2016 at 19:04.

  28. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Brisgamer View Post
    I think issues can arise where players are first introduced to the game playing 2D then try to get their heads around altitude later. Human nature being what it is people prefer what they know and can be resistant to change.
    Change? Not with me or any of my local group: we've tried the "climb counters" method at conventions and found it just puts a drag on what is otherwise a smooth and elegant game; conversely it doesn't add anything in real terms - unless you are in a campaign where pilot health counts, breaking off and leaving the fight is totally pointless. That's why we came up with a simpler system.

  29. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross View Post
    it doesn't add anything in real terms - unless you are in a campaign where pilot health counts, breaking off and leaving the fight is totally pointless. That's why we came up with a simpler system.
    I don't agree. Climb counters are a representation of the climb capabilities of different aircraft, the same way top altitude number reflects their ceiling, damage points their durability and damage cards their firepower. If all aircraft are permitted to climb at the same rate it takes away tactical options available to aircraft that could use that superior ability.

    If different aircraft capabilities mean nothing we might as well give all models the same damage points and same firepower.

  30. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Brisgamer View Post
    If different aircraft capabilities mean nothing we might as well give all models the same damage points and same firepower.
    As stated above, those tactical options are pointless in a game where the objective is to get in close and eliminate your opponent. We've even tried six altitude levels instead of three, but all that meant was players tooling around the board for hours struggling to get to grips with an adversary four flight levels away, it may be realistic but it's also just plain boring. Some of these early machines could take over an hour just to climb to combat altitude - who wants to recreate that on a club night while the other side goes out for a burger and a coke?

    This is a simplified air combat themed game which never pretended to be an accurate flight simulator. In fact we do give the planes the same firepower, depending on whether they have a single MG or twin mount - we don't differentiate between a pan fed Lewis and a belt fed Spandau. YMMV

  31. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross View Post
    As stated above, those tactical options are pointless in a game where the objective is to get in close and eliminate your opponent.
    Altitude is one way of avoiding the continual head on pass phenomenon. Stalking your opponent from altitude can yield results, particularly where the pilot being stalked loses patience and tries to force the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross View Post
    early machines could take over an hour just to climb to combat altitude
    All early war aircraft all can't climb worth a damn so altitude doesn't play a great role there. I'm not suggesting you start aircraft substantially lower or higher, climbing from take off to 3000 metres would be pointless and as you say boring. Starting one side a level above or below can provide more of a challenge.
    Last edited by Carl_Brisgamer; 08-17-2016 at 22:17.

  32. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Brisgamer View Post
    Altitude is one way of avoiding the continual head on pass phenomenon...... But starting one side a level above or below can provide more of a challenge.
    Yes, we do that with our house rule; it does make a considerable difference - especially when we bring clouds into play too.

  33. #83

    Default

    I think there's a trade-off between altitude rules and speed. Air combat involves both the 3rd dimension and a fast moving pace. Some folks want the realism of altitude, and are willing to accept the slow-down in pace, whereas others are willing to sacrifice the realism to have a quicker moving game.

  34. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross View Post
    That's pretty much our view too, except that gives an unnatural advantage to 2 seaters as the best way to deal with them is to come up from behind and below them in their blind spot. Your shots are long range but you can usually get the +1 aim bonus. And of course you're not getting shot at in return!

    That's why we made our house rule of three levels (you're either gonna be above below or on the same level), playing a climb or dive card to go up or down one. Gets rid of a lot of collisions too.
    thats true but using altitude as is theres no way in the system for them to point their nose up temporarily or point the nose down and roll a bit to give the gunner a quick shot directly behind or below.

  35. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LS650 View Post
    I think there's a trade-off between altitude rules and speed. Air combat involves both the 3rd dimension and a fast moving pace. Some folks want the realism of altitude, and are willing to accept the slow-down in pace, whereas others are willing to sacrifice the realism to have a quicker moving game.
    which is the essence of the open end elegant simplicity of the game system. flavor individual game to taste as desired!!!!

  36. #86

    Default

    There is no right or wrong in playing, or not playing with altitude, if you enjoy the game,the way you play, why change it?

  37. #87

    Default

    We, and I mean the players, all tend to look at altitude as climbing only. If you are going to use climb rates then what about dive rates. Some aircraft could dive better but climbed slower. The balance being lighter aircraft, not always I agree, could climb faster but were poor divers ir slower divers. Heavier aircraft were poor climbers, not always but would dive faster. So if you have climb facteros you kust have dive factors to balance it out. Otherwise dont use it. IMOHHO.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  38. #88

    Default

    This is a 3d game you need Alt. rules I we always play with them.

  39. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    We, and I mean the players, all tend to look at altitude as climbing only. If you are going to use climb rates then what about dive rates. Some aircraft could dive better but climbed slower. The balance being lighter aircraft, not always I agree, could climb faster but were poor divers ir slower divers. Heavier aircraft were poor climbers, not always but would dive faster. So if you have climb facteros you kust have dive factors to balance it out. Otherwise dont use it. IMOHHO.
    I agree that different dive rates are just as important as different climb rates. With WW1 planes having height could be critical as it could be traded for speed. Some planes such as the SE5a and the Spad specialised in boom and zoom. Swope down quick, build up speed and then convert the speed back into height. But even the early fighters could (up to a point) gain speed by diving.

    So, to deal with this issue of different dive rates I use my own set of house rules for diving. I have been playing Wings with a fairly regular group of players for a couple of years using these rules. The house rules use pitch counters and a dive extension card for each plane. The pitch chips can be placed on movement cards to indicate the card is a dive. This enables manoeuvres such as turning dives and multiple dives. The movement card following the dive is extended by using the dive extension card. Some planes are restricted from doing a dive following a dive because they were not good divers.

    Here's some example planes:
    Fokker Dr1 - Short Dive Extension. Continuous dive not allowed. 2 Dive Pitch Chips
    Albatros DVa - Long Dive Extension. Continuous dive not allowed. 2 Dive Pitch Chips
    Spad XIII - Long Dive Extension. Continuous dive allowed. 3 Dive Pitch Chips - so each movement card can be a dive.
    Camel - Medium Dive Extension. Continuous dive allowed. 2 Dive Pitch Chips

  40. #90

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    I have only played with rules from the RAP but I have allways missed a turning dive.
    Your rules sounds interesting Nicola

  41. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    I have only played with rules from the RAP but I have allways missed a turning dive.
    Your rules sounds interesting Nicola
    I am not the only person (or even the first) to use Pitch Chips - although I do claim to be the first to call them Pitch Chips

    If you're playing solo you can try it out just by having a set of (any type of) counters to place a counter on top of a movement card to make it a dive. The house rule I use is for uber-divers (Pfalz DIII\DIIIa, SE5a, Spad VII and Spad XIII) any and all of the movement cards can have a Dive Pitch Chip placed on it to make it into a Dive - so their max dive rate is 3. For other fighter planes, a Dive Pitch Chip can be placed on any card that is not a Stall and up to 2 cards can have a Dive Pitch Chip placed on it - so their max dive rate is 2. For fighter planes that cannot safely do a continuous dive (or which have high drag) (Albatros DIII\DV\Dva, Fokker Dr1, Neiuport 11\16\17 and DH2) a dive cannot immediately follow a dive.

    Combined with a dive movement bonus on the card following a dive and I've found the feel of the game is much more like seeing planes swooping around the skies. It's always fun to watch an SE5a plunge out of the sky at insane speed and shoot across the table.

  42. #92

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    I am not the only person (or even the first) to use Pitch Chips - although I do claim to be the first to call them Pitch Chips

    If you're playing solo you can try it out just by having a set of (any type of) counters to place a counter on top of a movement card to make it a dive. The house rule I use is for uber-divers (Pfalz DIII\DIIIa, SE5a, Spad VII and Spad XIII) any and all of the movement cards can have a Dive Pitch Chip placed on it to make it into a Dive - so their max dive rate is 3. For other fighter planes, a Dive Pitch Chip can be placed on any card that is not a Stall and up to 2 cards can have a Dive Pitch Chip placed on it - so their max dive rate is 2. For fighter planes that cannot safely do a continuous dive (or which have high drag) (Albatros DIII\DV\Dva, Fokker Dr1, Neiuport 11\16\17 and DH2) a dive cannot immediately follow a dive.

    Combined with a dive movement bonus on the card following a dive and I've found the feel of the game is much more like seeing planes swooping around the skies. It's always fun to watch an SE5a plunge out of the sky at insane speed and shoot across the table.
    What kind of bonus do you use?
    A straight? A stall?

  43. #93

    Default

    Turning dives and climbes are the altitude rules upgrade that should be officially implemented in RAP 2.0 in my opinion.
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  44. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightbomber View Post
    Turning dives and climbes are the altitude rules upgrade that should be officially implemented in RAP 2.0 in my opinion.
    I totally agree. I presume it may have been originally overlooked but, when possibly suggested at a later date, it was most likely overruled either to restrict multiple climb/dive maneuvers in a given turn or was deemed impracticable from a re-printing standpoint. I utilize them in my house rules as follows:


    VARIABLE CLIMB/DIVE RULE

    In WINGS of GLORY, climbs and dives are consistently straight. This rule allows for turns.

    Airplanes may turn while performing climb or dive maneuvers. This may be performed on any normal turn maneuver card by stacking either the plane's climb or dive card with it when planning its moves for the turn. An airplane performing this maneuver simply places the turn card normally and, in the case of a dive, simply removes one peg form its altitude. In the case of a climb, the airplane will face at the appropriate angle effected by the turn, but at the lesser distance traveled, by placing the climb card at the base of the turn card as well.

    Half distance MAY be performed on any climb or dive maneuver card, but it may NOT be used for an overdive.

    In keeping with the rules, no more than one climb or dive card may be utilized in any given turn.


    They have worked quite well so far, as have the "half distance" (or throttling back) rules referred to. The one climb/dive per turn limitation still exists and placing two stacked cards face down in its slot under the airplane's console isn't really noticeable so a player's intentions are not compromised.

    Thoughts?

  45. #95

    Default

    Nicola Zee,

    What, exactly, are Pitch Chips?

    Curious...

  46. #96

    Default understanding altitude

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    thats true but using altitude as is theres no way in the system for them to point their nose up temporarily or point the nose down and roll a bit to give the gunner a quick shot directly behind or below.
    I believe that there is, as envisaged in the original game design - just as the wide angled firing arcs of single seat airplanes allow for the pilot making minor lateral adjustments (using the rudder) to engage a target to his left or right, so the altitude levels (which in reality are 'layers' of a hundred feet of airspace) allow the pilot to make minor adjustments in the vertical axis.

  47. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    We, and I mean the players, all tend to look at altitude as climbing only. If you are going to use climb rates then what about dive rates. Some aircraft could dive better but climbed slower. The balance being lighter aircraft, not always I agree, could climb faster but were poor divers ir slower divers. Heavier aircraft were poor climbers, not always but would dive faster. So if you have climb facteros you kust have dive factors to balance it out. Otherwise dont use it. IMOHHO.
    I agree, and of course we're all free to make house rules to add (or remove) as much complexity as we like, but IMHO once we start adding cards/counters and rules for every occasion, we are losing the original concept of an elegant, fast moving "pick up and play" game, and moving towards a complicated flight simulator model that it was never intended to be. YMMV

  48. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BellMW54 View Post
    Nicola Zee,

    What, exactly, are Pitch Chips?

    Curious...
    They're just counters placed on a movement card to indicate that the movement card is to be treated as a dive. They are used instead of the Dive card and instead of the over-dive rule. They enable turning dives and multiple dives during a turn.

    I call them chips to avoid confusion with Climb Counters and I call them Pitch Chips as they represent a change in pitch (as opposed to Yaw). Blank on one side and marked as either blank or a dive on the other. They are placed face-down so that opponents cannot determine whether a card is to be treated as a dive and they are turned over when the movement card is turned over.

  49. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    What kind of bonus do you use?
    A straight? A stall?
    I made my own movement card with a distance based on a rough estimated Velocity Never Exceed. For an SE5a this is roughly 2/3 of its straight which is roughly around 180mph.

    A stall would be too short to match the speed and a full straight would be so long as to end up contravening the laws of the conservation of energy. What is to be avoided is having the plane travel further forward by climbing and diving than by just flying straight. Otherwise you're create energy out of nothing This is also the reason why I have to keep to using Stall cards only for Climbs.

  50. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    They're just counters placed on a movement card to indicate that the movement card is to be treated as a dive. They are used instead of the Dive card and instead of the over-dive rule. They enable turning dives and multiple dives during a turn.

    I call them chips to avoid confusion with Climb Counters and I call them Pitch Chips as they represent a change in pitch (as opposed to Yaw). Blank on one side and marked as either blank or a dive on the other. They are placed face-down so that opponents cannot determine whether a card is to be treated as a dive and they are turned over when the movement card is turned over.
    Similar game mechanics to the high speed/low speed counters in WGS.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


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
  •