Are two seaters too effective ?

[Nightbomber]

I see the thread turned to be one for "altitude rules" issue. There were to engagements that convinced me rather to use them than not. The first one, while teaching the rules when I completely fooled two enemy scouts flown by my friends while I was flying a two seater changing altitude on and off. The second time in Prague 2012, when Sven used a smart combined maneuver with altitude to escape me. The rules add a lot to the game possibilities, but Jan is right - games take more time to be finished.

[Пилот]

Watchdog,
it was never about inferiority or superiority - this is right place for exchanging experiences. Mine is that altitude gives to, yours is that altitude takes from the game. And I'm fine with any approach to game which suites you well, although 2-dimensional game sounds to me more like clash of boats with machine guns

Anyway, if I come to the Prague this July, we'll have a chance to discuss this matter in a proper way: with planes on tabletop and beer over the top

[keke]

Try these:

MISSION 1

Game board: Two maps joined at long side.
Ground targets: Two, each of them 1.5 ruler from long and short edges on the Entente side of the game board.

Central Powers: Two Gotha G.V's starting from their long edge, aimed at the ground targets. Each Gotha G.V carries 2 bomb loads. A direct hit destroys the target, a partial hit damages it, two partial hits destroy it.

Entente: Two SPAD XIII's and two Sopwith Camels starting anywhere within the Entente half of the game board.

Objective: The Gotha G.V's must destroy both targets and return to their aerodrome by exiting over their board edge. Failure to destroy both targets is a loss, failure to return after both targets have been destroyed is a draw.


We tested these scenarios during our last gaming evening and they were quite balanced, however, we did not use altitude rules. During the first mission I flew the two SPAD XIII's as a formation, planning only one set of manoeuvres for the pair, while the Gotha G.V's were flown the same way until they dropped their bombs (and they did some nasty manoeuvres on their way to the targets) and again some time later on their way home in close formation, one protecting the other (which had both gunners wounded), and it worked fine. If you like, test these scenarios. Since they seemed balanced for vanilla rules, you may try some house rules there.

Hi Jan...what do you mean " quite balanced"? that ratio between entente and central powers was 50:50 ?

[Watchdog]

Hi Jan...what do you mean " quite balanced"? that ratio between entente and central powers was 50:50 ?

By that I meant that none of the sides had felt underpowered or overpowered and that the fight had not been one-sided at all, it had been a reasonably lasting and even game.

[rcboater]

I like the idea of an observer deck that is a little weaker.

I use homemade damage decks-- for example, I started with the A damage deck, and made my own template in MS -Word. I created a copy of the official "A" deck. I can fit 16 cards per page-- it takes 2 + pages to produce a standard 35 card deck. Page 1 is the zeroes and ones, page two is the twos, threes, and fours, and the third page is the fives and the explosion card. I print them out on pink card stock.

For an observer "A" deck, I'll just tweak the distribution of the numbers-- maybe lose the fives, that alone drops the average damage from 1.6 per card to 1.3 per card. I'll print it on a different color card stock, and it will be easy to keep track of.....

[keke]

I like the idea of an observer deck that is a little weaker.

I use homemade damage decks-- for example, I started with the A damage deck, and made my own template in MS -Word. I created a copy of the official "A" deck. I can fit 16 cards per page-- it takes 2 + pages to produce a standard 35 card deck. Page 1 is the zeroes and ones, page two is the twos, threes, and fours, and the third page is the fives and the explosion card. I print them out on pink card stock.

For an observer "A" deck, I'll just tweak the distribution of the numbers-- maybe lose the fives, that alone drops the average damage from 1.6 per card to 1.3 per card. I'll print it on a different color card stock, and it will be easy to keep track of.....

Hi Bill... do you use custom damage deck both for front and rear machine guns?

[keke]

Try these:

MISSION 1

Game board: Two maps joined at long side.
Ground targets: Two, each of them 1.5 ruler from long and short edges on the Entente side of the game board.

Central Powers: Two Gotha G.V's starting from their long edge, aimed at the ground targets. Each Gotha G.V carries 2 bomb loads. A direct hit destroys the target, a partial hit damages it, two partial hits destroy it.

Entente: Two SPAD XIII's and two Sopwith Camels starting anywhere within the Entente half of the game board.

Objective: The Gotha G.V's must destroy both targets and return to their aerodrome by exiting over their board edge. Failure to destroy both targets is a loss, failure to return after both targets have been destroyed is a draw.

MISSION 2

Game board: One map.

Central Powers: Two Albatros D.Va's two rulers away from the Bristol F2B, facing it, from any direction.

Entente: One Bristol F2B (B/B armament) anywhere on the map.

Objective: The Bristol F2B must survive 10 full turns (30 manoeuvres) and then return to its aerodrome by exiting by one of the short edges, determined before the game starts.

---

We tested these scenarios during our last gaming evening and they were quite balanced, however, we did not use altitude rules. During the first mission I flew the two SPAD XIII's as a formation, planning only one set of manoeuvres for the pair, while the Gotha G.V's were flown the same way until they dropped their bombs (and they did some nasty manoeuvres on their way to the targets) and again some time later on their way home in close formation, one protecting the other (which had both gunners wounded), and it worked fine. If you like, test these scenarios. Since they seemed balanced for vanilla rules, you may try some house rules there.

Hi Jan
this week end we played 5 times the second mission, and the result was 4-1 for Bristol . And the only match were Bristol was defeated was because a tail damage lead the brisfit out of border.
From a general point of view, because of plane speed are the same, if brisfit was lucky to survive first "face to face" contact, on following steps Albatross can only pursuit until bristol need to turn to avoid to trespass the border. And if Bristol was clever enough to anticipate the manoeuvre, usually Albatross went beyond him....
On a match, we had only a firing contact on step 7!!.
Perhaps our game area was too big (1m x 1,5m) :which is the measurement of the map that you suggested?

[Watchdog]

Hi Jan
this week end we played 5 times the second mission, and the result was 4-1 for Bristol . And the only match were Bristol was defeated was because a tail damage lead the brisfit out of border.
From a general point of view, because of plane speed are the same, if brisfit was lucky to survive first "face to face" contact, on following steps Albatross can only pursuit until bristol need to turn to avoid to trespass the border. And if Bristol was clever enough to anticipate the manoeuvre, usually Albatross went beyond him....
On a match, we had only a firing contact on step 7!!.
Perhaps our game area was too big (1m x 1,5m) :which is the measurement of the map that you suggested?

I see. Well, the idea is, that the two Albatros D.Va's can start facing the Bristol from any direction. Maybe I did not make it clear enough, the two scouts do not need to be in a formation, they can "surround the Bristol" from the very start.

The size of the map is 96x68cm (one Nexus map), to give the Bristol less room to manoeuvre. If played well, the scouts can kind of press the Bristol to one side of the map.

[keke]

well, our game area was quite double than suggested, and of course it change all the scenario.
Moreover both of us adopted same tactic for both albatross, and I agree with you that it 's not most effective way to use them.
We will reply the challenge this evening, decreasing area dimension....

[Omegalazarus]

It seems these two seater problems can be solved with house ruling the game or building tons of different damage decks.

1- Mainly, as others have said, play scenarios. In a scenario, the sides are balanced by a mix of crates and victory conditions so that usually solves the problem.

2 - In the event of the pick-up game dogfight, if everyone agrees they are overpowered, then who is the competitive d*** that chooses the overpowered plane? I went up against a guy (in a different game) that kept using a cheesy selection to get an advantage and admitted it was overpowered. So, I did this- We started the game and I conceded and asked if he wanted to play again. I actually had to concede three times before he got the hint. Then, he picked a balanced force and we had fun playing the game. I let him learn that winning without chance/difficulty is no fun and he figured that out. Who cares that he has 3 'wins' floating in the ether? If there isn't money on the table, the game is a game.

3- Finally, some of this comes down to optional rules. It seems the blind spot rule is a must. I always play with Aiming Tailing and two seater blind spot for every game. As far as I am concerned, those are just part of the standard rules anymore. If people are having problems with a two-seater, just play with the blind spot. Flying in a slow lumbering two seater's blind spot is easy and I take them down quickly (especially with tailing).

It seems easier to add in some of the game's rules before you resort to modding the game with house rules and alternate decks and <gasp> dice!

Of course, this is all my experience. Maybe others are having a different time with it.

[rcboater]

Hi Bill... do you use custom damage deck both for front and rear machine guns?

Yes I do. I run games with as many as 12 players, and only have one "official" A Damage Deck, so I needed to do something! Using Microsoft Word, I printed out three decks' worth of cards (105 total) -- just standard "A" decks. I then made them a little bloodier-- I printed out a couple of extra sheets of the ones and twos, adding about 30 additional cards. That raises the chance of damage a little, but not too drastic.

When you make your own damage decks, you can do anything you want to adjust the effects. It is easy to print them on cardstock and cut them out. I use pink/red for A decks, yellow for "B" decks, and I'll use lt green for a special rear gunner deck.

[keke]

It seems these two seater problems can be solved with house ruling the game or building tons of different damage decks.

1- Mainly, as others have said, play scenarios. In a scenario, the sides are balanced by a mix of crates and victory conditions so that usually solves the problem.

2 - In the event of the pick-up game dogfight, if everyone agrees they are overpowered, then who is the competitive d*** that chooses the overpowered plane? I went up against a guy (in a different game) that kept using a cheesy selection to get an advantage and admitted it was overpowered. So, I did this- We started the game and I conceded and asked if he wanted to play again. I actually had to concede three times before he got the hint. Then, he picked a balanced force and we had fun playing the game. I let him learn that winning without chance/difficulty is no fun and he figured that out. Who cares that he has 3 'wins' floating in the ether? If there isn't money on the table, the game is a game.

3- Finally, some of this comes down to optional rules. It seems the blind spot rule is a must. I always play with Aiming Tailing and two seater blind spot for every game. As far as I am concerned, those are just part of the standard rules anymore. If people are having problems with a two-seater, just play with the blind spot. Flying in a slow lumbering two seater's blind spot is easy and I take them down quickly (especially with tailing).

It seems easier to add in some of the game's rules before you resort to modding the game with house rules and alternate decks and <gasp> dice!

Of course, this is all my experience. Maybe others are having a different time with it.

Hi Japheth, it seems we are facing 2 different point of view, or approach..... from my point of view, the matter is not to balance a game but to be able to reproduce reality as close as possible.

[Doug]

I still see the problem being that it is the player's use of the two seater. If you are going to use 2 seater give them a mission, for example arial phatography where the gunner cannot fire while he is over the target. 1st card cannot fire as the observer is setting up the camera and and depending how big the target is second or even third turn cannot fire as he is takeing happy snaps. There after he can fire his gun. Played a game on Sunday where 2 German two seaters and 2 scouts in escort had to photo a target. We had 3 scouts, my other wingmen went after the scouts and kept them out of the battle I went up against the 2 seaters. the 1st one was able to photo the the target and got away as I had wrongly anticipated his moves, but shot the second one down while the observer ws takeing happy snaps. Chased after the 1st two seater killed his rear gunner but could not shoot him down before he got of the board by diving with 2 damage points left. So my point is that if 2 seaters are used for what they are supposed the be used for then you get an even game and yes we always use altitude.

[Omegalazarus]

Hi Japheth, it seems we are facing 2 different point of view, or approach..... from my point of view, the matter is not to balance a game but to be able to reproduce reality as close as possible.

Ah, I understand now. Well, to that I will have to defer to the more knowledgeable among us.

I will say that surely two seaters were pretty powerful, or else they would have stopped making them and just added a camera to a scout (or removed the rear gun and bracing to lighten the load). I assume the numerical dominance of the scout was more an effect of needing only 1 person and manufacture being cheaper and quicker per plane. It seems appropriate that a maneuverable plane is countered when another plane has a gun that can aim almost anywhere they can fly as quick as a man can flick his wrists.

As to the ease of rear gunning, I will say that I don't think accuracy and target acquisition would be diminished. As noted, the pilot has to fly AND shoot while the gunner need only shoot. A response to the idea that aiming a plane at a target is easier than traversing a gun, realize that one fight the direct effect of turbulence and over-correction by directing a craft, while the gunner only fights the shakiness in the plane (as a result of turbulence) and only need adjust his aim with the natural motions of his body that he has known his whole life.

Also, I have gunned in a man-traversed open turret and it isn't that difficult. I would say the hardest part is dealing with uneven terrain at speed. I was in a ground vehicle, but I contend that the effect of potholes, ditches, furrows, etc. are at least as bad as the buffeting of wind and the aircraft's 3rd dimension. I can definitely tell you that directing the fire of a pintle mounted gun is easier than directing the heading of ANY vehicle. The forces involved are always smaller (and therefore less effective against the weapon).


WARNING: All of the above is my experience and assumption. Basing your life on this is not advised. Your mileage may vary. Guarantee void in Tennessee.

[keke]

Ah, I understand now. Well, to that I will have to defer to the more knowledgeable among us.

I will say that surely two seaters were pretty powerful, or else they would have stopped making them and just added a camera to a scout (or removed the rear gun and bracing to lighten the load). I assume the numerical dominance of the scout was more an effect of needing only 1 person and manufacture being cheaper and quicker per plane. It seems appropriate that a maneuverable plane is countered when another plane has a gun that can aim almost anywhere they can fly as quick as a man can flick his wrists.

As to the ease of rear gunning, I will say that I don't think accuracy and target acquisition would be diminished. As noted, the pilot has to fly AND shoot while the gunner need only shoot. A response to the idea that aiming a plane at a target is easier than traversing a gun, realize that one fight the direct effect of turbulence and over-correction by directing a craft, while the gunner only fights the shakiness in the plane (as a result of turbulence) and only need adjust his aim with the natural motions of his body that he has known his whole life.

Also, I have gunned in a man-traversed open turret and it isn't that difficult. I would say the hardest part is dealing with uneven terrain at speed. I was in a ground vehicle, but I contend that the effect of potholes, ditches, furrows, etc. are at least as bad as the buffeting of wind and the aircraft's 3rd dimension. I can definitely tell you that directing the fire of a pintle mounted gun is easier than directing the heading of ANY vehicle. The forces involved are always smaller (and therefore less effective against the weapon).


WARNING: All of the above is my experience and assumption. Basing your life on this is not advised. Your mileage may vary. Guarantee void in Tennessee.

Dear Japheth
everything you say is reasonable, and difference between single seater and two seater was not so dramatic.
Of course none of us have experience of a real WWI dogfight or war mission, and all our "knowledge" is mostly based on reading.
And by reading we can assume that , with few exception as BF 2, two seater were not the best choice for a dogfight, but a wing of 2 seaters should be able to survive quite well against a wing of scout, and so on.
So I believe that a realistic simulation should grant that on a dogfight a scout will be "benefitted" against a 2-seaters, and 2-seaters receive a benefit for close wing flight.
At same time, for any plane aim is increased when it flight stright, and to hit a plane on manoeuvre is more difficult than hit a plane on "even" flight.

In my opinion standard rule pack don't reproduce all those detail , and suggested "home rule" pack are intended to increase realism without increasing difficulty.

[Omegalazarus]

When you put it that way, it makes sense. Good idea.

[csadn]

Also, I have gunned in a man-traversed open turret and it isn't that difficult. I would say the hardest part is dealing with uneven terrain at speed. I was in a ground vehicle, but I contend that the effect of potholes, ditches, furrows, etc. are at least as bad as the buffeting of wind and the aircraft's 3rd dimension. I can definitely tell you that directing the fire of a pintle mounted gun is easier than directing the heading of ANY vehicle. The forces involved are always smaller (and therefore less effective against the weapon).

Dare I ask "where", and "in what"?

<- once got to try out the Gatling mount on a M163

[Omegalazarus]

Dare I ask "where", and "in what"?

<- once got to try out the Gatling mount on a M163

Very cool about that. I haven't shot anything with that rate of fire.

M1114 HMMWV Gun up with a Mk19 Grenade Machinegun OR a M249 SAW (light Machinegun). Expert on both so watch out. I would say the WWI guns would clock in between the SAW and Mk 19 for control based on weight and balance (but I have never fired one of those old Vickers or the like).

[csadn]

Very cool about that. I haven't shot anything with that rate of fire.

Sadly, this was a museum piece -- indoors, and no ammo; still, the sound the barrels made -- well: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GatlingGood ; There Is A Reason For This. >:)

[keke]

I see. Well, the idea is, that the two Albatros D.Va's can start facing the Bristol from any direction. Maybe I did not make it clear enough, the two scouts do not need to be in a formation, they can "surround the Bristol" from the very start.

The size of the map is 96x68cm (one Nexus map), to give the Bristol less room to manoeuvre. If played well, the scouts can kind of press the Bristol to one side of the map.

well, coming back to the topic, easter holidays were a good moment to play some more match with "reduced" game area.
Score ratio for Bristol against Albatross was 1: 1 , with a big influence of special damage (if you have a tail damage when you are close to the border, it can be really dramatic....).
From a general point of view, the best tactic for Albatross seems to be to divide them: one on pursuit of Bristol, and the other one not so close to them, ready to stop bristol if first Albatross loss contact.
Because of speed is quite the same, you cannot have a real "pursuit" if Bristol pass Albatross and Albatross need to perform an Immelman to go back on Bristol...

[keke]

now the question is : game seems to be balanced, but it's able to reproduce what really happened on WWI sky?