Immelmann turns or split S's

Printable View

11-02-2018, 00:31
Popsical

Immelmann turns or split S's

An interesting question came up in my last WoGs weekend.
To do an immelmann turn or split S you must perform a straight before and after the turn itself. I always thought (rightly or wrongly) that to do another one afterwards you needed to do another set of straights to do another. My opponent however pointed out that he could do a straight then immelmann then straight then immelmann then a straight. For simplicity that's S, I, S, I, S. Looking at the rules as written it would appear he is right.
What do you think?
11-02-2018, 03:22
Baxter

The way I read it the immelmann or split S is a sequence of 3 cards. Therefore it would be sissis for 2 such sequential moves.
11-02-2018, 05:27
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popsical

....What do you think?

He's right Steven - this was clarified by Andrea many moons ago.
What stops it (S,I,S,I,S,I,S) going on forever is the three card turn sequence as you're unable to use the Immelmann twice in a turn because you only have the one card.
So it looks something like this: S,I,S / I,S,S / I,S,S.....

Of course a Split S doesn't have a straight in front of it but a stall so the Immel cannot be played straight away ... and with repetition you'd eventually you'd hit the deck !
So it looks something like this: St,I,S / St,I,S/ St,I,S / St,I, (thud!) ;)

What you & Gary say is logical but not the case.
It is not as clear in the RAP as it was in the old WoW Deluxe & Famous Aces rules which is essentially this:

"To perform an Immelmann turn you must play a straight manoeuvre immediately before the Immelmann and another just after. If the last card of the previous turn was a straight, you can use an Immelmann as the first card of the new turn..."
11-02-2018, 09:00
OldGuy59

You'd have to dig through the forum for it, but I remember Andrea stating in the "Designer's Notes" that the three phase movement philosophy of the game was built out of the adaption of other games' maneuvers and the cards he wanted to use. The Immelmann being the most complex maneuver, and needing three cards, that became the basis for the three phase, and the six second time factor per turn.

Also, somewhere in discussions, an "Immelmann Turn" required three cards. Straight, Reversal, Straight. In order to perform an additional Immelmann, you had to finish the previous turn, and commence the next. If you look at the physics, you can't perform a following reversal without finishing the previous maneuver, and fully recovering from the radical about-face of the reversal. You then need to build up more momentum to do the next reversal.

So, in no way does the final straight of an Immelmann turn fulfill the requirement of the straight for the next turn, because you haven't fulfilled the requirements of the previous turn. The sequence MUST be: S,I,S,S,I,S

PS: S,I,S,St,I,S,S,I,S
11-02-2018, 09:21
flash

As I said Mike that's logical (to me at least) but it's not what the rules state - as quoted above.
11-02-2018, 11:32
Dawn Patrol

As I understand it, you are climbing in a straight line, reverse direction with rudder as you approach stall, and then regain momentum going back down in a straight line. To Immelmann a second time, you logically must then start climbing again in a straight line to kill speed to make the turn. So, regardless of the rules, it should be s-i-s-s-i-s. As the rules maybe, sorta imply (or we infer), you can basically cheat reality once, and then the card limits you to the proper sequence until you do something else.
11-02-2018, 13:36
OldGuy59

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

...
It is not as clear in the RAP as it was in the old WoW Deluxe & Famous Aces rules which is essentially this:

"To perform an Immelmann turn you must play a straight manoeuvre immediately before the Immelmann and another just after. If the last card of the previous turn was a straight, you can use an Immelmann as the first card of the new turn..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

As I said Mike that's logical (to me at least) but it's not what the rules state - as quoted above.

The last sentence above was provided as a case scenario, not something that is supposed to allow someone to ignore the basic rule of performing an Immelmann (Page Seven of the RAP). One still has to abide by the rules of an Immelmann, but is allowed to plan an Immelmann over two successive turns. As I recall reading on the forum when I first joined, a tactic by veteran pilots was to plan a straight maneuver in the third phase, allowing the use of an Immelmann starting off in the next turn, if it would be tactically advantageous.

Yes, on Page 10 of the RAP rule book, it states taking a 'Straight' reminder token, if you have performed a straight, suggesting that a pilot could plan an immediate Immelmann. However, that is only if that last straight was not associated with having just performed an Immelmann in the last turn. I would consider the following Immelmann to be an illegal maneuver.

Wait. Only if the pilot did the Immelmann in the second last phase. If the pilot planned an Immelmann and two successive straights, then an immediate Immelmann in the following turn wouldn't be illegal. The number of Reversal cards in the deck is part of the design, but not inclusive, nor exclusive, to the rules for Immelmann turns.
11-04-2018, 08:31
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy59

...Yes, on Page 10 of the RAP rule book, it states taking a 'Straight' reminder token, if you have performed a straight, suggesting that a pilot could plan an immediate Immelmann. However, that is only if that last straight was not associated with having just performed an Immelmann in the last turn. I would consider the following Immelmann to be an illegal maneuver..

So did I (and many others) until Andrea said otherwise.
11-04-2018, 09:03
OldGuy59

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

So did I (and many others) until Andrea said otherwise.

This goes against what I recall Andrea provided elsewhere. Unfortunately, I can't find where I read it (neither on this Forum, nor Board Game Geek, nor Ares sites).

Do we have this provision somewhere in writing? Because this would be a head-butting situation for me. And I would stand by what I read elsewhere, and by the Immelmann rule first, not agreeing that the 'case' example on page 10 allows someone to ignore the three card maneuver.

Let's step into another case, with an Acrobatic Pilot. That case allows planning something other that a straight after an Immelmann. Can they plan a following Immelmann in the start of a new phase? Why not, if the ace skill allows using a non-straight following a reversal card? Can't that be used to go into the next Immelmann? My objective answer is a resounding 'no!'. If your answer is 'no', too, would it not be no to the above?
11-04-2018, 09:52
David Manley

I have alerted Andrea to the question. Hopefully he can pop along here shortly with a definitive answer
11-04-2018, 10:53
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy59

This goes against what I recall Andrea provided elsewhere. Unfortunately, I can't find where I read it (neither on this Forum, nor Board Game Geek, nor Ares sites).

Do we have this provision somewhere in writing? Because this would be a head-butting situation for me. And I would stand by what I read elsewhere, and by the Immelmann rule first, not agreeing that the 'case' example on page 10 allows someone to ignore the three card maneuver.

Let's step into another case, with an Acrobatic Pilot. That case allows planning something other that a straight after an Immelmann. Can they plan a following Immelmann in the start of a new phase? Why not, if the ace skill allows using a non-straight following a reversal card? Can't that be used to go into the next Immelmann? My objective answer is a resounding 'no!'. If your answer is 'no', too, would it not be no to the above?

It's on the forum somewhere but it wasn't in an Immel thread, it came up out of another unrelated discussion. This was back in 2010/11 era. I argued against it & Andrea stated it was so & that was that. I couldn't find it when I did the FAQ either, I don't even recall which sub-forum it was in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Manley

I have alerted Andrea to the question. Hopefully he can pop along here shortly with a definitive answer

Thanks DM, saves me a job ! ;)
11-05-2018, 00:36
OldGuy59

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Manley

I have alerted Andrea to the question. Hopefully he can pop along here shortly with a definitive answer

Yeah. We need this sorted out, and the designer has to do it.

Then, Dave can put the answer in that awesome FAQ file he made, so we can find it when this comes up again.
11-05-2018, 01:45
flash

Via this thread I found this explanation on BGG by Andrea of why he used the three part game turn. https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/10501696#10501696
Seems more related to shooting than manouevres.
Still can't find the thread I want though - annoying as I think it was me that contacted Andrea to adjudicate !
11-05-2018, 03:59
Angiolillo

When Wings of War was born, the idea of a straight/Immelmann/straight/Immelmann/straight sounded fine and it was allowed, aslong as you managed to split it in three-cards-turns having one Immelmann only in the deck. It could be even depicted as a loop.
Then altitude rules arrived and webdecided that we could keep the rule that way anyway.
11-05-2018, 07:57
OldGuy59

And the lower wing of your Nieuport 11 rips off in the second attempt...
11-05-2018, 08:15
Teaticket

When I first started playing I played as written but it became an Immelmann fest too easily.

I now and will continue play Straight-Immelmann-Straight as needed per Immelmann. I play it this way when I run games too. Of course there are Ace Skills one can use that can alter this.;)
11-05-2018, 08:48
zenlizard

In terms of aerodynamics, the vertical component for the modern Immelmann really needs to be only very short- hence, there is no logical reason that the game representation for two Immelmanns can't be S-I-S-I-S.
11-05-2018, 09:08
Teaticket

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenlizard

In terms of aerodynamics, the vertical component for the modern Immelmann really needs to be only very short- hence, there is no logical reason that the game representation for two Immelmanns can't be S-I-S-I-S.

Would this have enough momentum be able to keep(or gain) altitude? Maybe if these were Split-S maneuvers and slowly descending I could see it working. I don't fly so I am only going on what my logical/illogical mind imagines.
11-05-2018, 09:18
Dan-Sam

As far as I know, members of Prague Flight play S-I-S-I-S in WGF (not possible in WGS due decreasing of speed during Immelman). Altitude rules affects this by adding climb counters.

I also play St-I-S-I-S (in both games).

Definitely no Immelman in Sails of Glory...
11-05-2018, 09:24
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teaticket

Would this have enough momentum be able to keep(or gain) altitude? Maybe if these were Split-S maneuvers and slowly descending I could see it working. I don't fly so I am only going on what my logical/illogical mind imagines.

Have a look at this Peter... more loops & immels rather than immels & immels but a good demo of linking such moves together. ' Tis a powerful machine though.

Long version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ82xiWP7w

Fok D.VII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkoXlJPY3Oc

Fok Dr.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYe9O-Dnps
11-05-2018, 10:28
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldGuy59

And the lower wing of your Nieuport 11 rips off in the second attempt...

:cry::crashB: Memories aren't what they used to be...:brickwal:

Surprising what Nieuports could do - see "Evolutions, daring, but necessary to avoid gun fire" from 12:35 - though its likely a N.17 & may have resulted in the opening images ! :lol:
https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/r/2395