M Deck

[Gord]

I bought the Barker Snipe and looking through the deck I notice that the card distribution is a bit odd.
Most maneuvers come in groups of 3 which makes sense but:
There are only two of the sharp right turn (radial right?) and one only of the sharp left.
Now I can sorta see the logic of the single sharp left working against the radial but why only two of the sharp right which is working with the motor?

Cards 16 thru 19 show a weaving maneuver. These are not steep so why only two in each direction? Seems to me the Snipe could have kept that up all day as long as it wasn't a climb or dive.

1 1/2 Loop card. I would have expected two (a not unreasonable if possibly fatal maneuver in a Snipe or DVII).
If this is an Immelman card why isn't it regarded as a steep or is it assumed I innately know this?
can I make a custom deck(partially kidding)?
Gord

[David Kuijt]

I'm not sure I understand why these would be problems.

The plane turns well, but better to the right -- so it has 2x 90 degree right turns, and only one to the left. That makes it better turning than the HD-1 to the right, and better turning than many planes to the left. How is that a problem?

Cards 16-19 are sideslips, not weaving maneuvers. If you want to do a weaving maneuver, just alternate left turn/right turn forever.

As for why there are only two non-steep each direction, again, why is that a problem? That isn't unique -- many maneuver decks have less than three non-steep sideslips. The SE5a has two long sideslips and one wide sideslip in each direction; the wide sideslip is steep. Exactly the same as the Snipe, except that the Snipe has one more wide sideslip to the right -- which means it could sideslip a bit better to the right than the left. Again, that isn't a problem -- it is an observation about aircraft performance.

[David Kuijt]

1 1/2 Loop card. I would have expected two (a not unreasonable if possibly fatal maneuver in a Snipe or DVII).
If this is an Immelman card why isn't it regarded as a steep or is it assumed I innately know this?


I'm guessing you're talking about the Immelman card? That isn't a steep for any deck. And every single-seater has one.

[Gord]

What I am looking for is the rational behind the rules.


I'm not sure I understand why these would be problems.

Well let me try and explain that to you...




And so it should be. So why not 3 right turns? The Snipe was certainly capable of it.

[QUOTE=Cards 16-19 are sideslips, not weaving maneuvers. If you want to do a weaving maneuver, just alternate left turn/right turn forever.

And if I want to sideslip 3 times to the right? Again I am looking for a reason here

[QUOTE=As for why there are only two non-steep each direction, again, why is that a problem? That isn't unique -- many maneuver decks have less than three non-steep sideslips. The SE5a has two long sideslips and one wide sideslip in each direction; the wide sideslip is steep. Exactly the same as the Snipe, except that the Snipe has one more wide sideslip to the right -- which means it could sideslip a bit better to the right than the left. Again, that isn't a problem -- it is an observation about aircraft performance.[/QUOTE]

I am not looking to be re-assured or told there is no problem. I am trying to understand why such a powerful and maneuverable aircraft is limited by the cards in it's deck

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I shall watch this discussion with interest, because I cant see any logic behind these cards either, unless it is just a matter of how many fit in the print run. You might say also why are there not two Immelman cards, because you could theoretically do Immelman, straight, immelman. I await the outcome with baited breath, and the obligatory drink in my hand.
Rob.

[David Kuijt]

And so it should be. So why not 3 right turns? The Snipe was certainly capable of it.


The Snipe has 5 right turns -- 3x 60 degrees, 2x 90 degrees.

What has three 90 degree right turns? Just the Camel, I think. Maybe the game designers thought the Camel turned right better than the Snipe did. In which case, the Snipe should only get 2x 90 degree right turns, same as the Fokker Dr1.



And if I want to sideslip 3 times to the right? Again I am looking for a reason here


You can sideslip three times to the right -- you can't do it with three shallow sideslips, you'll have to use one of the wide ones.

I think you have a point, that any plane that has a wide sideslip as its third sideslip (as many, many of them do -- SSD3, HD1, SE5a, N17, N11 just off the top of my head) maybe should have a third shallow sideslip card as well.

But if the designers wanted to reduce the size of the decks (which allows them to print more plane cards and put them in the expansion with the decks) then throwing away a nearly-redundant third shallow sideslip is a reasonable compromise in my opinion. Because the only time you need a third sideslip maneuver card is when you do all three, and the number of times when that happens AND you are unwilling to do a wide sideslip or pair of Right/Left turns is pretty small. I've played hundreds of games, thousands of turns -- I can't remember ever doing three sideslips on the same turn.

So yes, you might have a point with regard to the third shallow sideslip (in addition to the third wide sideslip) -- but it isn't something that shakes the pillars of the earth.



I am not looking to be re-assured or told there is no problem. I am trying to understand why such a powerful and maneuverable aircraft is limited by the cards in it's deck

Sorry I misunderstood, no offense was intended.

Speaking off the cuff, though -- I could care less about the Snipe. I'd rather have a maneuver deck for a Roland scout, a Pfalz Eindekker, a Fokker D8, or a Pfalz D12 -- something that saw action once in a while before the absolute tail-end of the war. But hey, that's just me!

[AlgyLacey]

Something to do with bleeding off speed perhaps? Certainly the Camel could sustain a tight right hander better than the Dr1 even though the Dr1 could turn tighter initially. - Less drag and a higher power to weight ratio? The snipe pulling hard with those funky tail surfaces might well slow enough to force the pilot to straighten up and buildup the airspeed again.

Alas fellah's - anyone know any centenarian retired test pilots? - otherwise we're all guessing.

[Gord]

Something to do with bleeding off speed perhaps? Certainly the Camel could sustain a tight right hander better than the Dr1 even though the Dr1 could turn tighter initially. - Less drag and a higher power to weight ratio? The snipe pulling hard with those funky tail surfaces might well slow enough to force the pilot to straighten up and buildup the airspeed again.

Alas fellah's - anyone know any centenarian retired test pilots? - otherwise we're all guessing.

You may have a point about the tail ...

[Oberst Hajj]

I think it also has a little to do with making sure each plane has it's own "feel" in the game as well as for game balance... all weighted for actual ability of the plane in real life. It's a fine line a game designer has to walk these days!

[Gord]

I think it also has a little to do with making sure each plane has it's own "feel" in the game as well as for game balance... all weighted for actual ability of the plane in real life. It's a fine line a game designer has to walk these days!

Hi Colonel and thanks,
That is the danger isn't it? Somewhere between real world performance and fun lies the mysterious mechanics of "Game Balance".
Perhaps once I have tried a few more aircraft I will get a better feel for game balance.
I am too used to games where great Commonwealth aircraft, Armor, guns etc are devalued by German myth and US weight of material. I looked at the Snipe cards and my first reaction was "OH NO not again."
Gord

[Oberst Hajj]

I've played lots of games of WoW and the Snipe is one of my faves to fly... those huge side slips are so good!

[Gord]

Thanks Keith
Glad to hear it. The Snipe has always been my favourite fighter of WWI.
Gord