Ruler length

[Bob.fr]

While playing several times with minis one thing I wonder about is the ruler length.
Based on the scale of the models the firing distances seems quite short.
I understand that real distances can be too much for a playing area but the size of the ruler induce in my opinion some very agresive close move that enforce collision risk.
Because you have to be so close to be at short firing range it favors the overlaping mixup.
For instance tailing to fire at short range an oponent or trying to stay in the blind arc of a two seater put's you close to a base to base touching.
I think the ruler should be a bit longer to have may be a more realistic firing effect and reduce the forced too close move to occur.
What's your take on this ? :confused:

[LGKR]

If the playing area was bigger it may work to have longer range sticks. However for the average game table the ranges work. Many times game design has to balance realism with playablity.

[check6]

I don't know, seems ok to me. Been playing Over Flanders Fields, and you have to get darn close to hit something. Not only do you have very little ammo, but the vibrations of your engine, especially if its a rotary, makes your guns rather inaccurate for anything but close range. I saw on that discovery channel documentary on who killed the red baron, they took a Camel, put its tail up on a stand and pointed it at a target, fixed a laser to one of the guns and ran the engine. The laser was dancing all over the place due to the engine shaking the plane.

[Charlie3]

I think the range is about right for game play because it requires you to be a little more precise with your movement. A longer range will likely reduce your need to line things up, and allow more shooting than we get now...not some thing I want to see, since I already usually fly home with way too many holes in my aircraft!!

[IRM]

I've been experimenting with using a larger ruler, about a 1/3 longer than the standard one. The intention was to increase gun range in proportion to the increased size of the models vs the card images without increasing the range so much that it was too easy to get shots off. The main issues I had were how close you had to get when shooting at aircraft at different altitudes, and the number of collisions in each game.

[leadpusher]

When using miniatures, do measure from the front of the attacking plane to the post or to any part of the defending plane? It seems that the shots should hit any part of miniature.

[krolik]

I think the length of the ruler was determined by the size of the box, not any real consideration of actual ranges of the weapons.:D

[Oberst Hajj]

I think we need to look at two different things here.

First, the actual range at which shots were taken during WWI where typically under 50 meters away from the target. I don't have the ruler or minis in front of me, but I think that the ruler should come out to be around 25-30 meters scaled.

Second, when played with altitude (which I'm pretty sure Andrea wanted from the start) collisions do not happen that often with all the different climb counters. The bases overlapping is an issue with the miniatures, which were added much later to the game.

I think the issue of the length of the rule becomes much more of an issue for the upcoming Flight of Giants and Dawn of War though :(

[Flying Officer Kyte]

When we play, we ignore overlapping bases, and only count collisions if models actually come into contact. Similarly, we fire from front of plane to any part of the other, when measuring for range. It is interesting to see how often a player makes an Immelmann at the start of the game just to climb out of collision height, and then as the game progresses, with more Immelmann's we all gradually gain altitude.
Rob.

[AlgyLacey]

It is interesting to see how often a player makes an Immelmann at the start of the game just to climb out of collision height, and then as the game progresses, with more Immelmann's we all gradually gain altitude.
Rob.

You gain altitude during a fight? We often seem to wind up scuttling for home at the hard deck because it's so much easier to lose than gain height

[krolik]

WHy not just start the game with a climb counter?

[Oberst Hajj]

We tend to start at all different altitudes, but you end up at the same levels anyways trying to get shots off on each other!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

WHy not just start the game with a climb counter?

I don't know really. They just seem to be Immelmann mad. Every other turn seems to have an Immlemann in it. I expect they will grow out of it given time.
Rob.

[IRM]

[QUOTE=Col. Hajj;14863} the actual range at which shots were taken during WWI where typically under 50 meters away from the target. I don't have the ruler or minis in front of me, but I think that the ruler should come out to be around 25-30 meters scaled.
QUOTE]

I make it about 6 plane lengths (using the Camel image as a typical length), lets say around 35m tops. Trouble is, the minis are about twice the scale of the card images, making the gun ranges look too short since the ground scale is still scaled to the cards.

My supersized ruler pushes that out to about 50m groundscale or half that by model size, although changing the groundscale to the same as the model throws off the card move distances. I'm going to try using the larger ruler size for my next campaign and see how it goes.

[rapier1642]

I have to say, i am in a bit of agreement about ruler length on both sides here. The ruler is bout the right distance historically speaking for the card images. It could due to be a bit longer for the minis. That being said, it is a simplified game, not a true sim, so I am content with the ruler as is. Now if someone will just make one out of acrylic and sell them...nudge nudge.

[Bruce]

We use thin bamboo barbeque skewers for range-rulers. Inexpensive, easy to cut and mark. We glue two together to make a double-length ruler for AA Guns.

We only fly mini's and find the ruler length just fine, but our interest is more gaming than historical. I also think the current ruler length allows you to get the most out of your game board; a longer ruler would likely need a larger board.

Good discussion. I hadn't thought about the ruler scale in relation to the image on the card. Bruce

[LGKR]

While I feel the current range sticks work great for game play reasons, this discussion got me to wondering about what the actual scale would be for a range stick to match the miniatures. From my calculations (don't yell at me if their off) it seems that the silhouettes on the cards are approximately 60% the size of the miniatures. This would mean that a range stick to match the miniatures scale would need to be 32.5 centimeters (12.8 inches) long. I’m going make one and try out next game day.

[rapier1642]

While I feel the current range sticks work great for game play reasons, this discussion got me to wondering about what the actual scale would be for a range stick to match the miniatures. From my calculations (don't yell at me if their off) it seems that the silhouettes on the cards are approximately 60% the size of the miniatures. This would mean that a range stick to match the miniatures scale would need to be 32.5 centimeters (12.8 inches) long. I’m going make one and try out next game day.

Looking forward to hearing how it works out. Please keep us apprised

[LGKR]

Looking forward to hearing how it works out. Please keep us apprised

Will do, complete with pictures. :D

[Bob.fr]

I wanted to thanks all you people that already posted about ruler length matter.

In the process I collected from you several interesting points:

The typical firing range during WW1 (within 50 meters)

The fact that the cards image are not at the same scale as the miniatures

Thus the length the ruler "should be" related to the miniature scale extension (that is a typical miniature wargame topic all in all)

I acknowledge the warning about a possible extension of the playground that would induce a ruler extension but in fact you are still limited by the cards move so I am not sure the ruler length extension would really imply such as double the playground area.

Needless to say that I am happy to read about the brainstorming going on and this sharing of ideas and expertise.

I will be delighted to read about some of you return of experience. I will too try to use an "appropriate" length modified ruler and report about it.

[LGKR]

I wanted to thanks all you people that already posted about ruler length matter.

In the process I collected from you several interesting points:

The typical firing range during WW1 (within 50 meters)

The fact that the cards image are not at the same scale as the miniatures

Thus the length the ruler "should be" related to the miniature scale extension (that is a typical miniature wargame topic all in all)

I acknowledge the warning about a possible extension of the playground that would induce a ruler extension but in fact you are still limited by the cards move so I am not sure the ruler length extension would really imply such as double the playground area.

Needless to say that I am happy to read about the brainstorming going on and this sharing of ideas and expertise.

I will be delighted to read about some of you return of experience. I will too try to use an "appropriate" length modified ruler and report about it.

If the range stick needs to be increased, it seems that the movement cards would need to be increased as well. :eek:

[Oberst Hajj]

I'm not certain that the range ruler needs to be lengthened just because the minis are slightly bigger then the artwork on the cards. Unless you are using the optional rule of measuring to and hitting the actual plane, the size of the base of the mini is what matters, not the size of the mini. The mini bases are the exact same size as the cards.

[LGKR]

I'm not certain that the range ruler needs to be lengthened just because the minis are slightly bigger then the artwork on the cards. Unless you are using the optional rule of measuring to and hitting the actual plane, the size of the base of the mini is what matters, not the size of the mini. The mini bases are the exact same size as the cards.

I agree, that's why if you lengthen the measuring stick you would really should increase the base size and movement cards. We'll try the range increase next week just for fun though. :)

[IRM]

I've not noticed any real improvement during the eight games I've played with the larger stick, I still get the same crowding problems when a number of models get into dogfight range (more due to model size than base size). Ah well, it was worth a try :)

[rapier1642]

I've not noticed any real improvement during the eight games I've played with the larger stick, I still get the same crowding problems when a number of models get into dogfight range (more due to model size than base size). Ah well, it was worth a try :)

Not really surprising, because as with most pilots during the war, you were most likely trying to get on your opponents 6 and stay there fairly close to get maximum shots at the best angle :D

[Charlie3]

I'm not certain that the range ruler needs to be lengthened just because the minis are slightly bigger then the artwork on the cards. Unless you are using the optional rule of measuring to and hitting the actual plane, the size of the base of the mini is what matters, not the size of the mini. The mini bases are the exact same size as the cards.Also since the ranges are measured from the PIN/RED DOT to the edge of a CARD?BASE the miniatures are just set dressing anyway. Which is why the WWII players don't mind using larger scale planes than the official ones.

[LGKR]

Ok, just for fun we tried the scaled up range stick. Lets just say it was interesting. We kept the movement the same and we found out how quick you could get into range. I printed some scaled up versions of the plane card and a few movement cards to show the guys at the league. (see photos below) For it to really work everything would have to be scaled up, cards range stick, miniature base and of course the play area. This would mean the playing table would have to be 6' 6" by 9' 6". So like most people have stated the bottom line is the original scale is perfect for playablity.
But it was fun to test out. :)

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3695

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3696

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3697

[Charlie3]

Ok, just for fun we tried the scaled up range stick. Lets just say it was interesting. We kept the movement the same and we found out how quick you could get into range. I printed some scaled up versions of the plane card and a few movement cards to show the guys at the league. (see photos below) For it to really work everything would have to be scaled up, cards range stick, miniature base and of course the play area. This would mean the playing table would have to be 6' 6" by 9' 6". So like most people have stated the bottom line is the original scale is perfect for playablity.
But it was fun to test out. :)

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3695

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3696

As you can see from the pictures (and my smoking plane on the first game turn) the extended range starts combat sooner!

If you look at the 1st picture you will notice that SHORT range for the big stick is over half way into the LONG range of the regular stick. We found that this made combat much deadier as you are in 2 damage card range a long time. Most of our games with 6 aircraft take about 10 Game Turns. The one we played with the big stick only took 4. We also found that we still got tangled up in an overlap pile so the increased range did not help that either.

Now that I am thinking of it, the big stick will likely also cause issues with the rear gunner positions. Although it will increase the size of the NO FIRE zone in the rear, it will also make that gun just that much nastier when you are in range.:(

I therefore respectfully vote to stick with the original stick!

[Oberst Hajj]

Thanks for the report and testing Charlie3. I wonder if increasing the range ruler in length, but leaving the short range alone would give different results?

[Charlie3]

Thanks for the report and testing Charlie3. I wonder if increasing the range ruler in length, but leaving the short range alone would give different results?I have to give LGKR credit for the idea to try it out. He is great to have in our league since he is so handy with the computer graphics and full of ideas!

Our group has an Ace Skill called Sniper. It allows the pilot to shoot 1 1/2 range sticks. The Short Range stays the same however the Long Range is increased by half a range stick. It is nice for pot shots, especially at two seaters, but because you need to get in to Short Range to do lots of damage quickly, the best you can hope for is the explosion card, or special damage.
It is useful if you are already crippled and need to stay out of range, as you can still hit things, but in general it doesn't help much. The BIG STICK that LGKR made is still longer.

[Oberst Hajj]

I've brought up a similar discussion (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?p=16784#post16784) over in the 1/144 scale section some of you might like to check out.

[rcboater]

I'm a little late to the party here, but this is a great thread!

I've also wondered about the length of the range stick, feeling that it is a bit too short. My reasoning: using the standard stick, it is too easy to go from out of range to overlapped in one move-- especially when the planes are at different altitudes.

The best reason I can see for allowing for a longer range stick is that, for the most part, speed isn't adjustable-- so sometimes your options are: play this card, and you won't close the target enough to shoot, but if you play that card, you'll overlap the target and be unable to shoot.

Maybe the solution is to keep the definition of short range as it currently exists, but allow long range shots even when the planes are at different altitudes. My thinking here is that I see a lot of situations where a plane at level 2.2 can't shoot a plane at level 3.0 at "long range" on the stick, even though they are "closer" in height than a plane at 2.2 and a plane at 2.0. (Assuming a climb rate of 3 in this example.)

Maybe make long range at different altitudes a "-1" on damage, too?

[Oberst Hajj]

I've always thought long range should not have been reduced for altitude.

[Goering Ace]

I never thought about the actual close distance between different elevations. I think you have a very valid point to not reduce the range with certain altitude differences. Great thread.

Scott

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I've always thought long range should not have been reduced for altitude.

This is obviously a rule that we have been playing wrong all along. I never realized that long range came into effect when you were at different climb marker levels. We have only changed to long range when there was a whole peg difference in altitude. In light of the remarks made here, I think we will keep it like this.
Rob.