PDA

View Full Version : Simplified Altitude Rules



Oberst Hajj
09-17-2009, 00:18
Here are the altitude rules I am developing for KotA. The reason I want to design my own altitude rules is that I feel with 6+ players on a single table, the altitude rules as written get a little cumbersome and slow down game play. My goals are to remove as much record keeping as possible and keep it as simple as possible. This means getting rid of the climb counters and different climb rates for all the planes.

Ignoring climb rates is not that hard as most planes of the time had similar rates of climbs. While the differences between planes was a major factor when getting up to altitude, in dogfights it was less important as energy management took over. Dogfights almost always end up losing altitude, not gaining it.

Removing the climb counters turns out not to be such an easy task. While they are tied into climb rates, they also give players insight into if a pilot/plane is trying to climb or dive. In real life, a pilot would be able to see the attitude of the plane he is engaged with and react to the increase or decrease in altitude. This does not translate into game play very well. To off set this, I've designed the following maneuver sequences dealing with altitude changes.

Normal Climb
2 card maneuver

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=578http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=581

Normal Dive
2 card maneuver

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=579http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=584

For these to work, the Steep symbol on the climb card would have to be ignored. Since the next card would have to be a stall anyway, that should not matter at all.

The purpose of having a set maneuver after the gain or loss of altitude is to give a vague sense of being able to react to a plane's pitch in attitude. While not perfect, this gives other players a good idea of about where a plane will be after completing a dive or climb (remember, if you know that the next card to be played is, you can deduce the general area the plane will be in after the third card is played). This is similar to how the Immelmann works out.

I am using a narrow range of altitude levels, ranged 1 through 6. Whenever a player plays the red climb or dive maneuver card, their plane is immediately placed in the next higher or lower altitude level. Some missions will state what altitude one or both sides must start at. In order to observe a ground target or do a bombing run, the plane must be at an altitude of 2 or lower. If a plane goes below altitude 1, it is considered grounded and removed from play (unless it lands on a landing strip). A plane that climbs above altitude 6 is considered to have fled the fight and escaped (follow the normal Chased Off rules in KotA). The use of the Litko 6 counter dials make keeping track of altitude very simple.

Shooting can only happen between planes of the same altitude or one level higher or lower. Shooting is reduced to only one shot at half distance of the range ruler.

When a plane is on the ground (or ground targets for that matter) they are considered at level 0. This means in order to strafe them, the plane needs to be at level 1. There are not restrictions to shooting between levels 1 and 0.

While not completely historically correct for the time, I have added the following maneuvers to the rules...

Immelmann
4 card maneuver
Gains 1 band of altitude

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=584http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=583http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=578http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=581

Split S
4 card maneuver
Loses 1 band of altitude

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=584http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=583http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=579http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=584

For these two maneuvers, I am not sure if the Steep symbol on the climb and dive cards should be ignored or not.

The other part of this system I have not totally figured out yet has to do with the Fokker D.VII. Should the non steep stall and the left and right turn stalls be able to be used as part of the normal climb sequence?

SHVAK
09-17-2009, 12:45
I dunno. I find the altitude rules too simple already, regardless of how many aircraft are on the table. Being a table top game, WoW doesn't compensate for altitude very well. I've toyed around with increasing realism, but it bogs the game down too much.

Desaix
09-17-2009, 16:01
I have also tried to modify altitude rules... Some stuff worked, some didn't...
My main goal in modifying altitude is to get better balance between the planes (particularly with the 2 seaters) but also to keep the game fast paced and light...
Right now, I am trying to do something along this line :


I think you may have the altitude changes wrong. My interprataion is that you play the UP card which kicks the plane's nose upward, and place the UP marker on your control card. Then you play non-steep maneuver cards untill the total cards played equal the climb rate for the plane. When you reach your desired altitude, you remove the climb marker from your control card to resume level flight. The DIVE card represents a nose down roller coaster drop! so you go down FAST. Using this system makes the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker DR1 Triplane really nasty to fight because they can go up one alt. level in one Game Turn.(Up card-Maneuver card-Maneuver card) which puts them almost instantly at long range or out of range completely! and on the next turn they can dive right onto your tail.

If you play the UP card once each Game Turn to climb,like you mentioned, the nimble little fighters fly more like the big lumbering bombers like the german gotha.

The rules as I explained them will also balance out the firing cones of the two seaters as you can dive and climb into and out of range faster then they can change directions. When playing two seaters in the 2d version of the game they are just fighters that can't do immelmann turns with up to 2 guns! I have found that the Alt. Rules are confusing to new players, and really bogg down play if there are more than 6 planes on the table at a time. So I don't use them much unless we have several experianced players or we are doing ground straiffing scenarios. You will find that they change the game into a whole new animal though, and you will need to learn all new tactics! (source: www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/434211)

Oberst Hajj
09-17-2009, 22:05
I've found that trying to add too much realism to WoW just bogs it down and cuts back on the fun factor of it. There are already quite a few WWI aerial combat games out there that are realistic and complex.

These rules were designed to add the tactical element of altitude with out slowing game play down due to record keeping or having to use "outside" materials.

Play a game or two with these rules and see how they actually work in a game.

Desaix
09-17-2009, 22:45
I tend to agree with you Col. Hajj but something needs to be done to bring the 2 seaters back in the game I think...
Right now they are the best planes and are a bite unbalanced so we don't use them much anymore...

I was mostly looking at the altitude rules to be a way to balance things out...

Oberst Hajj
09-18-2009, 01:35
We noticed that the two-seaters were a little strong in our altitude less campaign games as well and started adding more special rules to them (see this thread (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52)). I was not really happy with adding all the rules against them and even thought about limiting their use in Knights of the Air (I really did not want to do that!).

Adding in these simple altitude rules really changed how the game was played... and very much so for two-seaters. Since being one altitude level higher or lower effectively gets rid of long range shooting, the rear gun now only has long range shots at planes at the same altitude and only gets short range shots to the planes that stray to the side of the two-seater at the same altitude. Any thing at a lower altitude level can not be shot at by the rear gun at all.

The initial thought of two-seater pilots is to just hit the deck at altitude level 1. But as Carl pointed out in that other thread, that really opens them up to ground fire and limits their evasive options.

These changes really make it where a fighter can stalk a two seater and hunt him down!

Gravitypool
09-18-2009, 02:23
I still have to test the altitude rules myself but i agree that the official ones do not make the cut for me. I've seen the gamebhboardgeek rules too and i was going to give them a try but i think yours is definitely better. As i use to play with a "Complex maneuver" guide near to keep everybody aware of Immelmans/Split S/Zoom Dive an so on, it wouldn't be difficult to add this ones.

They have my approval ^^

Oberst Hajj
09-18-2009, 03:44
After a single game of using these, my group no longer needed to ask or be shown how to do them. I am planning on making a flight board for KotA that will have some game references on it... these would be easy to put on there.

Charlie3
09-18-2009, 10:05
I was reading these posts and had dejevu! The Boardgame Geek quote Desaix had in his post was mine! Anyway, the biggest problem I had with the altitude changes was that most of the players had a hard time getting used to counting the pegs to deturmine how high their opponets were. The system I outlined in the post worked very well, however I like the looks of Kevin's because it makes the immelmann/spit S maneuvers make more sense.
These two maneuvers in the game are 3 card alt. changes. The climb card causes some planes to take 4 cards to change alt. so why would you do a simple climb?

The card combinations he came up with also take into consideration the loss of momentum from climbing and the gaining of speed when diving.

I am going to use test adjustments this weekend at an organiztional session for our new DOW League and rules change meeting for our WoW league and will let you know the general concesus.

As for my initial imput I would not allow the D VII to use those short kinks and non stall cards after the immelmann card unless the pilot had an ace skill to back it up as these would be very difficult maneuvers.
Also I would like to add one more maneuver to your list. It is the Hammer Head turn. I have been looking for a way to add this to the game as it was a common maneuver of the time period and not included in the game. The plane goes vertical until it can no longer climb or the pilot shuts down the motor, then he kicks the rudder left or right causing the plane to nose over into a dive back on its original line. He then pulls out of the dive usually at the original altitude. This maneuver would be useful for straiffing runs as it would allow a pilot to spray a target and make a return to do it again quickly!
This maneuver would be accomplished by using the original rules;
"Blue line straight - Immelmann - Blue line straight"

Charlie3
09-18-2009, 12:00
Just an additional note for this quote ...

"you play the UP card which kicks the plane's nose upward, and place the UP marker on your control card. Then you play non-steep maneuver cards untill the total cards played equal the climb rate for the plane. When you reach your desired altitude, you remove the climb marker from your control card to resume level flight..."

In actual play we changed from using the UP marker to just placing the UP card face up in front of the control card after moving the plane and leaving it there until the climb rate had been compleated. There was less fuss that way and it was easier for players to see that a plane was climbing without having to ask. Most players also started to say they were climbing on their own when they played the card , it just seemed natural.

Iron Squid
09-19-2009, 06:50
Well, I've not tried altitude rules at all, official or otherwise, but your idea is easy to understand and feels right, Col. One thing I love about WoW is that is plays fast. The simplified rules may not give an accurate simulation of a dogfight, but they'll keep the game moving at a constant pace, and I've found that it's the easy flow of play that makes a game of WoW feel like a dogfight.

SHVAK
09-19-2009, 09:06
Hehe - this modified rule makes my SSw D.IV, with its climb rate of 1, nearly invincible!

Desaix
09-19-2009, 10:27
Another problem of the altitude rules is that the climbing rate are not much based on historical fact and are a bite fantasist...
As they are are not hard printed on the card, it is an easy thing to patch I guess...

Oberst Hajj
09-19-2009, 14:16
Yeah, these simplified rules are NOT intended to be realistic in any way. They ARE intended to let players use altitude in a FAST and FUN way! Just like the rest of the game!

Desaix
09-19-2009, 16:05
I have been thinking about the altitude and two-seaters problem for a while...
I came to two kind of ideas to fix it...

The first one is to give the altitude rules and give the real climb speed to the planes. I will come back to this option later...

The second one is in a completely different way...
Let's take a step back and consider the problem with a game designe point of view. Lets assume that the altitude has been abstracted and incorporated in a purely 2d game using the maneuver cards only and no altitude rules.
Then we need to be sure each plane has the climb/dive advantages/weakness they actually had historically incorporated in this 2d model.

These advantages/weakness would mostly affect :
- the capacity to dive/climb away from enemy fire
- the capacity to easily fly higher to better shoot and pursuit.

So if we keep the 3D abstracted, it mostly means that the single seaters and faster climbing planes have an advantage both at shooting inferior climbers and at avoiding their fire.

So a way of doing this easily with a simple fix would be by assigning to each plane an Agility level to reflect their capacity maneuver up and down easily.
Basically it could be 1 for the two-seaters and 2 for the fighters but it could be refined into a thinner scale to fit each plane specific capacities.

Then, in the game we can have some very simple mechanisms where the difference of Agility can be used. Something like :

http://estafette.forums-actifs.net/users/70/43/34/smiles/335810.gif If a plane firing at you have a lower agility than yours, he can only inflict you a single card maximum as damages per fire.
http://estafette.forums-actifs.net/users/70/43/34/smiles/335810.gif If you fire at a plane with a lower agility than yours, you inflict him an extra B card.

I will try this concept in my next games and see how it works..

SHVAK
09-19-2009, 17:15
As I've said before, this game is two-dimensional as it does not incorporate altitude very well. Altering the altitude rules creates new issues and/or bogs the game down dramatically. That is one reason I do not play bomber missions, scenarios or campaigns.

The great Spad XIII also suffers from poor altitude rules. Rather than jink (zig-zag) left and right, many Spad (and other planes) pilots used porpoising (vertical jinking up and down) to evade fire. You cannot do this in this game - at least not as well as turning to evade fire.

Although I haven't tried - it may be possible to reduce the lethality of bombers by this method: Let's say a bomber's rear gunner scores 1 damage card on you. You draw 2 cards instead and look at them - you keep one card of your choice and replace the other at the bottom of the damage card deck. Will this work?

Desaix
09-19-2009, 17:24
I guess but in my mind I use the following modifier that are very used by 2 seaters :
+1 card for straight shoot
+1 card for aim

So limiting them to 1 damage card (even at short range) seem enough to me...

My rules idea would also benefit fighter planes with higher Agility such as SPAD XIII against lower Agility fighters.

SHVAK
09-19-2009, 17:32
Desaix - unfortunately the Spad XIII was not agile. It was tough however, and thus should be flown much like a P-47 Thunderbolt using zoom and boom attack tactics (dive-shoot-climb-repeat). Head on attacks would work as well.

Desaix
09-19-2009, 18:42
I will have anyway to research the Agility capacities (climb rates mostly) of each plane compared to its contemporary in much details hehe...

Charlie3
09-20-2009, 14:06
Yesterday I got together with 3 of my main players to test fly the Col.'s alt. changes.
They worked quite well, and we did use the Hammer Head Turn I discribed in my previous post.
Here is our findings
1. Because the red line cards are not always used as the first cards when we were going to change alt. we announced going up or down when we placed the first card.
2. We had to remember that the peg changes happened on the last card of the alt. changes
3. That the +/- alt. differences made the two seater gunnery less effective.

A question did come up...after finishing a split-S can you play another reversal card as you just finished flying straight?

General consensus? They work quite well and are easy to remember once you do them a few times. We will likely start using them, however still on a limited basis. Likely for bombing, straiffing, and balloon missions for the League. We did not notice that they slowed our games down, however the 4 of us are the only real historical players in the group, and have played much more complicated systems before. Two thumbs up!

Oberst Hajj
09-21-2009, 11:15
I'm glad you guys liked them Charlie. They play a lot better then they sound.

Can you explain a bit more on why you announced you were climbing or diving before actually playing the climb or dive card? I can't really think of why you would want to do this.

As for the Split S, after it you can play any card you want... it's not a steep and it is a true straight.

Charlie3
09-21-2009, 15:15
Can you explain a bit more on why you announced you were climbing or diving before actually playing the climb or dive card? I can't really think of why you would want to do this.
We were announcing our intention while playing the first card of a set that would change our altitude because as a pilot you would see another plane starting to go up or down. It was just a way for us to not have to use any kind of marker to show our intent if the maneuver was started in the middle of a game turn.
EXAMPLE:
I have decided to start an immelmann on the second or third card of a game turn. To keep me honest, and everyone else on the same page while they are choosing their cards and doing other end of turn record keeping, I announce that I am climbing when I play that first card.

Since the UP card is not played until the last of the set for the maneuver in this case, there is no other visual note that the plane is going up for the other players. I think it will just avoid arguements...not that there would ever be a disagreement amongst a group of gamers gathered together to have some fun!

Oberst Hajj
09-21-2009, 16:27
That makes more sense. I still don't think you should announce your intended maneuver. After all, when doing the "normal" Immelmann or "hammer head turn", you don't announce what your later cards will be.

In my S.A.R.s the required card after the altitude change is what take the place of the visual note that the pilot would have.

sides
09-23-2009, 07:09
The altitude rules generally are fine , the only two points I change are

1 - Diving, at present you loose 1peg and all your climb counters.
which I find strange , a climb chit represent a certain ammount of altitude, so when you dive why do you dive even more if you have climb chits.

so I don't play that, if you dive you loose 1 peg but keep your climb chits, that way if your climb rate is 3chits and you have two , you dive , you are still high up the lower level and abler to climb back up quite quickly.

The other change is thies no advantage to diving.- you loose hieght but gain nothing for doing it.
Height = speed , you dive you go faster , thats why you dive away from an attack.

so I play a Zoom Dive , if you dive and follow it with a straight you can add an extra card to the straight, so you play 1 card (dive) 2cards straight+1 , 1 card.
it gives a good reason to gain height so you dive on an opponent.

peter

Oberst Hajj
09-24-2009, 09:20
After more play testing, I've changed the Immelmann and Split S moves to a 4 card maneuver. This not only keeps them in line with the card combos of a normal climb and dive, but it also makes it where these two maneuvers are not "better" then a normal climb or dive.

Another thing that has come out, is that the new Immelmann and Split S maneuvers actually give the fighters a much greater climbing and diving ability then the two-seaters. You can really climb or dive in a much smaller air space, simulating a high climb and dive rating.

Pooh
10-14-2009, 09:16
Col.
In our games (we currently play WW1), the 1st thing we do is set friendly aircraft who are going to be near each other to either even altitude or off a marker from even altitude to avoid running into each other in close quarters. We seem to have more than enough collisions anyway. If you use the collision rules as written, it looks like the number of them is bound to rise.

Pooh

Oberst Hajj
10-14-2009, 23:50
Pooh, I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Do you guys ignore collisions between friendly planes?

usmc1855
10-15-2009, 03:22
I think he's saying they start them at one altitude increment apart. Such as, plane one at altitude 5, plane two at altitude 5 and 1 climb chit, plane three at altitude 5 and 2 climb chits, etc. All are at altitude 5, but with just enough altitude climb chits so as to avoid collisions if thy maneuver into the same location simultaneously.

Oberst Hajj
10-15-2009, 05:18
Ahh, that would not work with these rules, as they do not use climb counters.

Pooh
10-15-2009, 09:12
That's almost right. As i understand the rules, and we play them, An aircraft with 5 altitude and 1 chit with still collide with an aircraft with 5 altitude and 2 chits. The reason for this is, I think to allow collisions between aircraft with different rates of climb. Otherwise, an aircraft with a climb of 3 could never collide with an aircraft with a climb of 2 if they have any climb chits.

Yes we do allow collisisions between friendly planes and on some nights it is an all too frequent occurence. Hence our staggering aircraft between being at even altitude and altitude and chits. It has led to several interesting tactics which I'm not sure are gamesmanship or just good thinks.
1. 2 seaters find this allows 1 seater to cover the blind spot of nearby 2 seaters. So if flying 3 or more 2 seaters in formation, the center 2 seater is low.
2. Many scouts start just 1 altitude chit below the next even altitude level. This allows them to quickly pop up to the next level.

One last point. Our group usually consists of 6 to 8 people, most of us long time gamers. We started off playing without altitude but once it was introduced none of us want to go back. We think they are very worth the effort, warts and all.

Pooh

usmc1855
10-15-2009, 14:34
One last point. Our group usually consists of 6 to 8 people, most of us long time gamers. We started off playing without altitude but once it was introduced none of us want to go back. We think they are very worth the effort, warts and all.

Pooh

This is true with the group I game with as well!

Oberst Hajj
10-16-2009, 08:24
Our group started out not using altitude and only started once I came up the the above post Simplified version. We all really like the added tactical aspect they give now.

Pooh
10-17-2009, 09:10
We played our 1st DoW game last night, Wildcats vs. Zeros. The whole diving topic I raised seems to be a non issue. If a plane dove out of a battle, usually it had the jump on its opponent and could get away. The Zeroes did use their better rate of climb to get higher to dive in on the Wildcats (we all started at alt. 8) but were not able to really use it to any great effect.


On issue that did come up is fuel. With the high/low speed rule it was the consensus in our group that fuel use ought to be included in our play. We also decided we did not much care for using the counters to track it. We did like the counters for damage though.

BTW: We agreed that the game had its own feel that was different from the WW1 game and we liked it. It played quicker with only 2 rounds per turn though actually hitting anything was more difficult. Final score Wildcats shot down 3 Zeros while losing 2 of their own. 1 of those was shot up pretty bad but still in the game when the last Zero (almost undamaged) broke off.

Pooh

rcboater
11-14-2009, 12:25
Also I would like to add one more maneuver to your list. It is the Hammer Head turn. I have been looking for a way to add this to the game as it was a common maneuver of the time period and not included in the game. The plane goes vertical until it can no longer climb or the pilot shuts down the motor, then he kicks the rudder left or right causing the plane to nose over into a dive back on its original line. He then pulls out of the dive usually at the original altitude. This maneuver would be useful for straiffing runs as it would allow a pilot to spray a target and make a return to do it again quickly!
This maneuver would be accomplished by using the original rules;
"Blue line straight - Immelmann - Blue line straight"

Actually, in WW1, the "Immelman" was actually the maneuver we now call the "Hammerhead". (I've some old pilot training manuals posted online somewhere.) It would be more accurate to play the Immelman/Hammerhead as you described-- with no gain of altitude.

WW1 aircraft were generally low powered-- there's no way Max Immelman was doing a half loop climb with a half roll at the top in a FOkker E.III!!

I like the Col.'s idea-- I've been looking for a way to introduce a simpler concept of altitude to my group of model-building friends. I think I'll use:
- the two card climb (no counters!)
- the 2 card dive
- the Immelman rules as per the rules, but with no gain in altitude
- the split S as per the std rules (drop 1 level)

I just joined, and I must say I've foudn this thread very informative. Looking forward to reading more!

Oberst Hajj
11-15-2009, 05:55
Glad you like these rules rcboater. I've also modified these SARs by adding climb rates, you can check those out here (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=442).

Hamburger
09-24-2010, 07:11
I enjoy simple things, and the altitude is a little more complicated than necessary if you ask me. Why can't a stall card be a dive or climb and you climb the number of pegs in the BD instruction booklet in one dive/climb. Your ceiling is the # of pegs in the BD booklet also. Please tell me why there must be a scenario "floor" and "ceiling" when different planes flew at different altitudes.
Much appreciated!
Happy Flying/killing!
Charlie

Oberst Hajj
09-24-2010, 08:20
My group never uses a floor or ceiling... except for the ground and the planes max altitude! I think the 4 level range referred to in the rules is there because each plane only comes with 4 flight pegs. They have to make the rules for the least common denominator so to speak.

Look at the SARs I did with climb rates via the link a couple of posts up. You could drop the extra card I used in my system and just use the different speed climb and dive cards to work out the different plane stats.

Kiwi_Ace
10-31-2010, 00:42
my group usually does use the altitude rules at all, but i agree that simplifying them as you suggest would help smooth gameplay enough to bring them back. its kinda bothered me in my campaign that ground targets such as machine guns and AA guns automatically can shoot at you. At what altitude can AA guns and also machine guns hit in your campaign?

Oberst Hajj
10-31-2010, 06:08
We tend to go with altitude 2 for ground MGs and AA can go up to altitude 12, but they have to predetermine what altitude the shells will burst at.

Albert Ross
05-14-2011, 23:49
Excellent, Colonel! I have found myself referring back to these several times this week already, and have made my own QR crib sheet, so do I have your permission to post them in the files section?

Doug
05-15-2011, 00:16
Whilst we are on the issue of altitude, why cannot you climb or dive whilst doing a turn at the same time? I know the idea is to keep the altitude rules simple and I like using them, but why no turns?

Oberst Hajj
05-15-2011, 05:39
Excellent, Colonel! I have found myself referring back to these several times this week already, and have made my own QR crib sheet, so do I have your permission to post them in the files section?

Of course you can!


Whilst we are on the issue of altitude, why cannot you climb or dive whilst doing a turn at the same time? I know the idea is to keep the altitude rules simple and I like using them, but why no turns?

I think it was the combination of keeping it simple and keeping the number of cards per deck down. There are only so many cards that can be printed on single sheet of the standard sized paper. Having to add another sheet would have upped the cost of the game quite a bit... they are the most expensive part of the base game.