Longer shooting ranges

[rcboater]

There have been some threads in the past where we discussed the idea of making the shooting sticks longer-- scaling them up to account for the size of the miniatures was one reason-- another was to reduce the number of engagemetns where you're just out range, then both planes move, and now you are too close or have overshot. (This can happen frequently when you're at different altitude levels. It is possible to make head on passes where neither plane gets to shoot.

I was thinking about theis the other day, and also about the complaints that "A" gun 2 seaters can be formidable opponents, especially if you're not using altitude rules. I came up with an idea I don't remember seeing discussed here before:

Instead of scaling up the existing ruler, here's another Idea, but it only applies to "A" deck fighters (not tail gunners):

Use the standard ruler, and standard rules for drawing 2 cards at short range, and one card at long range. But allow another zone-- "extra long range" which goes out to 1.5 rulers distance. In this zone, the target still draws 1 card, but from the B deck.

In theory, this allows for the possibility of scoring some damage at extra long range, and the B deck card averages about half the damage of an A card.

Comments?

[Oberst Hajj]

Interesting idea Bill. The mechanics of it stay in line with the rest of the game as well... something I always look for in a house rule.

[Diamondback]

Interesting--I'd say this could be a good mechanic for a "Sharpshooter" Ace ability, or for aircraft with Gunship packages's strafing. (Not as much reduction on the gunships, though.)

[macka321]

I would not give A class guns any more power. I would only look at this mod if I was using limited ammo.

[Bruce]

I like the idea as an ACE ability of some kind, but I will need to think on it a little before I consider proposing it to our group.

Good thinking. Thanks

[rcboater]

I would not give A class guns any more power. I would only look at this mod if I was using limited ammo.

You raise a good point-- this does give "A" planes even more of an advantage over "B" planes-- which was not what I was looking to do. (All the fighters we play with are "A" guns, I wasn't thinking about "B" gun fighters.) I was really thinking about how hard it is to shoot between when I'm at altitude 2 and you're at altitude 3. Because there is no real speed control, it is hard to get in range without overlapping. I was just idly thinking about ways to avoid this.... feedback like this is why I like to toss the ideas out for discussion.

I'm now thinking that a better option may be to not penalize for the altitude difference-- an idea that has been proposed by others here before.....

[Pooh]

The basic idea has merit though. If you allow the forward firing guns the longer range (A or B guns), you do a number of things with the game mechanics.
1. You swing the balance of power toward scouts and diminish it a bit for 2 seaters. In historical terms this might be justified as it was easier to hit something if you lined up the whole plane on the target vs. the rear gunner swinging his weapon back and forth trying to get a shot.
2. You spread out the planes a bit as they no longer need to be so close to shoot, this might help if you're using collision rules and reduce planes running over each other without being able to fire.

Perhaps it ought to be playtested to see how it works.

BTW: making it an ace skill also sounds like a good idea.

Pooh

[tuladin]

Maybe let all guns fire out the extra distance, but ignore the number on the damage card and just do the special damage - you're not going to pepper them up from that range, but you might get a lucky hit (or jam your guns.)

[Justin3.14]

Maybe let all guns fire out the extra distance, but ignore the number on the damage card and just do the special damage - you're not going to pepper them up from that range, but you might get a lucky hit (or jam your guns.)

I like this idea it keeps in line with the ground fire rules

[Hunter]

The basic idea has merit though. If you allow the forward firing guns the longer range (A or B guns), you do a number of things with the game mechanics.
1. You swing the balance of power toward scouts and diminish it a bit for 2 seaters. In historical terms this might be justified as it was easier to hit something if you lined up the whole plane on the target vs. the rear gunner swinging his weapon back and forth trying to get a shot.
2. You spread out the planes a bit as they no longer need to be so close to shoot, this might help if you're using collision rules and reduce planes running over each other without being able to fire.

Perhaps it ought to be playtested to see how it works.

BTW: making it an ace skill also sounds like a good idea.

Pooh

Initially I like this idea. Something to consider and test...maybe next week.

[sparty]

This is definitely an interesting concept, particularly when only looking at the potential effects rather than damage. The other option would be to subtract 1 from the damage. That'd significantly decrease the chances of scoring damaging hits.

My only worry is that this kind of takes away some of the advantages that tighter turning planes have. If you can always make swooping turns just to get your firing arcs in the proper location for a 1.5 ruler shot you're going to end up sooner rather than later getting a fire or explosion card. This, to me, would be the only reason I'd hesitate though. Something like the A or N maneuver deck which has great speed + maneuverability ends up losing a little bit to decks that are fast, but not maneuverable. As it stands that's basically 18" out or half a width of a table away roughly that you can get a shot in.

I'd certainly be willing to play test the concept though because you're right about the just out of range or overshot when it comes to planes at different elevations.

[Hunter]

This is definitely an interesting concept, particularly when only looking at the potential effects rather than damage. The other option would be to subtract 1 from the damage. That'd significantly decrease the chances of scoring damaging hits.

My only worry is that this kind of takes away some of the advantages that tighter turning planes have. If you can always make swooping turns just to get your firing arcs in the proper location for a 1.5 ruler shot you're going to end up sooner rather than later getting a fire or explosion card. This, to me, would be the only reason I'd hesitate though. Something like the A or N maneuver deck which has great speed + maneuverability ends up losing a little bit to decks that are fast, but not maneuverable. As it stands that's basically 18" out or half a width of a table away roughly that you can get a shot in.

I'd certainly be willing to play test the concept though because you're right about the just out of range or overshot when it comes to planes at different elevations.

Good point.

[rockyr]

WWI planes fired at very close range to be effective (often under 50 yards), especially to get hits on engines, gas tanks, crew etc. On what basis should the range be extended, especially in relation to travel distances?? Forgive me, but I do not see the historical justification. In game terms, it might speed things up , but WoW plays quickly now...

[Stormkahn]

I have to say this peaks my interest, the P38 Lightning had an extended range. Since the guns weren't in the wings and set to converge at a set range they could be used over a greater range, not sure about the balance aspect but it would certainly distinguise this aircraft.

[sparty]

You're also talking about WW2 cannons vs. WW1 early machine guns. The bullet speed and technologies were vastly different. The speed option for the DoW game vs. WoW games may lend itself a little better to the overshoot concept actually.

[Stormkahn]

You're also talking about WW2 cannons vs. WW1 early machine guns. The bullet speed and technologies were vastly different. The speed option for the DoW game vs. WoW games may lend itself a little better to the overshoot concept actually.

I agree, very different, but it's nice to fly aircraft where they feel decidedly different. I think the balance with the P-38 would be to narrow down the field of fire and give it another 1/2 ruler range and 1/4 damage.

[steel_ratt]

Interesting that there was a suggestion to include
ONLY special damage. That, in my opinion, would be the most unbalancing aspect; the extra chance to set someone on fire or give them engine damage where they can't retaliate. If you are going to give extended range, give it to EVERYONE to keep things even.
With regard to the 'historical reason' aspect, the answer is that bullets don't hit a glass wall at a given distance. Why is it that 0.5mm on the gaming table can make the difference between a chance to hit and no chance at all? ("Oh darn. I'm 101 feet away. I can't possibly hit from here. If only I were 1 foot closer!") That said, I don't necessarily support an extended range. One has to be extremely careful of altering the fundamental nature of the game with seemingly minor changes.

[Bruce]

I agree with macka321 (above) that the extended range idea should only be considered if you are also using ammo limitation rules.
But I also think that it would be a good "ACE Ability" (even if you are not using ammo limitation rules) to allow this extra-long-range shooting using B damage cards but only if the shot is through the rear edge of the aircraft's base/card.
Deflection shooting (through the side edge) was very difficult; far too difficult to expect a hit at extra-long-range.

I still have not proposed this possible rule to my group; we are taking a break for the summer.

[rcboater]

Great feedback all-- I've enjoyed reading all the comments and ideas. It has me thinking- maybe the problem I'm trying to solve isn't the range stick, but the altitude rules. I think there's an inconsitency in the altitude rules that leads you to the situation where you can go from out of range to too close in a single move, and never get to fire. By that I mean:
Assume all planes have a climb rate of 3 for this example. A plane at altitude 3, no chits (3.0) can't shoot a plane at 2.2 at long distance on the ruler, but can hit a plane at 3.2. You can shoot the one at two chits difference, but not the one with only one chit difference.

I guess the only way to really "fix" it is to come up with more complicated rules, and I don't want to do that!

[Pooh]

Great feedback all-- I've enjoyed reading all the comments and ideas. It has me thinking- maybe the problem I'm trying to solve isn't the range stick, but the altitude rules. I think there's an inconsitency in the altitude rules that leads you to the situation where you can go from out of range to too close in a single move, and never get to fire. By that I mean:
Assume all planes have a climb rate of 3 for this example. A plane at altitude 3, no chits (3.0) can't shoot a plane at 2.2 at long distance on the ruler, but can hit a plane at 3.2. You can shoot the one at two chits difference, but not the one with only one chit difference.

I guess the only way to really "fix" it is to come up with more complicated rules, and I don't want to do that!

Our group revised the altitude rules a bit and fixed that little bit. Now close range is any plane within 1/2 range stick and +/- 1 altitude level. So a plane at alt 3 & no pips fires at close range at planes from 2.0 to 4.0; a plane at 3.2 at planes from 2.2 to 4.2. Long range is +/- 2 altitude levels.
Note: we also made a standard number of altitude pips per level (in our case 4).
It doesn't slow the game down although it doesn't stop planes from going from too far away to too close without getting a shot either. That bit is annoying but we feel is part of the game and not unreasonable.

Pooh

[steel_ratt]

There is a rather interesting conversation going on about the altitude rules here: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?4363-Loss-of-climb-tokens

Part of the conversation revolves around the concept of whether or not climb counters should be treated as 'fractional levels' or just an abstract concept. (Official rules suggest it is an abstract concept with no differentiation of a plane at altitude 1 or at altitude 1 with 3 climb counters... except for the collision rules.)

[mik]

I like this rule. How I intend to play test it is this. Extra half Range can not be used by gunners because its like trying to shoot clay pigeons from a moving car. VERY DIFFICULT INDEED. It gives scouts a slight advantage. A gun planes use B damage at extra long range. B gun planes use a B damage card at long range and half the damage rounded up. Some may prefer rounding down.

Aces like MvR would fire at very long ranges panicing targets into turning thus slowing down and being caught. If limited ammo were used perhaps everyone could be allowed to shoot at double range. Now if you are fired upon at long range (i.e the fourth quarter of range) take the normal damage card/cards. After you plan you'r next 3 cards the firer must say he is an ace, if not put them back in the pack. It is entirely up to you whether you panic or not.

All other pilots inflict damage out to 3/4 range as outlined in my first paragraph.
I am sorry but I find it difficult to write things so that they are easily understood, much easier to play than write.
mik the stick

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I have to say I disagree with extra range shots. Almost every report I have ever read regarding effective WW1 aerial combat relates close range engagements, generally at 50 metres or less.

If anything, I would suggest a point blank fire ace skill similar to one I posted for WGS, something like:

Ace Skill - Point Blank Fire

If at the end of a manoeuver, the base of the attacking ace’s airplane overlaps the base of a target airplane, the ace’s airplane can fire at the target airplane if a straight line can be traced between its centre peg within its firing arc to the centre base of the target airplane. If these conditions are met the attacking ace is considered firing at point blank range. The target airplane takes twice as many damage cards as indicated by the short range firepower value on the base of the attacking airplane. When you use this ability take four recovery counters.

When using this skill a collision only occurs when the attacking aircraft flight stand covers the centre peg of the target aircraft.

When using altitude rules the attacking airplane and the target airplane must be at the same altitude level, and both aircraft must either have climb counters (any number) or no climb counters.

[wargamer]

Aces like MvR would fire at very long ranges panicing targets into turning thus slowing down and being caught.

From what I have read, von Richthofen used Boelcke Dicta.... and in this case, point 3 would be covered....

3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights
A common rookie's urge was to start blasting away upon sighting his first enemy machine. Shots taken at ranges of 1000 m (3280 ft) stood little chance of hitting their mark. The rattle of machine gun fire would alert the intended target and gave them time to react.
The machine guns available for aircraft during the First World War were not highly accurate at longer ranges. Add to that the difficulty of aiming from a moving, bouncing gun platform at a fast moving target and it is a marvel that anyone ever hit anything. Boelcke preferred to fly to within 100 m (330 ft) or less before firing, to ensure hitting what he aimed at with his opening burst. Once the rattle of his guns was heard, the advantage of surprise was gone, so it was best to make that first shot most effective.
Another aspect of making each shot count was the limited supply of ammunition carried in World War I aircraft — usually only a few hundred rounds. This could amount to less than 60 seconds of sustained fire. Reloading in the air varied from dangerous to impossible. Spraying the sky with lead in hopes of hitting something, eventually, was not an option. Shots had to be chosen carefully.

Basically visualize a target ring, MvR and Boelke would want the shoulders and head of the target pilot to basically fill the rings. That would necessitate overlapping bases in our game. Half a range stick would have the target aircraft barely able to fill half the ring. Full range stick would make the target almost a dot in the target range. Stick and a half, and it would be "somewhere thataway" and with clouds added in, no target.

Oh, and since a lot of his kills were against 2-seaters, shooting early would alert the gunner to start looking for him which would be rather foolish on his part.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

MvR would fire at very long ranges panicing targets into turning thus slowing down and being caught.

Von Richthofen wrote this in his book 'Der Rote Kampfflieger'. Because his aircraft was slower than most Allied types he would use this tactic after his prey had sighted him and decided to break off. At no time did he expect to actually do any damage, just put the wind up his opponent.

[Baldrick62]

Yep, I'm with Carl on this one. It's a little like the Jagdwaffe use of rockets on Bf109s and Fw190s against USAAF bomber formations in WWII. While the rockets were devastating if they actually hit a B17/B24, the actual intent was to cause the crews to panic and take avoiding action, thereby breaking up their 'box' defence, which then allowed the fighters to concentrate on individual aircraft.

[Horse4261]

WWI planes fired at very close range to be effective (often under 50 yards), especially to get hits on engines, gas tanks, crew etc.

The basic problem that I see is the length of the current range sticks. At eight inches this roughly equates to 32 yd. Therefore to obtain the magic "50 yd", the range sticks would need to be extended to 12 inches (which would roughly be 48 yd - close enough for me). Luckily, I have a supply of paint-stirring sticks that are exactly 12 inches in length, needing to only be split in half length wise and painted however one pleases. I should think that most any hardware or paint stores would have these in abundance, and for free or very little cost.

This would provide the extra distance and keep things in closer scale without the need to juggle additional house rules into the game.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

As the peg height is arbitrary so too could the range ruler. ie 1/2 range ruler = 50 yd and full stick = 100yd. Thereby keeping within the Oswald Boelcke firing options. Without altitude you cannot portray the tactics used to down powerful 2-seaters and bombers. ie from behind and below. (I know not in all cases but I hope you see my point). Adding point blank to the ace skills would be better for myself but instead of adding +1 (we already have that) or +2 (how do we record that accurately?) have the player with this skill able to use this skill only when bases overlap but do not cross centre pegs (collision) then draw 3 cards when bases over lap and retain the best 2 discarding the 3rd back into the pack and shuffle.

[john snelling]

As an house rule when using all A gun aircraft would be OK.

[David Manley]

I don't see why an A gun should get a range advantage over a B gun. Its the same weapon, after all.

[phililphall]

How about this. Measure from the closest part of your stand to the closest part of your opponents stand. And at long range draw one B card for each gun and at close range draw one A card per gun.

[wargamer]

Other than trying to complicate a kiss game. How does this help?


How about this. Measure from the closest part of your stand to the closest part of your opponents stand. And at long range draw one B card for each gun and at close range draw one A card per gun.

[phililphall]

It adds half a stand to firing range. You don't have to have A guns or B guns. You can jam just one gun and still fire with one gun with the same effectiveness as a single gunned aircraft. It encourages you to get out of close range if you don't have a shot and encourages you to get into close range regardless of whether you have one or two guns. It increases the chance of special damage from close range shots by single gunned aircraft.

[Doug]

I have to agree with Al on this one. I see no reason to change the range rules (if it aint broken don't fix it), but it is an individuals choise.

[tusekine]

From what I have read, von Richthofen used Boelcke Dicta.... and in this case, point 3 would be covered....

3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights
A common rookie's urge was to start blasting away upon sighting his first enemy machine. Shots taken at ranges of 1000 m (3280 ft) stood little chance of hitting their mark. The rattle of machine gun fire would alert the intended target and gave them time to react.
The machine guns available for aircraft during the First World War were not highly accurate at longer ranges. Add to that the difficulty of aiming from a moving, bouncing gun platform at a fast moving target and it is a marvel that anyone ever hit anything. Boelcke preferred to fly to within 100 m (330 ft) or less before firing, to ensure hitting what he aimed at with his opening burst. Once the rattle of his guns was heard, the advantage of surprise was gone, so it was best to make that first shot most effective.
Another aspect of making each shot count was the limited supply of ammunition carried in World War I aircraft — usually only a few hundred rounds. This could amount to less than 60 seconds of sustained fire. Reloading in the air varied from dangerous to impossible. Spraying the sky with lead in hopes of hitting something, eventually, was not an option. Shots had to be chosen carefully.

Basically visualize a target ring, MvR and Boelke would want the shoulders and head of the target pilot to basically fill the rings. That would necessitate overlapping bases in our game. Half a range stick would have the target aircraft barely able to fill half the ring. Full range stick would make the target almost a dot in the target range. Stick and a half, and it would be "somewhere thataway" and with clouds added in, no target.

Oh, and since a lot of his kills were against 2-seaters, shooting early would alert the gunner to start looking for him which would be rather foolish on his part.

Most games that we play are without spotting, meaning that there is no element of surprise. Since we (I suspect like most others) don't use limited ammo in most of our games, this part of Dicta Boelke does not impact the game as modelled at all.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Most games that we play are without spotting, meaning that there is no element of surprise. Since we (I suspect like most others) don't use limited ammo in most of our games, this part of Dicta Boelke does not impact the game as modelled at all.

At the end of the day this is WW1 game and in the Great War of 1914-18 aerial engagements were fought at close ranges generally within 50-100 metres. I can't see how allowing longer range fire in WGF reflects this historical fact. It is also a major part of the fun and demonstration of player skill to be able to get in close and shoot without being shot.

The WGF combat system as it stands has an elegant simplicity which would not benefit from the addition of a long range mechanic.

Try applying some of the Dicta Boelcke to your playing style and you may be surprised how useful they are.

[Suffern]

One thing everyone seems to not understand is actual scale. Although the models are 1/144 the ground scale is about five times that if I remember correctly. In other words, one inch of table distance equals roughly 700 to 750 inches. Given that, the ruler is some 200 yards long. If anyone can hit anything in one of those planes at that distance is a miracle in and of itself.
Do the math:
If the ground scale was 1/144th, then an aircraft traveling at 85 mph would move, in six seconds (one turn), 62.3333 inches.

In most miniature games, the figure/casting scale is not equal to the ground scale. It is just impractical. Some skirmish games are true 1:1 figure scale to ground scale but not many. I have played a couple operational games at 1:1 with 4mm figures which is neat and something to see but it is not the norm. When we do WWII skirmish in 1/72 it is 1:1 - the ground scale is 1" = 6'. But such a game is not simple and can not be. WoW/WoG is, relatively, simple and therein lies its beauty.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Right on Jonathan, the ground scale has been the subject of posts too numerous to list. The actual size of the aircraft is only the width of the flight peg!

[flash]

I wouldn't go for 'extra long ranges' personally, seems a bit unnecessary and gamey - I may go for a longer ruler though as Andrea himself said of the prototype game ruler:
"The 'ruler' was actually a 28 cm string with a red sign at the half. The cards were about 88 mm long. Nexus reduced them to 65 mm. Keeping the same proportion, the ruler should have been 20.68 cm. I proposed to do it somehow longer, maybe 2 or 4 centimetres more as I was saying - maybe I even did a slightly longer one for later prototypes. In the end, since the inside of the box is 20 cm the die cut ruler is about 19.6 cm to fit in it."
So the ruler's made to fit in the box rather than the game ! :slysmile:
I don't look at it that the 'bullets stop in the air' at the end of the ruler but rather the burst has become so spread out that it becomes non effective ie the fall of shot is around the target rather than on it.
But then I also think zeroes are hits that haven't caused serious damage and I shoot from peg to peg so what would I know ! ;)