Yes, but the Staaken is stupidly big for gaming
Printable View
Yes, but the Staaken is stupidly big for gaming
I have been personally using 1/285 scale aircraft for my Vietnam trial missile fights
Not sure of what maneuver deck or damage this should have:
Attachment 183630
[Edit: Updated with info from post #46]
It should be carrying rockets and bombs, as the USMC were using it for ground attack missions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F9F_PantherQuote:
The final four MiG-15s were downed on 18 November 1952 by Lt. Royce Williams of VF-781, flying off the carrier Oriskany during a series of air strikes against the North Korean port of Hoeryong, right across the mouth of the Tumen River from the major Soviet base at Vladivostok. Williams' victories were notable because all four were flown by Soviet Naval Aviation pilots.
I was thinking that for fast jets too - rather than creating new bigger movement cards use a card/movement stick combination. ie play the standard sized cards on the 'cockpit' to show the shape of the manoeuvre being played and use the movement sticks to move the model.
One thing I can say for a lot of 50s jets, the numbers indicated they flew like very fast bricks.
Sticking to Mike's system now for the moment, unless people decide otherwise.
Grumman F9F Panther
Base: Fighter
Deck: Qx2 (45° and extreme side slips removed)
Climb: 1
Ceiling: 15
Damage: 20
Weapons: CCCC/CC
I need to find my WGS rulebook. I don't remember rocket rules in there. I would use something similar to, or the same as the rocket rules in WFS.
The problem I can potentially see with the stick system, is that it maybe copyrighted.
Also as I see it we want to keep any ideas as close to original as possible, that way some or all of them may be integrated officially.
If we go completely off kilter we're making a whole new game.
Hey Folks,
This KS might be of interest (Phantom Leader Deluxe):
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ref=nav_search
Ha. Wonderful.
I am not sure what the whole zombie craze is. I recently saw a zombie-themed American Civil War game. One of the ToC books I have centers on WWI: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/160836/d...-trail-cthulhu
Last night, George (CelticCat), his wife Colleen, Sue (ling), and I played Elder Sign. It was quite fun. We're going to play Arkham Horror over the break; we played once before at another friend's, but we now have our own copy. I was unfamiliar with the Cthulhu mythos, but I am becoming a fan. I started collecting Trail of Cthulhu and some Call of Cthulhu RPG books. I have been eyeing the Achtung series as well. I have several friends, geographically dispersed, who might be interested playing via Skype. Let me know if you would have any interest in such a thing. I would like to run some sessions as well as play in some sessions.
Well, not to rain on anyone's parade, but the last thing I'd want to see in ANY Wings of War/Glory game is a template movement system. It would be worse than using dice, by a long shot. It really isn't flexible enough to allow for multiple plane flight speeds and maneuver capabilities. X-Wing reduces all ships down to set speeds (basically three identical bands), and only two types of turns. Barrel rolls allow side-slips. Boost maneuvers add some diversity, but these have no basis in physics or reality.
Besides, I have a distinct feeling of betrayal any time I think about playing X-Wing. Using a template movement system with Wings of Glory would be so much like going total traitor. I'm not going to apologize for completely dismissing the idea out of hand, but I won't be implementing anything that even hints at templates.
So, in imitation another Forum member's expression:
NO TEMPLATES!
The Wings of Glory movement system is already a template movement system
Sounds like a plan, though time differences can be a pain.
I've been an H.P. Lovecraft fan since I was in my dark gothy teen years. Much better then all that blood splattered horror.
I have to agree with Mike, but being the magnanimous person I am, I have started a poll on the subject in it's own thread.
As I've said a few times though, there is nothing stopping people going various different ways. Like the 1:144 WGS guys.
I'll even help out with stats for any other system.
But my viewpoint is we should try and keep it as close to the original as possible, and cater to the majority. Hence the polls.
It is true that X-Wing, Star Trek Attack Wing & the D&D Dragon games are derived from Wings of War/Glory.
They are sufficiently different that they may be covered by new copyrights. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave that to someone else.
But I'd rather be safe than sorry.
If we were posting direct copies of game components, (like the WoG movement decks, which is why we can't post those) we would be liable. Creating cards and templates that are using similar game mechanics to a published game are not liable. Publishing a game using copywritten mechanics would be liable.
The Nexus/Ares vs. FFG discussion has been done to death.
Karl
Not really, they are quite different. In fact the movement template system in X Wing is something I first saw in a naval game from the 1960s.Quote:
It is true that X-Wing, Star Trek Attack Wing & the D&D Dragon games are derived from Wings of War/Glory.
Remember that you can't generally copyright a game system. Hence a number of sets of rules out there that look a lot like DBA, Fire and Fury, etc. You step across the line if you copy the more detailed aspects (for example creating a movement card based WW1 air wargame would have you in trouble - applying a card movement system to Roman chariot racing would not)Quote:
They are sufficiently different that they may be covered by new copyrights.
lol, if I was Keith I'd be more worried about getting a "cease and desist" regarding the copying of those Snoopy models :)
Could have been worse - could have been a pre-nup :)
I still think 1/200 is the way to go...and NO MISSLES
All the best,
Matt
David Manley! Don't make me come over there and whap you upside the head!
Semantics. We play a 'card' based movement system, not a 'template' system. Technically, it is a template thing, but it isn't. Certain planes have specific maneuvers available only to them, within their cards. And there are many, many decks, not a group of seven or eight interchangeable templates that everyone has access to (sort-of. There are limits to what each ship can do in X-Wing, and not all templates are usable by every ship. But all the templates are the same for the ones that use them).
Supposedly, each plane has a card deck that provides it's speed and maneuverability unique to that plane. And learning the individual decks when flying against a plane you've never flown against is a unique challenge. Shortly after meeting a new X-Wing ship, you know all his maneuver template limitations, and can start planning your moves to suit. Not so easy against a Wings of Glory plane.
So, don't say that Wings of Glory is a 'template' game, as it isn't in the same category as X-Wing. At least IMHO.
Matt,
Except for the long-ranged intercept missiles, anything like Sidewinders or short-ranged radar missiles would be fire in range and resolve. Only in movies do missiles careen all over the sky chasing a plane. Sidewinders are doing Mach 3 shortly after leaving the launch rail, and would hit the target before the end of the firing phase, not take several turns of chasing. Unless the target could accelerate to Mach 3 instantly? Not in the '50s, nor any time in our current timeline.
F-14 Tomcats had the AIM-54 'Phoenix' radar-guided, long-range air-to-air missile (AAM):
Range: over 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km) (actual range is classified);
Speed: 3,000+ mph (4,680+ km/h)
Within our usual gaming mat distances, even this missile would be a shoot-resolve situation. Any target would have a chance to deploy chaff or jammers (if available), with a draw on a damage chit indicating a hit in certain circumstances (IE: only if the target drew special damage, or certain types of special damage would the hits count). If the plane didn't have ECM capabilities, it is gone! And some people thought cannons were overpowered?
A bit of over-simplifying there, Mike. The early AAMs had very limited arcs of detection, more so with the radar seekers that you had to keep the target within the arc of the firing aircraft's radar emitter as well as the AAM's. See the launch, barrel roll out of the arc, and the missile goes dumb and ballistic ;)
That will be another issue to deal with, if we go to AAM armed jets :hmm:
Karl
Sorry, but it is exactly the same thing. Place piece of card at front of model. Move model to other end of route shown on piece of card. The only significant difference between WOG and X Wing is in the range of templates available for players to choose from. Expanding the selection of X Wing style templates is perfectly doable, as is incorporating "special" manoeuvres. In fact with a wider range of turns you avoid the annoying situations that often happen in WOG where you are forced to turn more tightly than you want due to the limited number of types of turn cards. Something like SGN, with a variety of turns from gentle to steep and all points in between would be a far better representation than what we have now. You might even get away from some of the physics-defying "manoeuvres" that some aircraft appear to have been capable of performing in the early 1900s :D
Short range missiles such as AIM-9, AA-2 and soforth could be catered for very simply using the same approach as gunfire due to their short flight times. There'd be a necessary "countermeasures" element to add there, which may involve a mandatory manoeuvre change in the following phase if one decided that things like extreme breaks left or right to break a missile lock or to evade an incoming missile were things you wanted to model.
For longer range SARH weapons such as Sparrow which require the shooter to illuminate the target have the missile arrive in the next phase and only resolve the attack if the target is in the shooter;s forward arc. No need to fly missiles around if you want to avoid that complication
Karl,
I wasn't going to go that deep into all aspects of missiles. I was considering a similar (exactly the same?) firing arc, and the 'shoot-immediate resolution' process, the shooter choosing gun or missile for a particular shot opportunity. Depending on the plane and weapons load-out, there wouldn't be a lot of missile shots in early Post-war games (two missile cards per plane?).
The Pk (Probable Kill) ratio is another thing for a different thread, too, as early IR missiles were unreliable (late '60s Sidewinder AIM-9B Pk of 16%). And then, yet another thread would be ECM/ECCM topics.
Interesting article for those interested in digging into how IR missiles work: www.ausairpower.net - Sidewinder
PS: 1956+ M2 Browning .50cal range out to 2000-ish yds (1 Nautical Mile), AIM-9B Sidewinders 2.6 Nautical Miles. So, we'd have to work out the ground scale for the game first. But with that 16% PK on the Sidewinder, it would be a big gamble for a hit.
PPS: 1983+ M61A1 Vulcan 20mm 6-barrel cannon range out to 2000 yds, but tactically used inside 2000 ft! AIM-9M is good out to 15 Nautical Miles, with a PK above 80%.
David, the card maneuver restriction does bother me too. I've been trying to come up with a way for a plane to turn less than the card allowed (ie: a wider turn, not a tighter turn), but cover the same distance. Or, to travel anywhere between the two arrows on a given maneuver. Then, this would be less than a template-concept game.
Dave,
I'd consider a template adaptation in any version of Wings of Glory a gross betrayal of the game and an exceedingly hurtful slight to Andrea [Angiolillo], the game's designer. Just my feelings, no logic involved. However, I feel stongly enough about this, that I seriously thought about not producing any more plane cards or game aids, going as far as removing anything produced to date, if the template movement process was implemented as the Post-WWII system on the Forum.
I got over that internal tiff fairly quickly. I don't rule this Forum, and I hope I never get so carried away with my own sense of self-importance that I start thinking I do.
My opinion is mine, and if others think templates are the way to go, then power to them. Really, I'm not likely to even play this period, as I don't have, nor want, any planes later than November 1940. I will continue producing plane cards, despite what the consensus is.
I reserve the option of throwing my hat into any discussion about the weapon systems, though. I was an Air Force Radar Technician (search, detection, track, ECM, ECCM, weapons) for 25 years.
Just get used to the protest:
NO TEMPLATES!
Thats fine, a card is just a wide, short template anyway
I can see it now. The first Wings of Glory scenario at Doncaster 2016 will be OldGuy59 and David Manley in the parking lot.
Five paces with templates vs maneuver cards! First to draw blood, wins!
Cards as Weapons!
Amazon.ca - Cards as Weapons by Ricky Jay
Alas not as I'm already booked for Blast Tastic that weekend (would have been fine if Donnie could have been its usual date). I understand a number of people are quite happy that I am otherwise indisposed :)
Whatever gave you that idea David ? !
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...10f0f59eb8.gif
I understand and respect your stance but I'm glad you won the internal argument.
All I'm suggesting is use sensible sized cards on the cockpit and the same game mechanics; use the cards to move the 'slower' types eg P.51 etc but for the much faster jet types move them with stick templates just so you get simplicity of movement.
There's not many speed bands in Wings of Glory - I know there's only seven in WGF and three of them are X decks - and I'm pretty sure WGSPW would be the same in the selected periods so that argument doesn't hold water for me. Manoeuvre shapes can be made from combining templates or creating them if needed but as Foz has already pointed out they handle like bricks so that may not be a great issue either.
Going this way you could perhaps use an existing deck or make one from existing cards for the early jets that show the moves you want it to make but used with a set of templates that give it the speed you need.... there's a tag line there somewhere.... and besides Andrea was involved in developing SWXW so may have had a hand in the movement to templates for all I know ! :eek:
Any way - it's Christmas day & time for breakfast - have a great Christmas Mike :pint:
I am sure I am not alone in saying you will be sorely missed at Doncaster 2016 David. At this b****y rate I will be missing too - still stuck in rehab! They have informed me today that I am in for at least a two month stay because of what I have been admitted for. Told them in return that any longer than five months and my room here will have turned into an airfield!
Voted in poll for 1:200 scale on the basis of experiences flying XH560.
David [David Manley],
Had a look at the website for Blast Tastic. THAT looks like waaayyy too much fun! Why is that on the same weekend? Darn.
Dave [flash],
IIRC, Andrea was abruptly cut out of negotiations for a Wings of War - Star Wars game, the next thing that showed up was the template movement version of X-Wing, allowing Fantasy Flight to claim the game was different enough not to pay any licencing fees for the Wings of War system. Hence, my feelings about X-Wing, and never to buy any part of that game. I have betrayed the WoW game by playing X-Wing, and they borrowed a lot of the core ideas from WoW. It has some appeal, but "it is the enemy."
Hence, my feelings about "templates". So, if Wings of Glory Post-War (WGP-W) went to a template system, that would be sooo ironically bad. IMHO.:smack::cry: