Deflection shot "improvement"

[tusekine]

I have been thinking for a while about adding a wrinkle about deflection shots to WoW/WoG games, and Blackronin's posting of "Dicta Boelke For Dummies" drove home the point of how difficult it is to hit a target that is moving across your flight path (see dicta #5).

In other dogfight simulation games I have played, the difficulty of a deflection shot is simulated by lowering the possibility of a "hit", but of course WoW/WoG does not work that way; that is, in WoW/WoG you either have a shot or you don't, and if you do, it is a "hit" for game purposes, though one that may result in zero damage.

So I came up with the following:

(A) Playing without altitude: any shot that travels through the front or rear part of the base when measured post to post (similar to the tailing rule) is a non-deflection shot and is either (option 1) +1 damage (with zeros still being zeros) or (option 2) a B-damage card in addition to the normal damage (ignoring all special damage except explosion); so an Albatross D.Va would deal out an A-damage plus a B-damage (ignoring special damage), and a Nieuport 11 would deal out two B-damage cards, with any special damage on the second B card ignored.

(B) Playing with altitude: a shot not only needs to travel through the front or rear base but also needs to be from the same altitude (ignoring climb counters) to get the additional damage.

I think I prefer option 2, but I would love to hear everyone's opinion and also whether there are other variants people have tried. I have not yet play-tested this.

My rationale for allowing extra damage is that these shots are "easier" to line up, and so the shooter gets to keep his finger on the firing stud for that additional second or half-second...

[Teaticket]

I like the idea but think maybe less damage to non-aligned shooting instead of added damage, our crates are fragile enough! Maybe a -1 to damage cards on non-aligned shots?

[Oberst Hajj]

I see on flaw in your system. You are not making a penalty for deflection shots, but giving a bonus to a non-deflection shot. It basically accomplishes the same thing, but you have drastically increased the amount of damage that is given out without increasing the amount of damage the planes can take. This throws the whole balance of the game off. You would need to work a number of damage points to add to each and every plane.

An easier option might be to just subtract 1 point of damage from the deflection shots. A separate pile for those cards would make it easy to keep track of them (just like the +1 Aim bonus damage cards).

Just my thoughts on it.

[fast.git]

(A) Playing without altitude: any shot that travels through the front or rear part of the base when measured post to post (similar to the tailing rule) is a non-deflection shot and is either (option 1) +1 damage (with zeros still being zeros) or (option 2) a B-damage card in addition to the normal damage (ignoring all special damage except explosion); so an Albatross D.Va would deal out an A-damage plus a B-damage (ignoring special damage), and a Nieuport 11 would deal out two B-damage cards, with any special damage on the second B card ignored.
I agree with Teaticket (and Herr Oberst!) that an additional card's worth of damage seems like a lot... it also increases the lethality of 'B' armed scouts disproportionally.


(B) Playing with altitude: a shot not only needs to travel through the front or rear base but also needs to be from the same altitude (ignoring climb counters) to get the additional damage...

...My rationale for allowing extra damage is that these shots are "easier" to line up, and so the shooter gets to keep his finger on the firing stud for that additional second or half-second...

Firing at a target above or below you was actually easier than if you were directly behind them... the "plan-form" view provides the shooter with a larger target.

[tusekine]

Herr Oberst and Teaticket and fast.git:

I agree that adding damage may unbalance the game, and subtracting one point will probably be the version that we will test play.

But when you read about air victories in WWI (and I am focusing only WWI right now), many victories were obtained by bouncing on someone's tail and firing off a long burst until the other machine was shot down. MvR was famous for this and I recall reading that many victims never had a chance to shoot back. The way the game is currently, that is almost impossible to do (though I agree that it makes for a dull game).

[tusekine]

I agree with Teaticket (and Herr Oberst!) that an additional card's worth of damage seems like a lot... it also increases the lethality of 'B' armed scouts disproportionally.



Firing at a target above or below you was actually easier than if you were directly behind them... the "plan-form" view provides the shooter with a larger target.

Fast.git,

thanks for the comment. Can you explain "plan-form" view? Ignorant here. :)

[fast.git]

Can you explain "plan-form" view? Ignorant here. :)

Plan-view, or plan-form view is simply fancy talk for seeing something from above (or below). :)

The term is used in architecture and and in aviation, primarily.

Here's a link: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planform

[tusekine]

Here is another flaw in my proposal: the game already allows for +1 damage for "target lock"; so in my system, you could possibly have a +2 shot which definitely could be a problem. What's nice in the subtraction proposal is that if you manage to keep on target for successive turns, you would lose the penalty (that is, the first deflection shot is -1, but the next shot is at zero; -1 for the deflection and +1 for the target lock), which makes sense.

Though I will need to look through the B-deck to see if -1 will make that deck too weak. I don't know how many "1s" are in that deck but if it is a lot you could end up with a bunch of zeros, and it is hard enough shooting anything down with a B scout as it is.

[Oberst Hajj]

Or, you could apply something a long the lines of the shooting at different altitude levels rule. At long range, a deflection shot is just not possible, so no damage cards are dealt. At close range, a deflection shot only deals 1 card of damage instead of 2. This way you don't have to tweak any of the stats or values in the game. There is also precedence for that type of rule in the game already.

[tusekine]

Plan-view, or plan-form view is simply fancy talk for seeing something from above (or below). :)

The term is used in architecture and and in aviation, primarily.

Here's a link: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planform

Ah, thank you, and thanks for the link. Now I have a fancy term to throw around when I want to tell people about the Spit's elliptical wing.

The problem with the deflection shot from above or below is that you need to lead your target, that is, you need to get figure out where the vector of the target plane and your bullets will meet. If you aim at the spot where the opposing plane is when you pull the trigger, if it's a deflection shot you will miss unless you are right on top of your opponent, since the target will move away from that spot while your bullets are getting there.

On the other hand, if you shoot from straight behind or at a target that is coming straight at you, all you need to worry about is direction--you don't need to worry about the speed of the other plane or your bullets, those two are bound to meet (since the bullets fly faster than the plane).

So while plan-form gives you a larger target, hitting the target is harder.

[tusekine]

Oh I like that! KISS and follows a rule already in the book, so only a small tweak is necessary. Thanks, Herr Oberst.


Or, you could apply something a long the lines of the shooting at different altitude levels rule. At long range, a deflection shot is just not possible, so no damage cards are dealt. At close range, a deflection shot only deals 1 card of damage instead of 2. This way you don't have to tweak any of the stats or values in the game. There is also precedence for that type of rule in the game already.

[Oberst Hajj]

You are welcome Anthony, that's what I made this site for! I might even add this little rule to my games.

[Doug]

My view point! I like the rules as they are and see no point in fixing something if it is not broken. I and the other players I game with use the rules as they are, however that being said I can understand people wanting to take into account activities not covered by the rules.

[Oberst Hajj]

I'm a big fan of the rules as written as well. As such, there is very little that I add or change, but somethings have a good realism to playability ratio that makes them easy to add.

[fast.git]

Or, you could apply something a long the lines of the shooting at different altitude levels rule. At long range, a deflection shot is just not possible, so no damage cards are dealt. At close range, a deflection shot only deals 1 card of damage instead of 2. This way you don't have to tweak any of the stats or values in the game. There is also precedence for that type of rule in the game already.

Nice... I'll have to give that a go! :thumbsup:

[fast.git]

The problem with the deflection shot from above or below is that you need to lead your target, that is, you need to get figure out where the vector of the target plane and your bullets will meet. If you aim at the spot where the opposing plane is when you pull the trigger, if it's a deflection shot you will miss unless you are right on top of your opponent, since the target will move away from that spot while your bullets are getting there.

Most pilots who had success making deflection shots would aim too far ahead, and then allow the target to walk into the field of fire. That was, apparently, much easier than the reverse.

[Teaticket]

For convention games or with new(er) players, rules as written are the way to go I think. Keep it simple, especially with a lot of planes in the air. If you have a local regular gaming group then house rules can ad a whole lot of fun if not taken too far. This is such a simple elegant game, to over complicate it would be a shame.

[flash]

I think that the arc of fire, particularly for the scouts and the 0 damage cards amply cater for deflection shooting but if you are going down that route the -1 option seems to be the better option with the altitude option Herr Oberst mentions.


...But when you read about air victories in WWI (and I am focusing only WWI right now), many victories were obtained by bouncing on someone's tail and firing off a long burst until the other machine was shot down. MvR was famous for this and I recall reading that many victims never had a chance to shoot back. The way the game is currently, that is almost impossible to do (though I agree that it makes for a dull game).

Most of his victims didn't fire back because they were dead - he aimed for the pilots where he could. It is possible to 'amp up' the game to reproduce this effect - try removing all the zero cards except those with special damage first - then try it doing the same with the ones and then the twos ! :eek:
You may need a number of decks to make this doable numbers wise but give it a shot ! I think removing the zeroes may combine well with the minus one deflection house rule.

[steel_ratt]

From the way that I understand it, deflection shots are already accounted for in the basic rules -- that's what all the zeroes in the damage decks represent. The idea is that a turn of firing represents about 1 - 2 seconds of fire. That's all you'll get if you fire at someone flying across your path. If you get into a position following someone, you get more turns of fire which increases your chance of actually doing damage... and you get the +1 damage bonus (as previously pointed out).


That's the theory, at any rate.

[Oberst Hajj]

From the way that I understand it, deflection shots are already accounted for in the basic rules -- that's what all the zeroes in the damage decks represent.

Interesting, I've never heard that before. My understanding was that the zeros were in there for two reasons. First, there is no "to hit" mechanic like in most games, it's a straight damage draw. And two, it's quite possible to hit a plane multiple times with out doing any damage at all.

[tusekine]

From the way that I understand it, deflection shots are already accounted for in the basic rules -- that's what all the zeroes in the damage decks represent.

I think that just reflects the fact that not every "hit" does damage--I know Brumowski once returned from a fight with 37 holes in his machine, none of which did any damage that affected the performance of the plane. If the zeros reflected the difficulty of a deflection shot, you'd have to have two different damage decks--one for deflection shots with more zeros and one for no-deflection shots with less; but the game only uses one deck. I would be interesting to hear from Angiolillo on this, but I suspect that when deciding the game structure (which is beautiful in its simplicity and approachability for both experienced games and newbies), the designers may have opted to ignore this aspect since the game works well without it.

[Nightbomber]

I'm a big fan of the rules as written as well. As such, there is very little that I add or change, but somethings have a good realism to playability ratio that makes them easy to add.

Exactly my thoughts. Being a GM during Origins 2013 I was able to teach a pair of freshmen (father and son) joining my game the basic rules in several minutes and they played with us the veterans for two hours having fun. There is no tabletop wargame as easy to learn as this one. Let's stick to this standard. :)
Just my humble 2 cents.