Diving with Engine Damage

[Pseudotheist]

So playing by the rules as I read them, it's extremely difficult to dive after you've suffered Engine Damage. Since you need to play a stall each turn, you're basically forced to stall-maneuver-dive, or vice versa, then the next turn you can't dive, because you have to can't play a steep manever as your first maneuver, and have to fit the stall into one fo the next two. That seems silly, as diving should be one of the things that an engine damaged plane could accomplish relatively easily. Does anyone have any logical rationale to argue that the Engine Damage rules shouldn't say that you "must plan a stall or dive each turn"?

Or does anyone know that it's actually in the altitude rules somewhere that I just didn't see?

[Teaticket]

So playing by the rules as I read them, it's extremely difficult to dive after you've suffered Engine Damage. Since you need to play a stall each turn, you're basically forced to stall-maneuver-dive, or vice versa, then the next turn you can't dive, because you have to can't play a steep manever as your first maneuver, and have to fit the stall into one fo the next two. That seems silly, as diving should be one of the things that an engine damaged plane could accomplish relatively easily. Does anyone have any logical rationale to argue that the Engine Damage rules shouldn't say that you "must plan a stall or dive each turn"?

Or does anyone know that it's actually in the altitude rules somewhere that I just didn't see?

You can 'overdive', Stall-dive-straight and drop 2 elevation levels. That sort of takes care of it I think.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Would you want to be doing anything fancy with engine damage? An over dive is about the only thing I would think possible as you would probably want to get down as quickly as possible.

[Nicola Zee]

So playing by the rules as I read them, it's extremely difficult to dive after you've suffered Engine Damage. Since you need to play a stall each turn, you're basically forced to stall-maneuver-dive, or vice versa, then the next turn you can't dive, because you have to can't play a steep manever as your first maneuver, and have to fit the stall into one fo the next two. That seems silly, as diving should be one of the things that an engine damaged plane could accomplish relatively easily. Does anyone have any logical rationale to argue that the Engine Damage rules shouldn't say that you "must plan a stall or dive each turn"?

Or does anyone know that it's actually in the altitude rules somewhere that I just didn't see?
It's not in the official rules but it makes sense. I'm going to add this to my house rules. Thanks for posting.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

The stall used in this way is just a mechanism for your aircraft to move slower over the entire game.
As such I think that it should be treated as a slow move rather than a steep, and therefore the two steep in a row should not apply in this case. Not official, but you may like to debate the point in the House Rules section.
Rob.

[Rabbit 3]

Some good points, the actual problem shoudn`d be the diving but getting out of it afterwards!:crash:

[Nicola Zee]

Some good points, the actual problem shoudn`d be the diving but getting out of it afterwards!:crash:
A plane with engine trouble (or for that matter without an engine) dives OK - it's called gliding. Now, it could be argued that a pilot might turn the engine off or throttle back before a dive and then will need to be careful turning the engine back on or adjusting the throttle - but that's not the same problem as getting out of a dive as such! Planes are happy to dive - it's a consequence of gravity:confused:

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Well put Nicola. It of course also depends on what altitude you start your dive. I would not like to risk restarting my engine at a low altitude just in case I ran out of sky before it caught, especially if it were crook to begin with.
Rob.

[tusekine]

You can 'overdive', Stall-dive-straight and drop 2 elevation levels. That sort of takes care of it I think.

That would work, I think. Todd and I did not think about the overdive when we played (at least I did not). This basically would allow you to dive 4 levels in three turns. (1) Stall-non steep maneuver-dive, (down 1) (2) straight (overdive) down (2), stall, non-steep maneuver, (3) dive (down 3), straight (overdive) (down 4), stall.

[tusekine]

The stall used in this way is just a mechanism for your aircraft to move slower over the entire game.

Oh, I thought it was a representation of your engine being impaired, resulting in not have enough energy for the amount of steep maneuvers and speed. By playing a steep maneuver stall, you slow down the airplane and limit maneuverability by limiting the steep maneuvers that can be done. That's why a DVII can't play the non-steep stall as engine damage stall.

[tusekine]

One more thought: I have never flown a plane, but I assume that a plane dives faster with engine power than without. Assuming that is right, and given that the game system limits us to the maneuver cards in the deck, allowing a dive w/o power (that is, considering the dive a non-steep card for purposes of playing it with engine damage under the rationale that you can dive without engine power) would give the diving plane the engine bonus.

[Rabbit 3]

I assume that a plane dives faster with engine power than without.
That`s actually whats called a "power dive", a useful combat maneuver provided you don`t overdo it.
Nasty things tended to happen to pilots that pushed things too far I.E. bits started to fall off their planes!
Obviousy when decending any plane is getting a lot of help from gravity but this a bit too much of a good thing on full power as even a very low powered plane will rapidly exceed its speed and design limitations and there is also the effects of `G` forces on the airframe and pilot to consider.

In game terms I think the "stall" card is just intended to represent pulling back on the throttle to slow down, with engine damage its used to simulate the fact that the engine isn`t delivering full power.

[Pseudotheist]

That would work, I think. Todd and I did not think about the overdive when we played (at least I did not).
Oh, I used it several times, as it was necessary to compensate for the turns which I couldn't dive at all. But it's a very impractical manaeuver, requring thres straights. If it's executed in the wrong direction it removes the plane from the fight nearly as effectively as not diving at all.

One more thought: I have never flown a plane, but I assume that a plane dives faster with engine power than without.
That can be the case, as represented by overdive, which makes overdive as a "solution" particularly ironic.