Printable View
hello fellow airmen I have found that climbing and diving are a huge pain and are not accurate as no plane can only dive straight down. I know this is a game but I like to be as accurate as possible so when I play at home we play being able to climb and dive using any maneuver card this I find has really improved game quality for me this is only my opinion
Rather like that. Do you still use the posted climb rates for the aircraft?
I am glad someone else thought of that. I thought maybe it was just me. I do find it silly that you can not climb or dive in a turn (when in fact you can do it it real life). I think I will add this into my house rules. I will still stick to the regular climb rates though I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by the black devil
I like this idea and I am wondering, why this wasn't implemented in the standard ruleset, because it seems oblivious.Quote:
Originally Posted by the black devil
Maybe a straight dive/climb card shouldn't be seen stand-alone, but with other maneuvers beside it. I guess the maneuver cards are only reflecting a few seconds of real time, so a dive/climb and two turns simulate the whole maneuver of a right or left dive/climb.
Could also be done as a simplification of the decks. Right now decks are about 20 cards total. If you add in climb/dive turn cards you just added (potentially) 8-16 more cards into the deck. Soooo... you could effectively double or triple deck size by adding climb/dive cards for each maneuver (except Immelmann which already has climb built in.)
And that, gentlemen, is probably why it was done the way it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAPTKIRK406
Altitude was added in the third cards-only WGF box set "Burning Drachens".
The box included the extra Climb and Dive cards needed to upgrade all the previously-released decks; just two cards per deck.
To double the size of everything that had gone before would have been an enormous change to the existing game.
With the release of Miniatures, double-sized decks would have needed bigger boxes to hold them, and would have incurred greater production costs, needing a higher retail price to ensure profitability.
A big risk.
WGS followed the same path, probably for familiarity's sake.
Personally, I wouldn't want to increase deck size - too many players already take far too long to choose their manoeuvres from the existing decks! Doubling the size would only make this worse.
Deck storage would also become a problem - they simply wouldn't fit into the aircraft boxes any more, nor, probably, into some of the commercially available foam systems.
Cost would also increase, and so would 'sorting' time, checking each deck after use, particularly during large multi-plane games.
"Wings" was never intended to be a true-to-life flight simulation, but instead a simple, fun game, goals which I think it has achieved.
Foe WGS, I think the more lacking feature is an 'energy' system, rewarding dives with extra distance and speed, and penalising climbs with loss of speed and visual acuity; but this would also add extra complexity.
Just my own personal opinion - go for the changes you want if you wish; you've bought the game, it's yours now to do with as you wish!
I totally agree. The biggest selling point of WoG are the elegant rules. I am also a fan of Heroquest. It's a simple Beer&Brezel Dungeon Crawler. There are players who want to expand the rules to improve the game, but mostly they are ruining it, because the fast gameplay is destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Helmut
Same story with the brilliant fantasy skirmish game Song of Blades and Heroes. In the first edition, there were only about three different types of magic spells. It was left to the players imagination, if an attack spell should be a lightning bolt or a fire ball. But in the advanced edition, the designers conceded to the demand of unimaginative fantasy players (there are lots of them) and expanded the spells to a few dozen. So the game turned into one of many.
Today, I prefer fast elegant games with non proprietary miniatures, which can be played within one to one and a half hours. A characteristic of such games is no or minimal book keeping.
I've seen expansion ruin games the same way. The game can be awesome, so we run out to get the next expansion that adds tons of mechanics to make it better. But rather it hurts it.
Not saying that all games are expansions are like this. But if it isn't easy to use then, you have to asked if the realism helps the game?
You don't have to add any cards to increase the climbing and diving in the game. The AA store sells tokens that can be used (I have) for changing altitude on cards other than the climb and dive. See 'HERE'
Place a token face down with either a +, -, or blank on each plotted card. You can increase or decrease your climb chit count by 1 or stay the same. Dive cards are treated as normal. I let planes have +2 climb counters if you play a + on the climb card.
I've seen something similar used, just the once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teaticket
The tokens seldom stayed on the cards, more than once were "switched" when the owner thought no one was looking :eek: and got left behind or forgotten when the card was played; generally confusion reigned!
Go ahead and try it if it suits your wishes, but it's just not for me.
Keep it simple. That how we like to roll. If we want more realistic games there are plenty of more complicated War games out there.