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 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 114

Thread: Altitude rules?

  1. #1

    Default Altitude rules?

    Please feel free to comment the kind of rules you use (or the motivations why you do not use them).

  2. #2

    Bestia's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Adam
    Location
    Western Australia
    Sorties Flown
    49
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    Because they are clear and my group has just started using the altitude rules

  3. #3

    Default

    Our group uses the climbing rules as written. When we dive though we just drop a full peg and keep the climb counters up.. this keeps it simpler and allows you to get back up to your altitude faster if you allready accumulated some climb counters from previous turns. very useful in diving attack...

  4. #4

    Default

    I can understand why these rules makes sense from a mini point of view, but I think the rules by David Kuijt are much cleaner and since I don't use minis I've started to use them.

  5. #5

    Polluxx66's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Jeremy
    Location
    British Columbia
    Sorties Flown
    77
    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default

    We use no altitude rules as well, We have enough complicated games the reason WoW gets so much play in our group it is the pick up and play aspect and the easy access to beginners that keeps us coming back again and again.

  6. #6

    Default

    I should say, we use the rules as stated in the rulebook when we use altitude rules Our group has a sizable 'keep it simple' faction that just likes WoW w/o the altitude rules. I would say we use altitude rules maybe 30-40% of the time.

  7. #7

    Default

    We use the rules 90% as written most of the time. They're fairly easy to use without overcomplicating the game and altitude adds a lot to the tactics available and the "feel" of the game. The only alterations we have made is to remove limitations on aircraft height separation (using the Aerodrome dials) and having collisions happen only if a base overlaps the centre of another model (bit too frequent for our tastes otherwise).

    If we're just after a quick game, we'll drop the altitude rules but give aircraft with higher climb rates some advantage (an ace skill or better initial positioning).

  8. #8

    Default

    I use the altitude rules as in the rulebook.
    But just recently i wrote some house rules to enhance the realism of the game but the rulebook altitude rules are untouched. My mod only adds some new possibilities.
    You can find it here: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...r-more-Realism

    Quote Originally Posted by Skyguy001 View Post
    Our group uses the climbing rules as written. When we dive though we just drop a full peg and keep the climb counters up.. this keeps it simpler and allows you to get back up to your altitude faster if you allready accumulated some climb counters from previous turns. very useful in diving attack...
    The problem i see with this is that you just climb until you have one less climb counters to climb a level of altitude. Then you can drop or climb one level of altitude every turn.
    As climb counters don't change the way you shoot but levels of altitude you could play without climb counters altogether using your system.

  9. #9

    Default

    We use them sometimes - as written in the rulebook. But the game is fun (and much faster) even without them.

  10. #10

    Default

    Ah, I see one difference with our group from the rules as written, whoops We also make collisions occur only on base-to-center contact, exactly the same reason as Iain stated above. Actually, it's become second nature, began to assume it was the rule lol

  11. #11

    Default

    At first, i wasn't a fan of altitude rules, (I felt they were a bit clunky in how they slow the game a bit), but after looking at other games and some house rules, I've become a convert. I like the more realistic options other games and other players have put together, but I think WoW has the right balance of complexity vs. realism. Though, I will say, altitude dials or something similar are highly recommended. They make it easier to get people on board, and after awhile it becomes second nature.

  12. #12

    Default

    Playing a flying game without altitude is like playing a submarine game without submergeing.

  13. #13

    Default

    Haven't use the allitude rules yet. Wanted to get used to the game before adding them but will when we are comfortable.

  14. #14

    Default

    For our PBeM altitude-rules test game (in progress mid-Aug to mid-Sept) we are using the altitude rules in the official rule-books including the optional altitude rules (blind spot for 2 seaters, Over-dive, Split-S, and gain 1 climb counter for an Immelmann manoeuvre) BUT we are also using a variable damage table (made by our Italian WoW friends) that rewards diving attacks and shots through the rear and rear-side edges, and penalizes head-on and front-side shooting.
    One of the big attractions to me about using these variable damage tables is that it really does provide a significant reward for making a diving attack and getting on an enemy's tail or rear-side for a shot. Overall the damage odds are very close to the "A" and "B" decks but, as was the case in the real-deal, shooting from the front and front-side is much less rewarding/harder-to-get-a-hit than shooting from the rear and rear-side.

    In PBeM games using variable tables with dice is not a time or complexity issue, but using dice and the tables for face-to-face games would likely be a little unwieldly and it certainly would defeat the pure simplicity and instant record keeping of damage cards. BUT, imagine a damage card holder like we have in the accessories section of this site, such a card holder could hold 5 different decks of damage cards for each of the 5 "angles of attack" (Rear, rear-side, front-side, front, and diving attack); the act of drawing a damage card is already complicated a little bit by having "A" and "B" decks, a little more complexity (having to decide which side/edge your shots pass through) is manageable in my opinion. The increased satisfaction would, in my opinion, greatly out-way any time or complexity issues/objections. BUT, of course somebody would have to create 10 different damage decks (5 A and 5 B) and a ****y little carry-all/card-holder for 5 decks.

    For our local gaming-group games (almost all being non-altitude games), I'm going to propose using the Italian varaible damage tables but substiuting damage cards (5 decks each of "A" and "B" damage cards) held in a little box like we have in the accessories section. It has always "miffed" me that a blink-of-the-eye head-on passing shot is rewarded the same as a side-shot is rewarded the same as a from-behind shot.

  15. #15

    Default

    We are not using them, becouse we are usually play in small number of players. I think we could applied in BIG games (I think 8+ planes). They unnecessarily complicate the game for smaller groups. Just my 2c.
    Thank you for your interest Andrea!

  16. #16

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    As a lot of the rest of you seem to, we just use the rules as written with the sole modification of using altitude dials rather than use the `four peg` limitation.
    Some of my group are less keen but I prefer using the stock altitude counters when just playing with cards, which we do sometimes if we are using planes we don`t have minis for.
    I feel NOT using any sort of altitude rules kind of defeats the whole point of the game, an air combat game SHOULD take place in a 3D environment.

  17. #17

    Default

    I want to include the altitude rules because it is a flying game but in most games we don't, partly to keep things simple and partly because I feel the game is less immersive using the rules as written. The main reason for this (in my opinion) is that vertical movement is a lot less intuitive than horizontal movement because the climb counters have the feel of an abstract game mechanism rather than an intuitive plane movement mechanism like the cards.

    I have been working on a house rule for altitude to counter this but I haven't managed to get it properly figured out yet

  18. #18

    Default

    Our league does not use altitude simply because it slows the game down too much. We play every week after work and only have a few hours to play.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Please feel free to comment the kind of rules you use (or the motivations why you do not use them).
    Bluntly: The altitude rules are the single worst part of the game:

    -- It takes too long (upwards of 5 *turns*) for some acft. to gain a level of altitude, which renders climbing-based maneuvers useless.

    -- There are entirely too many special-maneuver exceptions to the rules.

    -- It is impossible to look at a plane's altitude stack and figure out exactly what altitude it is occupying, which makes targeting and collisions all-but-impossible to adjudicate without bringing the game to a screaming halt.

    In short: The current altitude rules are overcomplicated, and fail to provide an easily-understood reference to the plane's in-game altitude.

    On the occasions I use altitude, I use the following:

    Book-keeping:
    1: Altitude is measured using altitude pegs, followed by altitude chits.

    2: 5 chits = 1 peg. Thus, no unit may have more than four altitude chits at a time. (Each chit = approx. 50 meters altitude.)

    3: In written form, altitude is expressed as [altitude pegs]/[altitude chits]; thus “4/3” would mean the unit has four (4) altitude pegs, and three (3) altitude chits.

    Changes from “official” WoW:
    1: Compare a unit’s “official” climb rate with the chart below, to see what its climb and dive rates are in the “alternate” system:
    1-2: 5 (that is, may climb one altitude level every turn), 10
    3-4: 4, 8
    5-6: 3, 6
    7-8: 2, 5
    9+: 1, 5
    Example: The Hanriot HD.1 has an official climb rate of 3; under the alternate system, it has a climb rate of 4, and a dive rate of 8

    2: As most WW1 acft. could complete a given maneuver within a 50-meter radius, performing Immelmanns or spilt-Ss only add/subtract 1 chit to/from current altitude; the player may, if desired, add/subtract more chits up to his unit’s climb/dive value as appropriate.

    3: Climbing and diving cards are played as usual; it is only the counting method which changes.
    Example: The Hanriot HD.1 plays a climb card. Under the old system, it would accrue one climb token, and would need two more to ascend one level. Under the alternate system, the player can take 1, 2, 3, or 4 climb tokens, as he wishes; if this gives him more than four climb tokens, he adds one peg to his mini’s stand.

    4: Collisions may only occur between units at exactly the same altitude level.
    Example: Two airplanes have bases in contact; however, one is at altitude 2/2, while the other is at 2/1 -- no collision occurs. If both were at 2/2, or 2/1, they would collide.

    5: Being at one full altitude level difference from a target reduces attack strength as usual; being one altitude chit’s worth of altitude away reduces attack strength similarly.
    Example: A unit at altitude 6/0 would draw one card for any one target within one-half-range-ruler at altitudes 5/0, 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, or 7/0; it could not hit targets at greater than one-half range ruler’s distance.

  20. #20

    Default

    We do use the rules and use aerodrome counters to make it easier.

    I've always felt that the system could have been easier and add more realism. We have actually used rules similar to the ones Chris proposed but the peg fiddling is annoying IMHO. Dials are definately the way to go.

    Ground is 0. height is counted as actual height/10 (i.e. height 50m is level 5).
    Planes have several climb/dive cards depending on ability. The worst planes can only climb one level maybe dive 2.
    The fast climbing planes get additional climb and dive cards. The cards would show the number of levels climbed or dived. The really good planes could even complete several of the gentler climbs and dives without an engine stall.

    For gunning. Planes within 5 levels hit with 2 cards, 10 levels with one. For collisions you have to be on the same level.

    Examples would be:
    Pfalz Diii would have 1 level climb (stall) only, two dives (both stall) level 1 and level 2.
    Sopwith Camel would have 3 climbs (climb 1- no stall, climb 2 and 3 with stalls) 3 or 4 dives (could rationalize this to 2/3 and miss a few).
    For bombers with current climb rate 8, I would use counters as half units for climbing when they are bomb laden. When laden they have a effective climb rate of .5. They should dive 1 level either option.

    Have played this several times and it worked quite well. The maths isn't really complicated.

    Chris
    Last edited by Madboyo; 09-01-2011 at 18:15.

  21. #21

    Exclamation

    G'day Andrea & thanks for asking the opinion of the Players.
    We have been playing without altitude rules at our Games Club for some time & recently tried out Altitude but it seemed to take everyones mind off the basic manouvers as everyone was trying to Max out on Altitude & we found that Altitude did not transfer into a great game advantage, especially when Diving so we introduced a rule that gave the Diving Plane the advantage of Diving out of Range of the Aircraft it was attacking. (like Overdive I guess).
    Hope that helps.
    Good Luck with the Re Launch of WoW!

  22. #22

    Default

    if I use altitude rules I use the rules as written, but then again I only use them in about half the games I play.

  23. #23

    Default

    I use the altitude for most of the games that I play and find them simple to use.
    I can't see the point in trying to over complicate what is a pick up and play game, which with very little instruction novices can play very quickly.
    The worst thing that I have found is the number of collisions which occur when using the overlapping bases rule, I think the base overlapping the centre peg sounds better.
    Don

  24. #24

    Default

    We use the official rules except for how collisions work and of course we use the dials to track everything.

  25. #25

    Default

    We use the dials and ignore the ceiling rule of four pegs only. A climb can take you up as far as you have pegs to go until you reach your ceiling height as indicated for the aircraft. Not that anyone usually diverges more than a couple of pegs from the height that most planes are at,unless there is a high level bombing raid.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  26. #26

    Default

    LOL! Over night i came up with much the same altitude rules as csadn/Chris posted above Only that i envisioned 1 peg/1 level of altitude = 10 climb markers.

    Planes which bad climbing behaviour would only climb up to 1 or 2 climb markers per climb good one could climb up to 5 6 or even 10 climb markers. With a Dive you could loose up to double the climb markers the plane would a quire on a Climb.
    A difference of 10 climb markers would give the rulebook effect of shooting at a targed one level higher/below the shooter (half range and only 1 damage cart).

    For models a two dials (one to show altitude and one to show climb markers) base would be great for this system. For the very reason Flying Officer Kyte/Rob said above.

    Obvioisly if using this system the rules wouldn't talk about climb counters any more but would say: "On a Climb or Dive a plane would gain or loose a certain number of altitude markers dependend on plane type. For better ease of counting i peg represents 10 altitude markers."

  27. #27

    Default

    We use the official altitude rules without any modifications (they ain't broken so why fix them) they add to the enjoment of the game!. However if there was one change I would like to see is some turning diving cards.

  28. #28

    Default

    We use the rules from the official rules book, but we use a dial which we keep on our control cards, to physically record (visually identify) the planes altitude.

  29. #29

    Default

    We use the rules as in the rule book.
    However we have found a problem with the Siemens Shuckett DIV with having a climb rate of 1 it is a pain when doing Immelmann turns and the split S turn as the force the plane to gain or loose one altitude level. Our solution is that with this aircraft you can choose whether you want to increase/decrease height in these turns.
    Apart from this we have no real problems with the rules.
    Linz

    Ps congratulations on the the rebranding of WOW. Can't wait to see the new WW1 aircraft.

  30. #30

    kombofink's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Morten Broested
    Location
    Hobro, Denmark
    Sorties Flown
    54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default

    I use my own set of rules as I find the official ones non-intuitive.
    My rules assume that if for instance you play a climb, any of the following maneuvers will gain you an altitude (which you could divide into bands if you'd like), until you play the dive card (and vice versa).
    Every plane have a climbrate which indicated the number of maneuvers the plane can take while climbing ebfore taking damage (every maneuver beyond the climbrate yields an A damage).
    When flying level, you can hit +/- 1 Altitude level: short range is 2 cards, long 1 card. +/- 3 altitudes: 1 card on short range.
    when diving, you can hit same altitiude and one below using the normal rules, and any plane at up to 3 levels below with one card, also at long range.
    Opposite with climbing, of course.

    My students love these rules as they are easy to understand and give a feel like the dogfights series from history channel. And planes are hit as much or more under these rules, so even makes the game shorter some times.

  31. #31

    Rabbit 3's Avatar Squadron Leader Scotland.
    Captain

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Robert
    Location
    Lothian
    Sorties Flown
    918
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default

    However we have found a problem with the Siemens Shuckett DIV with having a climb rate of 1 it is a pain when doing Immelmann turns and the split S turn as the force the plane to gain or loose one altitude level. Our solution is that with this aircraft you can choose whether you want to increase/decrease height in these turns.
    Why not just allow a dive card to be played instead of the post-Immellman straight at the players option?
    Seems to eliminate the problem and appears to be in line with some optional advanced rules already in the system which allow the substitution. (See advanced rule on firing rockets.)

    I sometimes wonder why some people have trouble with visualising what happens in a game since the rules seem to me to be very straightforward.
    I.E 1 Peg, one level of altitude. Climb tokens represent engine power expended to climb and not so much an actual fractional change in altitude, its the force of gravity holding you back.

    Using some kind of dial in addition to the pegs helps, as do the in-game counters if your just using cards, some people just seem to lack `situational awareness` as the saying goes.
    Or as `Star Trek` once had it they just show two-dimensional thinking.

    One thing I hope they do in future versions of the game though is to put the climb and dive ratings on the plane card to make it easier to find, those little cards they give you have print thats just too small to read easily.
    Last edited by Rabbit 3; 09-02-2011 at 06:01.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit 3 View Post
    One thing I hope they do in future versions of the game though is to put the climb and dive ratings on the plane card to make it easier to find, those little cards they give you have print thats just too small to read easily.
    I hope this too. All the planes data should be on the card/base of the plane.

  33. #33

    Default

    So far, every altitude system I've seen that was a homebrew just made my head hurt even more than the official altitude rules. Other than making collisions be a base to peg contact, I've found no need to change them. If you want to get tothe level of fiddlyness that some ideas have proposed, you might as well get a computer involved and fly a good flight sim.

  34. #34

    Ranger's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Rob
    Location
    Illinois
    Sorties Flown
    119
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default

    Not sure how to vote here. The group I play with doesn't use them, because its a casual group that gets together about once a month. But a couple of us have played on our own and have used the rules a couple of times. Our assessment is that the rules as written worked fine, and were a lot of fun, but we haven't pushed them on the rest of the group to keep from over-complicating the game for the casual players. I can definately see where altitude rules are an important component of games with groups that play a lot to keep the game challenging once the basic game is mastered. One thing we have done is use color coded dice instead of the counters to track altitude and climbs accumulated.

  35. #35

    Default

    If I do use the alt rules it is as per rulebook. But I must admit a lot of games played with youngsters so dont use alt rules all the time

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    LOL! Over night i came up with much the same altitude rules as csadn/Chris posted above :) Only that i envisioned 1 peg/1 level of altitude = 10 climb markers.
    Well, I confess the solution came to me after I unearthed my copy of _Richthofen's War_, and read the info booklet therein. Then it was a simple matter of making the altitude rules reflect actual altitude levels -- that is: If a plane has four alt. pegs and three chits, then *every* plane with four pegs and three chits is at the same level; then all a player need do is look at the plane to see "OK, it's at [x] altitude".

    I will also admit I haven't made any adjustments for acft. size, and/or build quality -- for ex., Nieuports and Fokkers would have worse dive rates than normal due to their poor build quality. Perhaps later.

  37. #37

    Default

    We use altitude rules as written. However, we use two dice (one twenty-sided and one six-sided) to track the altitude and the intermediate levels.

  38. #38

    Default

    Our group has used altitude rules from the beginning. We modified them extensively to:
    cut down on the number of collisions &
    To allow hard diving aircraft to use this characteristic to their advantage.

    aircraft climb rates are more or less as before.

    Pooh

  39. #39

    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 Kaiser View Post
    I hope this too. All the planes data should be on the card/base of the plane.
    After making my last post and when working on a new custom Neiuport 28 card I thought I would give this a try and modify the card.
    Attachment 21480
    Seems to work reasonably well and dosn`t clutter up the card too much.

  40. #40

    Default

    I agree here.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulW View Post
    I can understand why these rules makes sense from a mini point of view, but I think the rules by David Kuijt are much cleaner and since I don't use minis I've started to use them.

  41. #41

    Default

    Great idea Rabbit3/Robert

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit 3 View Post
    After making my last post and when working on a new custom Neiuport 28 card I thought I would give this a try and modify the card.
    Seems to work reasonably well and dosn`t clutter up the card too much.
    Makes sense to save time looking them up for beginners or people who are flying an unacustomed machine. Quite an elegant solution.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  43. #43

    Default

    I always thought the info could be kept on the back of the card.

  44. #44

    Default

    I Dig the altitude on the front of the card like that, that would make using altitude for me seem more enticing!

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
    I use the altitude rules as in the rulebook.
    But just recently i wrote some house rules to enhance the realism of the game but the rulebook altitude rules are untouched. My mod only adds some new possibilities.
    You can find it here: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...r-more-Realism



    The problem i see with this is that you just climb until you have one less climb counters to climb a level of altitude. Then you can drop or climb one level of altitude every turn.
    As climb counters don't change the way you shoot but levels of altitude you could play without climb counters altogether using your system.
    If you drop a peg when you dive yes you can get back where you started if you were at max climb counters the next turn... I agree... but you would not be able to gain and lose levels from turn to turn...

    my aircraft has a climb rate of 4 so I'm at Alt 4 with 3 Climb Counters... I dive now I'm at Alt 3 and 3CC...next turn I climb so Alt 4 0CC... then I dive next turn Alt 3 0CC... then I climb next turn Alt 3 with 1CC... I see that if I set it up right I can go from 4 to 3 then to 4 but can't do that the whole game I have to accumulated Climb counters... Is it a good system for altitude? yes is it perfect... no... it is faster to play without tracking exact differences in altitude...

    there are lots of great Ideas for Altitude being presented on this thread... some more complex than the original rules. I find that the more realistic altitude rules are made the more it slows game play... the use of dials or gauges would speed up the process...

    this is just one perspective on trying to make the game we all enjoy just a little bit better.

  46. #46

    Brand
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grumpybear View Post
    Playing a flying game without altitude is like playing a submarine game without submergeing.
    It doesn't matter what rules you use, if your group likes what your doing. But the quote says it all to me, I like the third dimension with or without miniatures.

  47. #47

    Hunter's Avatar May you forever fly in blue skies
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Terry
    Location
    Arizona
    Sorties Flown
    2,813
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default

    We use the alt rules in the book with a couple of minor mods. When the tinted pegs come out we will make some more mods.

  48. #48

    Default

    We use modified rules with collisions to center peg and do not limit cieling height between planes. Altitude was a great addition to the game tactics wise once we got our feet wet playing without.

  49. #49

    Azrael's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Mick
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    73
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default

    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.

  50. #50

    Default

    There is absolutely no doubt that altitude rules means less shooting.
    A normal non-altitude game will take us 10-15 Turns but when we play a similar game using the official altitude rules it will take 15-20 Turns to reach the same damage/conclusions.

    The time difference is significant for us (6-10 players each flying one AC); we play face-to-face once every month. The only way we can be certain to get 2 games played in 3 hours is to use the official non-altitude rules.

    However, I am finding that altitude games work well as PBeM games.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •