Fire in the new Ares rules
In a game last night a Caproni caught fire and the new Ares WWI rules mentioned "only non-straight maneuvers can be planned" when on fire. Is this new or am i missing something as i cannot imagine a Caproni Ca.3 zigging left and right because of an engine fire.
We found the Ares set from the "Assessories" box to be a nice refreshing one-stop booklet. It also had a new rule i think for "aiming from above" at D+1.
Tom
It's new. In games at my house I've said "lets ignore that one", but we've used it at the game store.
So, in addition to the typical flame damage the aircraft also has to maneuver around wildly. I could possibly go with this for a fighter, but a bomber? They can hardly zig and zag on a good day.
Interesting, I will have to play it more to see the effect, but we may skip it for bombers - e.g Zepplin strakken.
I've been interpreting this rule as a pilot's attempt to keep the fire away from parts he doesn't want to burn... like himself and the fuel.
Bombers don't have that luxury... besides, they're really just targets. Right? Let them burn... everyone likes a bonfire...
In some of the accounts I've read a steep rapid sideslip was a preferred method of trying to blow out the fire
Twisted...I like the way you think. Especially about Caproni's.Originally Posted by fast.git
I've been interpreting this rule as a pilot's attempt to keep the fire away from parts he doesn't want to burn... like himself and the fuel.
Bombers don't have that luxury... besides, they're really just targets. Right? Let them burn... everyone likes a bonfire...
BTW, congratulations on your promotion!
The Caproni Ca3 was remarkably maneuverable, BTW. There's records of them doing loops, and while that meant the a/c was overstressed, 90 degree banks and sharp turns were common.
Unlike every other "giant" I can think of.
I have never been happy with the fire rules although I admit that the new ones are an improvement. One thing we do (not all the time) it to remove the explosion card and if you get a fire card it is treated like an explosion card. The reason I have for this is the the aircraft of the time were made with very flamable material. If you are a vetern pilot there is a chance you could manouver the aircraft to try and put out the flames but if you were a new pilot I do not belive you would have the skills or experience to do so. I think the effects of fire needs some more indepth research.
Well, then. That's enlightening... thanks, Zoe! Might have to rethink my interpretation of the scout/giant duality when dealing with fire.
Thanks!
I'm curious, what happens if airplane on fire gets both left and right rudder jams? It's not allowed to go straight, and it can't turn.
Is there some penalty for going straight while on fire, or is it simply forbidden?
I suppose if you are playing altitude rules you could over dive in an attempt to put the fire out, if you are not then it gets a little hot for the pilot !
Not a fan of this rule as I can't see that turning would make any great difference to flame & smoke being driven straight back by a 100mph fan just in front of it.
When this came up for discussion, it was suggested that if you were so badly hit that you had no controls and you were on fire the only way was down. So draw a card for an illegal move every time. Your plane is a writeoff. However, if your plane can sideslip, this may be enough to satisfy the not flying straight, and is not effected by the no turn rule. It all depends on how much of a games lawyer you want people to consider you to be.
Rob.
We play that if you go straight while on fire, you just take an extra damage card/chit for each straight maneuver.
Having a wounded pilot and on fire is unpleasant....
I have been thinking about this myself the last couple of weeks. You are all right, in one way or another and there's the rub. Once these matchstick and paper planes caught fire I doubt they could be put out in most circumstances. I think it is a game thing, a dreaded happenstance that does not necessarily mean your demise. Heck, two weeks ago I had one of my DH2s catch fire three, yes three, times in a single dogfight and it was that last 'A' damage card that took just enough damage to put the plane down. Although truth is stranger than fiction, I doubt it would ever have happened in real life. No, games are more often Hollywood impressions than simulations. Which is great, both Hollywood and games are forms of entertainment.
So the 'no straight' rule is fine, I am tempted to add no firing as well but I doubt it would change anything.
Last edited by Suffern; 06-13-2013 at 06:53. Reason: added thought
Just went through this discussion on another thread: No straight maneuvers during the plane is on fire.
It was mentioned there that this is only for single engine planes, and could be house ruled to puller configuration planes, excluding pushers.
My problem is that sideslips would help with this problem, turns would be only marginally, and really not much, better than straight maneuvers. This is flight mechanics. Enforcing turns doesn't make any sense to me. My argument in the other thread was:
So, this is about the flames? And turns, rather than straights, will do something about this? Again, I don't see the point with the game mechanics as they are. The pilot could be doing Yaws back and forth, which is included in the straight maneuver (for simplicity I suspect it isn't represented). The Firing Arc on the front of the mini takes this into consideration, otherwise planes should only be able to fire at targets directly in front of the mini, in line with the fuselage, as that is how the guns are mounted. By considering that planes can Yaw (turn the nose side to side, without actually changing the direction of travel by a lot), that is how I understand that we have a 45 degree Firing Arc in front of the models.
If we consider the above for shooting, then we can consider the same for fires. Doing "turns" won't change the fact that flames are streaming over the engine cowling and into the pilot's face, if that is what this rule is supposed to emulate.
There is a story of a pilot flying a plane on fire, and landing it, by standing on the wing. He was trying to save the life of his observer and himself. Fabulous flying, but nearly impossible. I can't find the story at the moment, sorry.
Based on my understanding of how planes fly, I would enforce sideslips, not turns. So, this rule I would ignore as it is not logical to me.
Mike :-)
Thanks, Rob, and others
+A card seems fair, and I'll use it for sure. Sideslips I have to think about.
If you are using larger planes, two seaters etc, unless they have an immelman card they cannot overdive to try to put the flames out.
Once In the past when I've rarely used two seaters i've overlooked this rule
Last edited by Sparky; 06-15-2013 at 14:32.
The thing that has always bugged me the most about being on fire, is that you can continue to target and shoot whilst trying to manage a burning plane.
Rob.
It's true. I guess you don't ignore flames to shoot.
Otherwise you'll be out of action for 9 maneuvers...
Otherwise you'll be out of action for 6-8 maneuvers...
Been mulling this over. If the rules say "only non-straight manoeuvres can be planned" then under these circumstances the straights are, quite clearly, unplanned manoeuvres and must, therefore, be allowable under the rules.
imho, the penalty should be somewhat obvious. You fly straight, you the pilot burn. Next maneuver should be a spin or dive or a combo of those, to indicate a plane no longer in control.Been mulling this over. If the rules say "only non-straight manoeuvres can be planned" then under these circumstances the straights are, quite clearly, unplanned manoeuvres and must, therefore, be allowable under the rules.
I love your semantics. Remember semantics I'm a one rule guy.Been mulling this over. If the rules say "only non-straight manoeuvres can be planned" then under these circumstances the straights are, quite clearly, unplanned manoeuvres and must, therefore, be allowable under the rules.
Rob.
We used to play it that if you were on fire, you could not attack an opponent (the justification being that the pilot would be busy trying to put out the flames- by sideslipping, etc...- not to mwntion being a bit distracted by flames licking his face and the terror of burning to death, to even notice an opponent let alone try to line up a shot). Of course "special" pilots might be an exception to this (Ace trait?). Now we just ignore this and keep on shooting.
Chris
From what I have read Chris, even the Aces feared fire more than anything else.
Rob.
Let's be fair. When you get a small burn, it hurts. Imagine what happens when you are facing being burnt alive, stack in cockpit.
On September 11th 2001 people jumped from the buildings to avoid that kind of death. Shooting while on fire should be forbidden (or given as ace special ability).
If that were the case would it not be written in the rules...?
I think this is another one of those that Andrea will need to clear up. So I have asked him.
Last edited by flash; 06-16-2013 at 03:59.
Keeping things simple I surgest these rules must be added:
1/ If a plane catches fire it must break of from combat and cannot engage in any further combat till the fire is eliminated.
2/ The plane on fire cannot be tailed by an oponent due to smoke comming from the fire.
3/ If the plane on fire recives any other special damages (except for smoke as it is already smokeing) the the plane is destroyed.
4/ If the plane is at level 1 (1 peg) the pilot may attempt a crash landing
Just a few ideas.
I like one, two, and four, but as we are getting into the realms of unofficial rules, maybe we should move this discussion to the House Rules thread, so as not to confuse the members.
Rob.
It may not be necessary form large bombers as the engines are not in line with the cockpit so a straight shouldn't pose much trouble.
Chris (and others
Page 28 of the new rule book:
...fire damages are the same as for one engined planes, but the mulit engine planes can still plan straight meneuvers...
Haven't purchased the RAP as of yet. Just seemed logical to me Sven. Thanks for clearing this up officially.
In WW2, given the comparative sturdiness of aircraft over their First World War counterparts, fire whilst extremely dangerous could often be ignored or coped with for a brief period. There are plenty of examples of fighter pilots would press home their attacks whilst their own aircrafts were burning. A famous example is the only Fighter Command VC winner:
"The story of James Nicolson's outstanding example of bravery during the Battle of Britain.
James Brindley Nicolson joined the RAF in 1936, and on gaining his wings he was posted to No.72 Squadron based at Church Fenton in Yorkshire. Shortly before the outbreak of World War II the squadron was re-equipped with Spitfires, after operating with Gloster Gladiator biplanes.
Battle of Britain
The early months of the war were spent on convoy protection duties off the East coast; but without the opportunity of engaging in combat. In May 1940 Nicolson was posted as an acting flight commander to No.249 squadron, a newly formed unit operating with Hawker Hurricanes. August 8 was the official first day of the Battle of Britain and in spite of his earlier experience with 72 Sqdrn. Nicolson had yet to engage an enemy aircraft in combat. A similar situation existed with his two wingmen, P/O.M.King and S/Ldr. E. B .King, when on 16 August Nicolson led them on a patrol of the Southampton area.
At 18,000 feet over Southampton the formation was abruptly bounced by a flight of roving Me109s. So sudden was the attack that all three Hurricanes suffered damage. Both P/O.Kings and Nicolsons Hurricanes were set ablaze; with disastrous consequences for King. He managed to bail out successfully, but as he neared the ground, King was subjected to a volley of small arms fire from over-zealous Home Guardsmen. In their ignorance they presumed that every parachute had a German suspended from it. Unfortunately for King their fire was accurate; so much that his parachute was destroyed and he plunged to his death. S/Ldr. King fared better when he managed to recover from the situation and nurse his badly damaged Hurricane back to base
Ordeal by Fire
Nicolson was in a desperate situation; and with his Hurricane ablaze he was preparing to take to his parachute when an Me110 crossed his path. In spite of his severe burns and wounding Nicolson resumed his place at the controls, opened fire and inflicted terminal damage on the Me110. By then he had suffered extensive burns to his face and hands, and with great difficulty he bailed out of the blazing Hurricane. In the process of landing he suffered wounding from ground troops but fortunately did not share P/O. Kings fate."
I know of many others. I believe the rules are restrictive enough to reflect the difficulties in controlling a burning aircraft, without denying the 'virtual pilot' the chance of 'going out in a blaze of glory' - literally!
I wouldn't have a problem with WWII a/c on fire being able to fire, but not in WWI. Fire concentrates the mind wonderfully. I have yet to read an account by a pilot who survived a fire wherein he kept up the fight. Usually when they caught fire they immediately dived, sideslipped, or started to spiral down. In a doped canvas and varnished a/c I certainly would break it off and try to get down or blow the fire out.
I think the new fire damage rule is an official tribute to this fact and it keeps the game playable and fair.
Sorry, posted that late and on the iPhone, thought it was a WGS thread.
I still think there is no need to change the rules - fire might just indicate just a few licks of flame as fuel splashes over hot pistons (zero damage on the A card draw) to a full conflagration (boom), and everything in between.
Carl,
that is fine (and I agree with your explanation), but what about fear of flames spreading? That's why I'm for suspending machine guns while airplane is burning. Whatever fire is, big or small, average pilot would be concentrated on puting it down, rather than shooting the enemy. That's why I said that shooting while on fire maybe should be treated as Ace ability.
(And yes, this topicstarts to incline to house rules
Hello!
A single engine plane with fire can do dsideslips. They are not straight - they have a little arrow to left or right on the card. Straights are the ones with a little arrow pointing up.
I would have eliminated a plane going straight with flames, but Ares preferred to leave the usual penalty for illegal moves - replace with a straight (actually you already have one in this case) and get an A damage. Or eliminate the plane if the optional rule for illegal moves is in use.
If you have the rudder jammed in both direction, plan stalls or dives or climbs as much as you can (they are not straights). And then illegal moves: plan straights, or left/right cards - no matter which you will plan, they will be replaced with straights and inflict an A card of damage (or eliminate you if the optional rule is in use).
Andrea,
thanks a lot for clarification!
Also, what would be your view on shooting while in flames (set aside the official rules)?
That certainly clears up any doubts Andrea.
Thank you for your reply.
I am just glad that I remembered most of what you had said when the new rule was introduced.
I think the only bit I was not sure about was being able to use dives, climb, and stall.
Rob.
Thank you Andrea.
So we have simply to look on the little arrows on the maneuver cards.
Just a bunch of old pilots over thinking this, that is why the pilots are young they just do it. Good lads, and thanks to you old guys for setting be straight.....No not straight....FIRE!
All,
Finally found the story, in my most recent WWI Book I'm reading, "The Brave Young Wings", a book about Canadian pilots, in all aspects of their employment during the conflict (Artillery Spotting, Home Defense, Fighters, Bombers, etc...).
The pilot was 2nd Lieutenant Alan A. McLeod, and he won a VC for the feat. Lt. A.W. Hammond was his Observer. Reading the citation and some of the stories around this incident shows how dangerous burning planes were. They were very lucky to get to the ground. McLeod's letter home stated that his clothes were all burnt off, but he was unhurt (five bullet holes, but "only flesh wounds"). Other accounts had him recovering from the ordeal in England for months. From soldiers who helped evacuate him and Hammond from No-Man's-Land, their accounts recall that the smell of burnt flesh was difficult to deal with. "McLeod climbed out of his cockpit onto the left, lower wing to avoid the flames and yawed the Ack-W to fan the flames to the right side." (McLeod) Yawing and sideslipping are the only reasons McLeod and Hammond made it down alive, as the fuel tank was leaking fuel all over the fire, and the flames were blowing over both cockpits (eventually burning out the interior and floors of both, before they got to the ground).
Nasty business, fire in a kite. But "no straights" is not accurate to me, if we include yawing as part of shooting. I would consider that the pilot is yawing to avoid flames, too. The path of travel just happens to appear to be in a "straight line".
I also read in this "new-to-me" book of another example, that of fires that spontaneously go out. An account provides that a flash fire when out shortly after starting. So, a plane that takes a little damage, or no significant damage, from a fire is corroborated, too.
I like the WoW rules for fires.
Mike
Astonishing feat! Realy heroic. Thank you for posting details, too.
(Disclaimer: my aeronautic english isn't superb, so I appologise if I misinterpreted something)
About yawing: If I got it right, yawing is (basicaly) alternating to the left and to the right, but keeping the basic course. With maneuver cards we have, we cant play this option, I agree. But, since you cover lesser distance when yawing than when flying straight, No Straights Rule sems fair. Alternative, perhaps, would be making halfstraight (moving half the straight line) card, which would be used while on fire. But I believe sideslips, stalls and turns do the job for now.
Maybe plane shoud alternate maneuvers to the left and to the right while on fire, simulating yawing (in this case two same-pointing maneuvers would be illegal). Of course, those are just ideas. And I really like people here are openminded and willing to make all kinds of house rules.
Last edited by Пилот; 06-18-2013 at 01:05.
That is what I have been doing since the new rules came out Heмaњa. It's a great move to make, throwing the plane first one way and then the other, also confounds the pursuit.
However, recently I have taken to the overdive. On the three occasions that I have used it so far I have drawn a 3,2,0. so it has worked very well. The 0 was a last desperate effort to save the plane, but the others were drawn at the start of the move so saved me any extra fire damage other than the one at the start of the move. It also gets you away from the fight whilst you frolic about with side slips etc. Not many enemies are prepared to follow you down, and voluntarily put themselves out of the fight for three or so turns.
Rob.
I don't suppose that the large bombers carried fire extinguishers, which the gunners or co-pilot could use to put out the fire? I suspect the extra weight would prevent this.
RAF Lancaster bombers were equipped with fire extinguishers, as were other aircraft of the time. The following VC citation demonstrates the extreme use of such a device!
"The KING has been graciously pleased to confer the VICTORIA CROSS on the undermentioned officer in recognition of most conspicuous bravery*:
905192 Sergeant (Now Warrant Officer) Norman Cyril Jackson R.A.F.V.R., 106 Squadron.
This airman was the flight engineer in a Lancaster detailed to attack Schweinfurt on the night of 26th April 1944. Bombs were dropped successfully and the aircraft was climbing out of the target area. Suddenly it was attacked by a fighter at about 20,000 feet. The captain took evading action at once, but the enemy secured many hits. A fire started near a petrol tank on the upper surface of the starboard wing, between the fuselage and the inner engine.
Sergeant Jackson was thrown to the floor during the engagement. Wounds which he received from shell splinters in the right leg and shoulder were probably sustained at that time. Recovering himself, he remarked that he could deal with the fire on the wing and obtained his captain's permission to try to put out the flames.
Pushing a hand fire-extinguisher into the top of his life-saving jacket and clipping on his parachute pack, Sergeant Jackson jettisoned the escape hatch above the pilot's head. He then started to climb out of the cockpit and back along the top of the fuselage to the starboard wing. Before he could leave the fuselage his parachute pack opened and the whole canopy and rigging lines spilled into the cockpit.
Undeterred, Sergeant Jackson continued. The pilot (Tony Mifflin), bomb aimer (Maurice Toft) and navigator (Frank Higgins) gathered the parachute together and held on to the rigging lines, paying them out as the airman crawled aft. Eventually he slipped and, falling from the fuselage to the starboard wing, grasped an air intake on the leading edge of the wing. He succeeded in clinging on but lost the extinguisher, which was blown away.
By this time, the fire had spread rapidly and Sergeant Jackson was involved. His face, hands and clothing were severely burnt. Unable to retain his hold he was swept through the flames and over the trailing edge of the wing, dragging his parachute behind. When last seen it was only partly inflated and was burning in a number of places.
Realising that the fire could not be controlled, the captain gave the order to abandon aircraft. Four of the remaining members of the crew landed safely. The captain and rear gunner have not been accounted for.
Sergeant Jackson was unable to control his descent and landed heavily. He sustained a broken ankle, his right eye was closed through burns and his hands were useless. These injuries, together with the wounds received earlier, reduced him to a pitiable state. At daybreak he crawled to the nearest village, where he was taken prisoner. He bore the intense pain and discomfort of the journey to Dulag Luft with magnificent fortitude. After ten months in hospital he made a good recovery, though his hands require further treatment and are only of limited use.
This airman's attempt to extinguish the fire and save the aircraft and crew from falling into enemy hands was an act of outstanding gallantry. To venture outside, when travelling at 200 miles an hour, at a great height and in intense cold, was an almost incredible feat. Had he succeeded in subduing the flames, there was little or no prospect of his regaining the cockpit. The spilling of his parachute and the risk of grave damage to its canopy reduced his chances of survival to a minimum. By his ready willingness to face these dangers he set an example of self-sacrifice which will ever be remembered."
What an outstanding feat of bravery. No wonder he got a VC. for it Carl.
To do all that and escape with your life is incredible. If you had put it in a film nobody would believe it.
Rob.
There is a 'Heroes of the Skies' episode covering Sgt Jackson's bravery. Stirring stuff.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks