RAP 2.0. Any ideas?

[Nightbomber]

Game rules that are not changed or ammended very often are simply good (chess;)). I am not a fan of games which rules are updated from time to time (GW;)), but maybe the time has come to ask WoG community if there are any rules that are not perfect or should be changed/rewritten/simplified. That is why I entitled this thread RAP 2.0, that may not be quite correct, but should start little brainstorming.

Maybe the majority of us shall say: No change. That is fair and ok. But...
Any thoughts?

Let me start: Why not plan just 2 maneuver cards instead of three? Have you noticed how hard is to shake off an attacker in WGS and how rarely we find ourselves in a tailing position in WGF?

[Naharaht]

A definitive statement about 'Looping the loop'.
A speed bonus for the move after a dive.
A shallow dive manoeuvre, allowing a plane just to descend by one climb counter.
Artillery Observation rules
Flare signal rules
Torpedo bombing rules
Official spinning rules
Should a plane carrying bombs have 1 added to its climb rate?

[Dan-Sam]

No. three maneuvres are perfect.

What about two dive and two "up" cards per deck?

[steel_ratt]

Hmmm. How about altitude rules that make sense? Most of the rest of the game has some kind of internal constistency and conform to an approximation of reality. Surely there is some way to create a simple alititude system that fits with this design concept.
Exagerate the effects if you must, as is done with firing arcs being wider than normal to make the game flow better, but something better is needed.

[AlgyLacey]

Different decks for hand held/turret guns and fixed forward firing?
Glide rules codified

[Nightbomber]

Thanks for the first replies.
The concepts shall go into two directions, I suppose:
I. tweaking existing rules (e.g. shallow diving - I have never thought of such a smart move!),
II. expanding the rules (torpedo bombing).
Let's try to keep things sorted out.

[steel_ratt]

+1 Two card movement system (already possible with house rules, but would be a nice addition to optional rules)
+1 Artillery observation rules

How about the ability to climb / dive while doing non-straight manouvers? (A method similar to WWII speed tokens but up/down/level instead?)

[flash]

The broad frame work that the game has provided is sufficiently good enough for individuals so inclined to tweak and improve it to their needs; pretty much everything mentioned has been house ruled at some point over the last few years or agreed between players in a group.
To create a newer version of the rules may just add constriction, stifle creativity and, of course, cost the end user more money. Maybe what we need is not RAP 2.0 but something like a downloadable FAQ sheet from ARES/Andrea with their recommended House Rules to cover all these issues.

[Blackronin]

The broad frame work that the game has provided is sufficiently good enough for individuals so inclined to tweak and improve it to their needs; pretty much everything mentioned has been house ruled at some point over the last few years or agreed between players in a group.
To create a newer version of the rules may just add constriction, stifle creativity and, of course, cost the end user more money. Maybe what we need is not RAP 2.0 but something like a downloadable FAQ sheet from ARES/Andrea with their recommended House Rules to cover all these issues.

Fully agreed.
I don't need rules changes. Just some tweaks here and there that can be done with optional/house rules.
Maybe the remake of a few maneuver decks (both WW1 and WW2) that should be printed without miniature associated. (The Nieuport 11 E deck and the Zero C deck are some examples).

[grumpybear]

Fully agreed.
I don't need rules changes. Just some tweaks here and there that can be done with optional/house rules.
Maybe the remake of a few maneuver decks (both WW1 and WW2) that should be printed without miniature associated. (The Nieuport 11 E deck and the Zero C deck are some examples).

100% I agree A few tweaks covered by house rules is all I think is needed

[Пилот]

3 card sequence is O.K for WW1.

Tailing should be checked always, and not only at the start of the move.

Different card combinations should give different ways to dive (If I'm right, Zoe had very good ideas about it) or maneuver. Immelman (Straight - Immelman - Straght) in WW1 shouldn't be used to change altitude - just to change direction. All these maneuvers should be made official, to avoid too many variations in Rules housing during tournaments. Of course, who ever wants to play with own rules is more than welcome.

Point blanc range should be introduced (and corresponding ruler printed).

Planes should be shot down more quickly. Airplane with 15 or 16 HP now needs (average) 10 cards to be shot down. For me that's too much luck.

Attacking from advantageous position should be rewarded more than it is now.

Basically, I'm for rules which will reward good pilots, able to outmaneuver the opponent - using possibilities given by the Rules. So, no need for new rules in GW manner (as Andrzej pointed well), and certainly not for game system change.

Extra rules people mentioned (torpedo bombing etc.) will give new flavour to the game and give chance for more scenarios, without burdening existing/new rules.

[flash]

...Maybe the remake of a few maneuver decks (both WW1 and WW2) that should be printed without miniature associated....

If they sorted out the altitude rules to something more playable then I'd advocate the print a deck of climbing and diving turns to cover all aircraft decks, or even a generic set for the half dozen speed bands that exist, and suitably extended standard dive cards for those that want them. :)

[AlgyLacey]

print a deck of climbing and diving turns to cover all aircraft decks, or even a generic set for the half dozen speed bands that exist, and suitably extended standard dive cards for those that want them. :)

Seconded!

[Nicola Zee]

If they sorted out the altitude rules to something more playable then I'd advocate the print a deck of climbing and diving turns to cover all aircraft decks, or even a generic set for the half dozen speed bands that exist, and suitably extended standard dive cards for those that want them. :)
Many people - especially those who have flown planes - regard the official altitude rules as too limited to be anything like realistic. It would be good to have extra dive and climb cards to better reflect reality but if you really want to cover the bases (e.g. turning dives and climbs and have super divers like the Spad XIII dive more than other planes) the extra cards become a bit of a pain.

It has been suggested that tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards can work. I have used this technique for about a year and it does work. Recently, I'm considering replacing the tokens with dive and climb token cards. Each plane has up to 3 dive and climb token cards with pictures of the movement cards they can be placed on top of. To replicate the current official climb\dive cards, the plane would have one dive token card with a picture of the long straight card on it and one climb token card with a picture of the stall card on it and 3 blank climb\dive token cards. To dive, the dive token card would be placed face-down on a long straight card on it - which matches the picture on it. To climb, the token card would be placed face-down on a long straight card on it. This technique can enable super-divers such as the Spad XIII super-diver to do spectacle turns which only consist of dives. The extra token cards can have different backs and be kept separate from the main deck which would make them much more manageable.

[Blackronin]

When I play with altitude rules. I don't play with the altitude cards. I use counters to go up or down with the normal cards:

Straight (goes fully down);
Stall (goes fully up);
Turns and slips (low speed goes half points up - round up; High speeds goes down);
Reverse (Goes fully up or fully down - the previous straight maneuver indicates what maneuver is done, up or down)

[flash]

...but if you really want to cover the bases...the extra cards become a bit of a pain...
And fiddling about with tokens, as I do at the moment, is less of a pain ?! :confused: Rather have unequivocal cards but what you suggest is certainly a solution & you may only need a pack or two to cover your needs. :)

[Nicola Zee]

And fiddling about with tokens, as I do at the moment, is less of a pain ?! :confused: Rather have unequivocal cards but what you suggest is certainly a solution & you may only need a pack or two to cover your needs. :)
I'm, also, currently 'fiddling about with tokens' and I will admit it's, also, a pain. But the trouble is if you add in say 3 dive cards for a Spad XIII plus 3 left dive right cards and 3 right dive cards plus say 2 climb cards and maybe 2 left climb cards and 2 right climb cards... well you end up with a lot of cards and as they're all movement cards each movement deck becomes a lot bigger. If there's a separate deck, you only need a pack or two for all planes and when you play you can keep the dive\climb 'token' cards separate from the normal movement deck.

P.S. I've not tried it - so currently it's just an idea. I suspect I'm going to keep using tokens as it will save me having to make the dive\climb token cards.

[flash]

...... well you end up with a lot of cards and as they're all movement cards each movement deck becomes a lot bigger.
Yeah, the card numbers could really stack up but I'm sure some would find room for them - it will never happen of course !


...I suspect I'm going to keep using tokens as it will save me having to make the dive\climb token cards.
That might be something Mike (OldGuy59) would take an interest in creating for you/us ... :slysmile: ;)

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

1. An extension to the advanced rules to cover:
a. Climbing/diving when turning.
b. Over diving chart for aircraft that should take damage as they were poor at it.
c. Torpedo rules.
d. Limiting maneuvers for rookie pilots (probably more for a campaign than an individual games).
e. Agreed points lists for all aircraft, official/unofficial, for competitions.
f. Diving chart for all aircraft as an extension to climb counters.
g. Artillery target direction rules.
h. Inclusion of a basic set of campaign rules, could be based on the OTT campaign.
i. Removal of turn cards when taking rudder damage.
j. Inclusion of a critical hit deck to be used with the explosion card.

[Nicola Zee]

Yeah, the card numbers could really stack up but I'm sure some would find room for them - it will never happen of course !
That might be something Mike (OldGuy59) would take an interest in creating for you/us ... :slysmile: ;)
That would be great but I still not sure if the idea will (if you pardon the terrible pun) fly! :)
To give an idea of what I think the token dive\climb cards look like I've come up with the following examples:
All players would need 3 Blank 'Token' Dive\Climb Cards and would need additional cards based on the type of plane

A. Two-engined bombers
1 Climb with a picture of Stall Card
1 Dive with a picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
Jumbo jets can rapidly lose altitude with a side-slip so my guess is a Gotha should be able to do the same thing.

B. Most Two-seater planes
2 Climb cards both with pictures of Stall Card
1 Dive with picture of a Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of a Long Straight
This means a two-seater can dive up to 2 levels and climb twice

C. Standard - Most fighters
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and 60 degree Left and right turns

D. Poor divers - e.g. Alb DVa
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card and left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight

E. Good Divers and Climbers - e.g SE5a, SpadXIII etc
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card and 60 degree left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and 60 degree Left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight

These are just very preliminary ideas.

PS Rookie pilots were reluctant to do complicated dives - so for Rookies the dive cards would be restricted to Long Straights and the climb cards to stall cards.

PPS And for planes where the wings tend to come off in long dives, the dive 'token' cards would have a Steep symbol on them - meaning the planes can't do two dives in a row.

[flash]

Crikey, that's quite complex - you may be better off starting with a sheet of climb/dive cards and a crib sheet detailing the type of aircraft detailing where/how you can use them, basically because that would be easier to modify whilst you play test.
My inclination would be towards unrestricted flying - ie all aircraft can do climb/dive turns, shallow climb/dives on straights (using the official climb/dive cards for steep climbs/dives), 'dives' on side slips to lose height, 'climbs' on stalls - as that is simpler to operate. Restrictions for specific aircraft re dives/climbs can be specified by the number of pegs/markers they can drop/gain as now. I like the rookie restriction :)
There are a couple of AAR I did here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15010-Knock-Him-Off-His-Perch&highlight=perch) and here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15147-Knock-Him-Off-His-Perch-Too-!&highlight=perch) that I used to demo my simple altitude rules in the files here. (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1361)
There is another AAR here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15329-Showing-the-Moves-!&highlight=showing+moves) that combines those with some special manoeuvres. The manoeuvres are detailed in the files here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1360) if you'd like to cast an eye over them.
I think they'd work fine with the cards and maybe a little tweaking. :)

[Nicola Zee]

Crikey, that's quite complex - you may be better off starting with a sheet of climb/dive cards and a crib sheet detailing the type of aircraft detailing where/how you can use them, basically because that would be easier to modify whilst you play test.
My inclination would be towards unrestricted flying - ie all aircraft can do climb/dive turns, shallow climb/dives on straights (using the official climb/dive cards for steep climbs/dives), 'dives' on side slips to lose height, 'climbs' on stalls - as that is simpler to operate. Restrictions for specific aircraft re dives/climbs can be specified by the number of pegs/markers they can drop/gain as now. I like the rookie restriction :)
There are a couple of AAR I did here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15010-Knock-Him-Off-His-Perch&highlight=perch) and here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15147-Knock-Him-Off-His-Perch-Too-!&highlight=perch) that I used to demo my simple altitude rules in the files here. (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1361)
There is another AAR here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?15329-Showing-the-Moves-!&highlight=showing+moves) that combines those with some special manoeuvres. The manoeuvres are detailed in the files here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1360) if you'd like to cast an eye over them.
I think they'd work fine with the cards and maybe a little tweaking. :)
With your house rules it looks a bit like a case of great minds (or maybe slightly mad ones :)) think alike. My original house rules were very similar. I used the max dive values from Canvas Eagles and rummikub counters 0-4 for each plane to secretly record how many levels dived for the dive card. It worked OK and one of the players liked this approach a lot.

But, when I extended my house rules to include speed bonus for a dive I found this approach did not fit. So, I simplified and got rid of the dive\climb cards entirely. In my current house rules, planes can only dive one level down each movement step and the next movement card after the dive card is extended (unless the dive was done with a sideslip). This sounds restrictive but the different max dive rates for the planes are implemented by the number of dive tokens each plane has. Most planes have 2 and so can dive 2 steps in a turn. Super-divers such as a Spad XIII has 3 dive tokens and so can dive 3 steps in a turn. The Albatros DVa has 2 but is restricted and so cannot do a dive following a dive - in effect a max of 1 1/2 averaged over 2 turns. The advantage of this approach is that it is not radically different to the original game but enables realistic diving.

[Zoe Brain]

The simplified altitude rules used at CANCON and WINTERCON for the last few years work really well.

gain/lose X means gain/lose X pegs.

Half loop - Straight, reversal and gain 1, stall.
Split S - stall, reversal and lose 1, straight
Immelman - straight, reversal, straight
Wingover - stall, reversal and lose 1, dive and lose 2
Overdive - stall, dive and lose 2, straight and lose 2 (but take damage from 2 steeps unless SE5a,Spads,Pfalzs)

Climb - up by 1 (not for aircraft with climb over 6)
Dive -down by 2 The Ace ability for diving allows you to go down by 1 instead of 1 climb counter.

Then for those doing straight-climb-straight gain 2 climb counters per card, using the rules as written. So straight-climb-straight = 6 climb counters. These must be "traded in" for pegs as soon as they can be.

Firing - 1 alt difference = +1, 2 alt difference = half range, 3+ alt difference - no firing.

Note - a loop is a 5-card trick. For an upwards loop, straight, reversal+1, stall, reversal-1, straight. Basically a half-loop up followed by a split S (half loop down).
Note - collisions - ignore climb counters, go by pegs only.

[LOOP]

Let me start: Why not plan just 2 maneuver cards instead of three? Have you noticed how hard is to shake off an attacker in WGS and how rarely we find ourselves in a tailing position in WGF?

Copy that

[OldGuy59]

Yeah, the card numbers could really stack up but I'm sure some would find room for them - it will never happen of course !


That might be something Mike (OldGuy59) would take an interest in creating for you/us ... :slysmile: ;)
Being I don't fly using altitude rules, this isn't a big issue for me.

And I'm still trying to wedge the "very slow"maneuver cards into my project list.

So, what, exactly, is the proposal? Counters or cards for altitude? I have the expanded climb-dive maneuver decks, that included turns, (these were on the forum a while ago) for card templates.

[OldGuy59]

1. An extension to the advanced rules to cover:
a. Climbing/diving when turning. Agree
b. Over diving chart for aircraft that should take damage as they were poor at it. Agree
c. Torpedo rules. Probably? Haven't expanded my experience in WoG to this yet.
d. Limiting maneuvers for rookie pilots (probably more for a campaign than an individual games). Agree
e. Agreed points lists for all aircraft, official/unofficial, for competitions. Strongly Agree
f. Diving chart for all aircraft as an extension to climb counters. ? Again, not sure about this, but not playing altitude, so...
g. Artillery target direction rules. Probably?
h. Inclusion of a basic set of campaign rules, could be based on the OTT campaign. Agree
i. Removal of turn cards when taking rudder damage. Absolutely NOT!
j. Inclusion of a critical hit deck to be used with the explosion card. Agree

For "i." above, I'm so against this house rule, I would pass on a game rather that play with someone who insisted on using it. It is almost as bad, to me, as the rule on fires not allowing straight maneuvers. The game mechanics allow for yawing to shoot, but that is not considered for fires? Nonsense. For jammed rudders, they can be unjammed in flight, depending on what caused the jam. Also, the game mechanics gloss over turns without rudders, which are possible. A jammed rudder should only prevent sharp turns, not prevent all turns. Damaged/destroyed rudders are a different matter, and could be one of the "assumed" results of an explosion damage card.

So, depriving a player of turn cards for a temporary condition is a game stopper for me!

[Пилот]

This topic turns very complex one (as expected). I tried to put together and organize all ideas mentioned till now. With Keith's permission, maybe new Forum/Subforum (maybe in House Rules?) should be opened, to discuss various aspects mentioned here, for transparency sake.

POINT VALUES
Agreed point lists for all aircraft, official/unofficial, for competitions.

MOVE
3 cards vs 2 cards

SPEED/CILMB RATE
A speed bonus for the move after a dive.
Slower climb rate for bomb carrying planes

MISSIONS/CAMAPIGNS
Artillery Observation/ Artillery target direction rules
Flare signal rules
Torpedo bombing rules
Basic set of campaign rules, could be based on the OTT campaign.

ALTITUDE/MANEUVER RULES

Dives/Climbs (cards)
Deck of climbing and diving turns, to cover all aircraft decks OR generic set for the half dozen speed bands that exist, and suitably extended standard dive cards for those that want them vs. actual rules
Climb/Dive while turning
Immelman (Straight - Immelman - Straight) in WW1 shouldn't be used to change altitude - just to change direction.
Over diving chart for aircraft that should take damage as they were poor at it.
Diving chart for all aircraft as an extension to climb counters.
A shallow dive manoeuvre, allowing a plane just to descend by one peg.

The simplified altitude rules ( gain/lose X means gain/lose X pegs)
Half loop - Straight, reversal and gain 1, stall.
Split S - stall, reversal and lose 1, straight
Immelman - straight, reversal, straight
Wingover - stall, reversal and lose 1, dive and lose 2
Overdive - stall, dive and lose 2, straight and lose 2 (but take damage from 2 steeps unless SE5a,Spads,Pfalzs)
Climb - up by 1 (not for aircraft with climb over 6)
Dive -down by 2 The Ace ability for diving allows you to go down by 1 instead of 1 climb counter.
Then for those doing straight-climb-straight gain 2 climb counters per card, using the rules as written. So straight-climb-straight = 6 climb counters. These must be "traded in" for pegs as soon as they can be.
Firing - 1 alt difference = +1, 2 alt difference = half range, 3+ alt difference - no firing.
Note - a loop is a 5-card trick. For an upwards loop, straight, reversal+1, stall, reversal-1, straight. Basically a half-loop up followed by a split S (half loop down).
Note - collisions - ignore climb counters, go by pegs only.

Dives/Climbs (tokens)
PRO: Tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards
Each plane has up to 3 dive and climb token cards with pictures of the movement cards they can be placed on top of. To replicate the current official climb\dive cards, the plane would have one dive token card with a picture of the long straight card on it and one climb token card with a picture of the stall card on it and 3 blank climb\dive token cards. To dive, the dive token card would be placed face-down on a long straight card on it - which matches the picture on it. To climb, the token card would be placed face-down on a long straight card on it. This technique can enable super-divers such as the Spad XIII super-diver to do spectacle turns which only consist of dives. The extra token cards can have different backs and be kept separate from the main deck which would make them much more manageable.
Straight (goes fully down);
Stall (goes fully up);
Turns and slips (low speed goes half points up - round up; High speeds goes down);
Reverse (Goes fully up or fully down - the previous straight maneuver indicates what maneuver is done, up or down)

CON: is if you add in say 3 dive cards for a Spad XIII plus 3 left dive right cards and 3 right dive cards plus say 2 climb cards and maybe 2 left climb cards and 2 right climb cards... well you end up with a lot of cards and as they're all movement cards each movement deck becomes a lot bigger. If there's a separate deck, you only need a pack or two for all planes and when you play you can keep the dive\climb 'token' cards separate from the normal movement deck.

Other examples
PRO: All players would need 3 Blank 'Token' Dive\Climb Cards and additional cards based on the type of plane
A. Two-engined bombers
1 Climb with a picture of Stall Card
1 Dive with a picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
Jumbo jets can rapidly lose altitude with a side-slip so my guess is a Gotha should be able to do the same thing.
B. Most Two-seater planes
2 Climb cards both with pictures of Stall Card
1 Dive with picture of a Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of a Long Straight
This means a two-seater can dive up to 2 levels and climb twice
C. Standard - Most fighters
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and 60 degree Left and right turns
D. Poor divers - e.g. Alb DVa
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card and left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight
E. Good Divers and Climbers - e.g SE5a, SpadXIII etc
2 Climb both with pictures of Stall Card and 60 degree left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and left and right SideSlips
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight and 60 degree Left and right turns
1 Dive with picture of Long Straight
These are just very preliminary ideas.
PS Rookie pilots were reluctant to do complicated dives - so for Rookies the dive cards would be restricted to Long Straights and the climb cards to stall cards.
PPS And for planes where the wings tend to come off in long dives, the dive 'token' cards would have a Steep symbol on them - meaning the planes can't do two dives in a row.
CON: May be better off starting with a sheet of climb/dive cards and a crib sheet detailing the type of aircraft detailing where/how you can use them, basically because that would be easier to modify whilst you play test. All aircraft can do climb/dive turns, shallow climb/dives on straights (using the official climb/dive cards for steep climbs/dives), 'dives' on side slips to lose height, 'climbs' on stalls - as that is simpler to operate. Restrictions for specific aircraft re dives/climbs can be specified by the number of pegs/markers they can drop/gain as now.

Maneuvers Other Than Climb/Dive
Official spinning rules
Glide rules codified
Limiting maneuvers for rookie pilots (probably more for a campaign than an individual games).

FIRING/DAMAGE/TAILING:
Different decks for hand held/turret guns and fixed forward firing?
Point blanc range should be introduced (and corresponding ruler printed).
Planes should be shot down more quickly
Removal of turn cards when taking rudder damage.
Inclusion of a critical hit deck to be used with the explosion card.
Checked always Vs. at the start of the move only.

I guess this is not perfect, but I hope it'll help :)

[Flying Officer Kyte]

For "i." above, I'm so against this house rule, I would pass on a game rather that play with someone who insisted on using it. It is almost as bad, to me, as the rule on fires not allowing straight maneuvers. The game mechanics allow for yawing to shoot, but that is not considered for fires? Nonsense. For jammed rudders, they can be unjammed in flight, depending on what caused the jam. Also, the game mechanics gloss over turns without rudders, which are possible. A jammed rudder should only prevent sharp turns, not prevent all turns. Damaged/destroyed rudders are a different matter, and could be one of the "assumed" results of an explosion damage card.

So, depriving a player of turn cards for a temporary condition is a game stopper for me!

It is really interesting to hear your opinion on the no turn card option Mike.
I tried it a couple of games and gave it up because it really did little to effect the outcome.
I never got more than two rudder damage in any game, and found that I also never wanted to do three consecutive right or left turns anyway, plus the fact that I could usually combine a tight turn and a gentle one to get three if I needed them. So for all the effort of removing cards and then having to return them to the right deck after the game, the result was not worth the effort.
As a footnote, I had assumed that the removal of a card just signified the greater effort to turn the aircraft rather than a complete destruction of the system of cables or locking of the pintels holding the tail.
So all in all, having tried it out, I'm with you on this for totally different reasons.:D
Rob.

[Nicola Zee]

It is really interesting to hear your opinion on the no turn card option Mike.
I tried it a couple of games and gave it up because it really did little to effect the outcome.
I never got more than two rudder damage in any game, and found that I also never wanted to do three consecutive right or left turns anyway, plus the fact that I could usually combine a tight turn and a gentle one to get three if I needed them. So for all the effort of removing cards and then having to return them to the right deck after the game, the result was not worth the effort.
As a footnote, I had assumed that the removal of a card just signified the greater effort to turn the aircraft rather than a complete destruction of the system of cables or locking of the pintels holding the tail.
So all in all, having tried it out, I'm with you on this for totally different reasons.:D
Rob.
I glad you posted this as I'm, also, against the removal of movement cards as it slows the game down and it can annoy the person who has reduced movement options for the rest of the game - especially if they have both left and right rudder jam.

I have house rules for the rudder jam cards but they are very trivial. Firstly, I refer to it as 'controls jam' not 'rudder jam' - turns are controlled by the ailerons with a small amount of rudder. Second for unstable planes (Fokker Dr1, Fokker EIII, Morane-Saulnier N and Sopwith Camel) the control jam special effect applies to the remainder of the current turn (as well as the next) and any illegal turns are replaced by straights and the plane takes an 'A' damage card.

[Nicola Zee]

I've also got one extra suggestion - extra movement turn cards with a 15 degree left and right arrows for minor adjustments in angle in flight. Mainly useful for maintaining formation.

[OldGuy59]

I glad you posted this as I'm, also, against the removal of movement cards as it slows the game down and it can annoy the person who has reduced movement options for the rest of the game - especially if they have both left and right rudder jam.

I have house rules for the rudder jam cards but they are very trivial. Firstly, I refer to it as 'controls jam' not 'rudder jam' - turns are controlled by the ailerons with a small amount of rudder.

This is an interesting rationale on the Jammed Turn special damage. FOD (Foreign Object Damage) is a killer, especially when it interferes with attitude controls. Pilots have had fatal, and non-fatal, experiences with jammed controls, some temporary with recoveries, some right up to the bail-out/crash. The Thunderbird Demonstration Team crash was blamed on a jammed control stick (1982 Thunderbirds - Indian Springs Diamond Crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Thunderbirds_Indian_Springs_Diamond_Crash)). I heard that this was due to the lead pilot's elevators being jammed, preventing the lead plane from pulling up. The rest of the team kept formation right into the ground. With enough altitude, the pilot may have been able to roll inverted and push the nose "down" and recover control. We will never know, in this instance. But a loose bolt or othe object could get in the way of the movement of the controls, and then fall out after some maneuvering. It could also get back into the controls again!


Second for unstable planes (Fokker Dr1, Fokker EIII, Morane-Saulnier N and Sopwith Camel) the control jam special effect applies to the remainder of the current turn (as well as the next) and any illegal turns are replaced by straights and the plane takes an 'A' damage card.

Not terribly in favour of this idea, if applied immediately. Should the pilot plan the move, yes. Damage from a bone-headed move like this got me shot down once. But I could also see not allowing "sharp" turns in the corresponding direction with a jam, too. Perhaps with an intervening straight between turns to represent the lack of control, or the attempts to "shake it out".

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I have house rules for the rudder jam cards but they are very trivial. Firstly, I refer to it as 'controls jam' not 'rudder jam' - turns are controlled by the ailerons with a small amount of rudder. Second for unstable planes (Fokker Dr1, Fokker EIII, Morane-Saulnier N and Sopwith Camel) the control jam special effect applies to the remainder of the current turn (as well as the next) and any illegal turns are replaced by straights and the plane takes an 'A' damage card.

As you say Nicola, the epithet Rudder jam is a bit of a misnomer. Just as the Explosion card covers a multitude of catastrophic events. If people stop to think, most of the rules cover far more aspects of flying an aircraft than they suggest at face value. That is why the game appears to be so simple, and yet is infinitely deep without a rulebook the size of a dictionary. This is the main reason that i was attracted to the game in the first place. If people read widely about the subject they can invent a reason for almost any of the events reflected in the cards, as witnessed in the many exceptionally well written AARs on the Drome. As far as changing the rule is concerned, each to his or her own says I.
Personally speaking, I find your control jam rules rather harsh, with the inclusion of A damage for maneuvers pre planned before the jam. I like the idea of substituting straights for illegal cards, but feel that A damage as well is too drastic an upgrade.
I will certainly adopt your straights rule in my private games, however.
Rob.

[Пилот]

I've also got one extra suggestion - extra movement turn cards with a 15 degree left and right arrows for minor adjustments in angle in flight. Mainly useful for maintaining formation.

My option is use slowest maneuver deck and maneuvers which fit all in that formation. So, there would be no need to print new cards.

And about jamming - why shouldn't second jam on the same side discard some maneuver cards from the deck?

[LOOP]

Personally speaking, I find your control jam rules rather harsh, with the inclusion of A damage for maneuvers pre planned before the jam. I like the idea of substituting straights for illegal cards, but feel that A damage as well is too drastic an upgrade.


That was my first reaction to. If you, in a dogfight, get hit and find yourself unable to do a turn, say to the left. You wouldn't try to turn so hard that your AC would fall into bits and piecies.
If you still have some leftturns planed when the ruder-, controljam apear you would simply go straight. But to take damage to that is double penalty in my opinion.

[Nicola Zee]

That was my first reaction to. If you, in a dogfight, get hit and find yourself unable to do a turn, say to the left. You wouldn't try to turn so hard that your AC would fall into bits and piecies.
If you still have some leftturns planed when the ruder-, controljam apear you would simply go straight. But to take damage to that is double penalty in my opinion.
Thank you to Loop, Mike and Rob for taking the time to reply - the great thing about this forum is the informed sensible feedback and constructive criticism - as opposed to some forums which to my tastes have too much swearing and ignorant juvenile rudeness. I'm going to downgrade the damage from an 'A' damage card to a 'B' damage card. But, what I'm trying to do is make unstable planes more risky to fly. Another possibility is to replace the Straights with Dives so the plane loses height as well but that may add too much unnecessary complication - especially for those who do not use altitude rules. The Camel and Dr1 were infamously dangerous to fly due to instability.

PS and to be honest one key objection I have to removing movement cards for rudder jam is I have enough trouble stopping players mixing and losing movement cards as it is - despite keeping each deck in its own little box.

[LOOP]

Thank you to Loop, Mike and Rob for taking the time to reply - the great thing about this forum is the informed sensible feedback and constructive criticism - as opposed to some forums which to my tastes have too much swearing and ignorant juvenile rudeness. I'm going to downgrade the damage from an 'A' damage card to a 'B' damage card. But, what I'm trying to do is make unstable planes more risky to fly. Another possibility is to replace the Straights with Dives so the plane loses height as well but that may add too much unnecessary complication - especially for those who do not use altitude rules. The Camel and Dr1 were infamously dangerous to fly due to instability.

PS and to be honest one key objection I have to removing movement cards for rudder jam is I have enough trouble stopping players mixing and losing movement cards as it is - despite keeping each deck in its own little box.

Well it is of course up to you how you choose to play. The beuty of the game. ;)
And I fully agree with you that this forum has a heart. We can discuss a subject and allways keep it on a level where everything is said as a way of helping each other.
Hat of to everyone!!

[LOOP]

Why not plan just 2 maneuver cards instead of three? Have you noticed how hard is to shake off an attacker in WGS and how rarely we find ourselves in a tailing position in WGF?

Just had a thought aboute tailing. May just test it next time...
If you find yourself in a tailing position after card 1 or 2. you may choose an additional card to the one you have left.
That means that you have 2 or 3 cards to choose from under the reminder of that turn (if you still are in a tailingposition).
You choose your sequence and play them according the tailingrules. The extra card goes back to the deck when the turn is over. If you are able to tail your enemy the ordinary rules steps in.
Just a flash...... Nothing tested....:confused:

[steel_ratt]

"I'm also against the removal of movement cards as it slows the game down and it can annoy the person who has reduced movement options for the rest of the game"

I find this statement interesting in light of the current official rules for engine damage. I always thought that the permanency of the "reduced movement options" for engine damage to be out of proportion with all other special damage. So why not 'up the ante' for other special damage to have permanent effects?

On a side note, we are seeing a lot of discussion here on the merits of specific solutions to specific aspects of play. I'd like to see more discussion on whether or not a subject deserves to have official rules made for it (or revised) rather than focusing on exactly what those rules should look like.

[Nicola Zee]

"I'm also against the removal of movement cards as it slows the game down and it can annoy the person who has reduced movement options for the rest of the game"

I find this statement interesting in light of the current official rules for engine damage. I always thought that the permanency of the "reduced movement options" for engine damage to be out of proportion with all other special damage. So why not 'up the ante' for other special damage to have permanent effects?
...
I'm not a great fan of engine damage for that very reason - it's realistic but not that much fun. But as it's official and it does not turn up very often I just live with it.

[flash]

... what I'm trying to do is make unstable planes more risky to fly. Another possibility is to replace the Straights with Dives so the plane loses height as well but that may add too much unnecessary complication ...
You could always put them in a spin (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?2375-Spinning-Out) Nicola !

[OldGuy59]

You could always put them in a spin (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?2375-Spinning-Out) Nicola !

Hmmm.... Has Andrea[Angiolillo] commented on the spin idea?

I know that dynamically unstable aircraft have flat spin issues, and I suspect that some WWI planes (like the Camel) would have spun-out rather easily (however, I don't recall reading about this to date in historical references. Not that I've read lots, yet). Some WWI planes would not spin, as they were too dynamically stable.

We might need a reference table for planes indicating which planes could spin.

I like the idea of the spin, depending on the plane, instead of instant elimination, or an "A" damage card, for an illegal move.

[flash]

Hmmm.... Has Andrea[Angiolillo] commented on the spin idea?
He's not read the thread as far as I can see.


I know that dynamically unstable aircraft have flat spin issues, and I suspect that some WWI planes (like the Camel) would have spun-out rather easily (however, I don't recall reading about this to date in historical references. Not that I've read lots, yet). Some WWI planes would not spin, as they were too dynamically stable. We might need a reference table for planes indicating which planes could spin. I like the idea of the spin, depending on the plane, instead of instant elimination, or an "A" damage card, for an illegal move.
It was developed initially as a game mechanic for coping with illegal moves instead of instant elimination - aircraft types did not come into it - since then some have suggested its use as a deliberate tactic, amongst other things.. :)

[Nicola Zee]

He's not read the thread as far as I can see.


It was developed initially as a game mechanic for coping with illegal moves instead of instant elimination - aircraft types did not come into it - since then some have suggested its use as a deliberate tactic, amongst other things.. :)
I like your spin implementation - it's elegant in its simplicity. At this stage, I'm not sure about its implications. I would not want it to be used as a better way of losing height quickly compared to an extended steep dive. You do lose height in a spin but not as fast as you can in a steep dive. In addition, while it's a safe and straightforward manoeuvre for a stable plane (given plenty of height for safety), I don't think anyone would do it in a plane like a Sopwith Camel unless they were very desperate.

PS But I could be wrong about the Camel and the Dr 1. Has anyone come across evidence it was safe to spin these planes - taking into account that a controlled spinning dive is not the same as a true spin.
was

[Naharaht]

All the discussion so far has been about rules. Under Accessories, I would like a box of spare manoeuvre decks. Would cardboard clouds be any use?

[Пилот]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but: is it possible for Unofficial Stats Committee to take a look at this thread and make decisions based on given proposals? In that way unofficial rules would be unified and used as unofficial, but worldwide excepted rules. Also, Improved Rules Pack could be presented to Ares to publish them on their site.

[Flying Helmut]

I'm not a great fan of engine damage for that very reason - it's realistic but not that much fun.

It can be! Having had to try to escape from several Albatros DVas in a DH4 following a bombing mission, what should have been an easy escape (head start, all planes equally fast) was turned into a tense nail-biter in that my DH4 had engine damage! Only cloud-hopping saved me - it was really quite "stimulating"!

[Zoe Brain]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but: is it possible for Unofficial Stats Committee to take a look at this thread and make decisions based on given proposals? Yes.

[Пилот]

Thank you!

And I new I forgot something..

What about formation flying? I suggest, if formation consists of planes with different maneuver decks (even mixed fighters and two-seaters etc), to use slowest and least maneuverable cards involved. Also, as most bombers are to slow, they can fly in formation only with other bombers, not with scouts or two-seaters.

If formation consists of planes using the same maneuver deck, everything is fine.

[Jager]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but: is it possible for Unofficial Stats Committee to take a look at this thread and make decisions based on given proposals? In that way unofficial rules would be unified and used as unofficial, but worldwide excepted rules. Also, Improved Rules Pack could be presented to Ares to publish them on their site.

Yes.
What, we're vetting house rules now too? :confused:
Karl

[Zoe Brain]

What, we're vetting house rules now too? :confused:
Karl
Looks Like it. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

[flash]

I like your spin implementation - it's elegant in its simplicity....

Thanks Nicola, that was the plan ! People have taken the idea and added their own tweaks re possible damage/recovery etc. Some suggested its use as a deliberate escape tactic when in serious trouble; My main interest was developing the card placement for both types of spin.

[Jager]

Looks Like it. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

Oh, so we're a democracy now too ;)
I guess YOU can start making the lists, then :slysmile:
Karl

[Пилот]

Surfimp has a good idea about arty spotting:

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?19811-Artillery-Spotting-Gameplay-Idea

[john snelling]

This is not my idea but, one I will champion.

A RG (rear gunner) deck of 50 or so cards. Weaken the rear gunners so "B" gun aircraft are not overwhelmed.

[Zoe Brain]

Re Spins - there are two types. First, the traditional "going down in flames" type spin, a vertical dive while rolling. This loses altitude fast, wings may fall off fragile aircraft, but is relatively easy to recover from. Second, the more dangerous "flat spin" where the aircraft has its nose level rather than pointing down, and is dropping slowly but vertically, continuously yawing. This can be recovered from by most aircraft, but not all - especially modern ones, that require a "spin chute" to be deployed. The recovery is to convert it into the first type of spin by putting rudder and stick "into the corner", and hoping the control surfaces can bite sufficiently.

The vertical spin can be simulated by playing a 60 degree turn, reversal, 60 degree turn and losing 3 (if using optional height rules) or 1 (if not). It can be recovered from at the beginning of any turn by using a power dive (stall, reversal, dive). Aircraft using X decks without 60 degree turns can't do this, they're toast.

A flat spin - the plane doesn't move, it drops 1 peg vertically, facing any direction the nearest opponent chooses. It can be fired at, but cannot fire. Rules for recovery need to be worked on, but recovery is into a vertical spin, then into a power dive, so if you're less than 8 above the ground, oopsie..... you lose 1 for each turn of flat spin, 3 for the vertical spin, 3 for the power dive. Not recommended without lots of altitude to play with.
I suggest Aces with acrobatic maneuvers recover whenever they want to, those Aces without after 2 turns, others after 3 turns.

As to when to go into a spin of either type - flat spin as a consequence of doing an illegal maneuver involving a turn (otherwise A damage), vertical spin whenever you wish or as a result of a boom card/ 0 damage/pilot killed. Engine failure or recovery after boom or 0 points - use the "out of control" sequence of playing at least one stall card and one dive card every turn.

You can actually simulate the "cornfield bomber" incident this way.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2XZEYqIpQ

[Zoe Brain]

Also this one -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvbS-oHi9ro

[redcoon2]

Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

Any thoughts?

[Diamondback]

You can actually simulate the "cornfield bomber" incident this way.
WHOA! Don't diss my peeps in the Six community and our bird like that!

Rest of the Story: The recoil from ejecting was just enough to bring the bird straight and level, and it returned to straight-line flight until running out of fuel.

By the way, after replacing some sheetmetal, that particular aircraft did return to service. :D

[Strangely Brown]

Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

Any thoughts?

Try going "the whole 9 yards". Issue each player 9 tokens/pegs/jelly babies. Each time they fire they surrender a token until they're out. This encourages people to get in close to make the most of the two damage card/tokens rule. In campaigns, more experienced pilots get more tokens/pegs/jelly babies as they have "learned" to use shorter bursts.

Rear gunners could have one or two reloads if it fits the type.

You will also find people don't hang around the fight if they're out of ammo... Maybe this was Hedeby's excuse at Doncaster?

[Jager]

Realize most of these suggestions center on extreme maneuvers...and mostly pertinent to advanced versions of play (since altitude is not "basic").

After just spending the weekend assisting introducing a large number of potential newbies at our B.G.I.F. exhibit table at the Dawn Patrol Rendezvous 2014 at US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio I did come away wondering about a method to measure/regulate the amount of ammo used by each plane. Seems we currently operate with the theory you can bang away to your heart's content with no care about empty guns.

Any thoughts?

I believe that ammo rules have been discussed in the house rules section. I'll look for the threads soon.
karl

[Пилот]

Is there a chance to make damage more severe? To make extracting 0s from the deck official?
And/or introducing point blank range, but without making chances for jamming bigger? Something like three damage cards, but jam on third card doesn't apply to shooter, but to target?

[milcoll73]

[QUOTE=Nicola Zee;310344]Many people - especially those who have flown planes - regard the official altitude rules as too limited to be anything like realistic. It would be good to have extra dive and climb cards to better reflect reality but if you really want to cover the bases (e.g. turning dives and climbs and have super divers like the Spad XIII dive more than other planes) the extra cards become a bit of a pain.

It has been suggested that tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards can work.


i really like that idea as its a simple fix for a simple (yet elegant) system. alls that would be required is printing of dive tokens as the climb tokens already exist.

[milcoll73]

the only things i think need a bit of revision is the writing of the altitude section. as written its a bit vague and makes altitude seem more complex than it is and therefore is a bit intimidating for new players.

the other is the 3 staged layout of the rulebook. its awesome for new players to introduce the different stages of the game but for more experienced players trying to look up a rules clarification it can be difficult to find the exact passage pertaining to said rule, especially if you cant remember at which stage it was introduced. maybe have the latter part of the book include ALL the rules under 1 heading so one wouldnt have to refer to the basic or intermediate sections when looking for a specific clarification.

[Nicola Zee]

[QUOTE=Nicola Zee;310344]Many people - especially those who have flown planes - regard the official altitude rules as too limited to be anything like realistic. It would be good to have extra dive and climb cards to better reflect reality but if you really want to cover the bases (e.g. turning dives and climbs and have super divers like the Spad XIII dive more than other planes) the extra cards become a bit of a pain.

It has been suggested that tokens placed on top of the movement cards to turn them into dive\climb cards can work.


i really like that idea as its a simple fix for a simple (yet elegant) system. alls that would be required is printing of dive tokens as the climb tokens already exist.
Thanks for the thumbs up. The trouble with the official climb and dive movement cards is it adds cards to the plane's main movement deck where it takes time to find them but only allows the planes to climb and dive 1 level. By placing a marked (but face-down) token on a standard straight movement card (to turn it into a dive), and a marked token on a stall (to turn it into a climb), players don't have to look for the specially colored movement cards. It's actually faster. Its a simple way of enabling planes to do double climbs (two stalls marked as climbs). As dives are not steep, super-divers (e.g. Spad XIII) have 3 dive tokens and can do 3 dives in a row. For planes not great at diving (e.g. Alb DVa) a dive is a steep manoeuvre and so cannot do 2 dives in a row. This is the house rule I've been using for about a year.

I use a slight simplification. There is no need to have two sets of separate marked tokens (one marked for dive and one for climb) as with this house rule only stall cards can be climbs and only straight cards count a dives and so you can tell which is which if they have a marked token. You do need a set of blank tokens so you have a token to put on top of a Stall of Straight movement card for level flight. Both sets of marked and unmarked tokens do need to have the same tops so other players cannot see which is which.

It plays a very similar game to the official dive and climb rules but enables a bit more options and a little more realism.

[Zoe Brain]

The simplest system is climb = up 1 peg, dive = down 2 pegs.

The problem with additional climb/turn maneuvers is that if you turn, you lose lift, so turn slower. Dive/turn is a bit better, but you tend to gain speed and thus increase turn radius. Having dive/climb cards is actually more accurate, just as long as you realise that you're composing a maneuver out of 3 cards, rather than doing 3 distinct maneuvers.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

[QUOTE=milcoll73;312527]


I use a slight simplification. There is no need to have two sets of separate marked tokens (one marked for dive and one for climb) as with this house rule only stall cards can be climbs and only straight cards count a dives and so you can tell which is which if they have a marked token. You do need a set of blank tokens so you have a token to put on top of a Stall of Straight movement card for level flight. Both sets of marked and unmarked tokens do need to have the same tops so other players cannot see which is which.

It plays a very similar game to the official dive and climb rules but enables a bit more options and a little more realism.

I have been using a system similar to indicate climbing and diving turns for a while now since I realized that for 300 aircraft I would need to print 1200 new cards even if I only used one turn each way.
It really is no more bother than using a speed indicator card in WW2.
Rob.

[Nicola Zee]

The simplest system is climb = up 1 peg, dive = down 2 pegs.

The problem with additional climb/turn maneuvers is that if you turn, you lose lift, so turn slower. Dive/turn is a bit better, but you tend to gain speed and thus increase turn radius. Having dive/climb cards is actually more accurate, just as long as you realise that you're composing a maneuver out of 3 cards, rather than doing 3 distinct maneuvers.

How do you dive 1 level in the circumstance when you don't want to go down 2 levels? Dive tokens marked 1 and 2 could work.
How do you factor in the different climb rates of the planes? Maybe not a big issue for WW2 planes but a major factor in WW1. A Fokker DVII climbs a lot faster than a Gotha heavy bomber.

Having dive/climb cards is no more accurate than dive/climb tokens to convert the same manoeuvre cards to dive/climbs; functionally it's exactly the same. If you only allow the Stall card to be a Climb and the long Straight card to be a Dive its exactly the same - no difference really at all.

You do have a point about turning dives and turning climbs. I'm against turning climbs as it is unrealistic to go forward the same while going up - the exception is the short turning stall for the Fokker DVII.
Diving side-slips are realistic - especially as the length of the sideslip arrow on the card is actually longer than the straight; but I'd restrict these to a drop of 1 level.
Diving turns I think are OK as long as the turn is not 90 degrees but its not really necessary to have turning dives. Currently I've made it an Ace ability which can only be used for fighters.

[flash]

..Diving turns I think are OK as long as the turn is not 90 degrees but its not really necessary to have turning dives....

Really ?! In a word...Vrille ;)

[Nicola Zee]

Really ?! In a word...Vrille ;)
I'm not saying it's wrong - just not as important as other things such as being able to dive more than one level in a turn (and for me the overdive rule is just not realistic for anything but the early part of the war). It's more of a nice to have and if Zoe and others don't want it, I'm OK for it to be left out. Ideally, I would like a diving sideslip as it was (and still is) a standard way for a plane to lose height without gaining speed.

And with my house rules, a turning dive is still possible if you're an Ace - a novice pilot is unlikely to do a Vrille.

[flash]

Maybe not, though I thought that was a basic move, but being able to curve down behind your target is a nice thing to be able to do - calling it a dive may be overstating it perhaps.

[Eris Lobo]

Just wondering ... What ever became of all the ideas proposed in this thread? I thought the discussion was fascinating in places, and I'd hate to see it be forgotten.

Did the Unofficial Rules Committee ever look over the proposed ideas and come up with a comprehensive set of what they think makes sense to them?

In the meantime, I'll be giving the CanCon rules a try this week and see how they turn out. :)

-- Eris

[Zoe Brain]

Did the Unofficial Rules Committee ever look over the proposed ideas and come up with a comprehensive set of what they think makes sense to them?

There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.

[Stumptonian]

To create a newer version of the rules may just add constriction, stifle creativity and, of course, cost the end user more money. Maybe what we need is not RAP 2.0 but something like a downloadable FAQ sheet from ARES/Andrea with their recommended House Rules to cover all these issues.

Back in the '80s I was so looking forward to Avalon Hill's "Revised Rule Binder" for Squad Leader. The rules had changes with each new module and it got really confusing to remember what was what. Instead they brought out Advanced Squad Leader for $$$$$ and killed the game for me.

Downloadable FAQ sheet sounds like a good idea.

One thing I wish they had done was print the damage card decks A/B/C/D with different coloured backs for easy resorting.
But now that I have purchased two RAP just to get more B decks (and C D as bonus) I really don't want to do that again ...

[fast.git]

Just wondering ... What ever became of all the ideas proposed in this thread? I thought the discussion was fascinating in places, and I'd hate to see it be forgotten.

Agreed... especially as I'd done exactly that! Well worth a reread.


There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.

That's what I thought, too. I remember discussing the potential need for such a group on a number of occasions, however... It's something I wouldn't mind having a hand in should such a group come into being.

[Eris Lobo]

There's an Official Unofficial Stats Committee... but no Rules Committee, as far as I know.

Official Unofficial? That's like "Jumbo Shrimp" or 'Original Copy" or "Random Order" -- the two words cancel each other out, right? ;)

Seriously, though, I don't care who considers the proposed rules changes expressed by people in this thread ... but somebody needs to do it, I think, and (like has been suggested) either post the results on this board somewhere (preferably in a special sub-forum) and/or send the resulting list of optional rules to Ares with the request that it's posted on the company's official website.

Just thinking, y' know ... :thumbsup:

-- Eris

[Nightbomber]

What I do really like as far as ammending rules are concerned is what DoW company made with Battlelore (1.0) rules. They officially published rules variants like: Middleages tactics or Battle Savvy troops. One could use them or not - depending on players' choice. They really enriched the game's experience. Why not do it with WoG?

[fast.git]

Seriously, though, I don't care who considers the proposed rules changes expressed by people in this thread ... but somebody needs to do it, I think, and (like has been suggested) either post the results on this board somewhere (preferably in a special sub-forum) and/or send the resulting list of optional rules to Ares with the request that it's posted on the company's official website.

Sound thinking. It would be a monumental task, though. There are a ton of house rules kicking around.

[Naharaht]

Blank Manoeuvre cards to replace lost ones. I know that there were a few supplied in the Famous Aces set but they have 'Wings of War' printed on the back.

[Dan-Sam]

What I do really like as far as ammending rules are concerned is what DoW company made with Battlelore (1.0) rules. They officially published rules variants like: Middleages tactics or Battle Savvy troops. One could use them or not - depending on players' choice. They really enriched the game's experience. Why not do it with WoG?

Do you mean, for example, historical missions (like Shot Red Baron Down!) or really a set of rules?