Maneuver Deck Changes
Just got my first batch of Wings of Glory minis and a couple of them have me scratching my head. The Fokker EIII, Halberstadt DIII, and DH-2 all use different maneuver decks than were used in Wings of War. Are the maneuver decks that came with the minis used solely for those planes, or do they now apply to all aircraft of that type? Thanks.
BTW, that Gotha mini is UBER-cool.
All of that type. It's the only real change from WoW, and only affects the aircraft in the "Immelman" card deck. This was the last set released by Nexus- when things were going pear-shaped - and I think the quality assurance wasn't all it might have been.Originally Posted by KirkH
Last edited by Oberst Hajj; 02-15-2013 at 12:16.
Then are the old decks used for anything?
The P deck is now used for the DH-2 & Halberstadt whilst the E III now uses the new T deck (along with the Morane).
The G deck is now in limbo but may be used for some of the Unofficial models.
Thanks, I copied that down so I won't forget, something I frequently do (forgetting I mean).
The G deck is now in limbo but may be used for some of the Unofficial models.
Just to let you know the new T deck is the same as the old G deck with one steep sideslip for each side changed to a non steep sideslip
I found this post on BGG today and it hadn't received an answer there yet. Does anyone know if the D deck has been changed? The quoted post below:
On a whim, I compared the Dr.I "D" deck from Wings of War and Wings of Glory. It appears that there is a small, but noticeable difference on the 3 right turning cards. The WoG cards have a "shorter" turn.
Does anyone know if this is intentional or an accident of the printing process?
If intentional, are there other minor changes for planes that are in both series?
I don't own any of the new WoG DR I aircraft yet so I can't verify his discovery. I'm hoping game play isn't affected greatly as I only want to go out and buy the Lothar Von Richthofen bird to add to the others in my collection. Would also like to avoid the possibility of having to buy/create new D decks to keep up so to speak.
Thanks!
I just checked. The "rotary turn" card looks different, but that's because the cards look different in general. The length and arc of the turn remain the same between the sets.
Good news.
Thank you sir!
Great relief. I'll post this to BGG for the gentleman who posed the question.
Always glad to be of assistance.
This seems like a good place to check something, I have only gotten into the game since WoG and it seems that the most consistent way to move (and hopefully the intended way) is to really ignore the arrow head (by itself) and line up the rear edge of the base with the thin blue line (and keep the main maneuver line in line with the arrow stem).
Even though this may not look exact to match arrow to arrow, the space between the printed arrow and the arrow on the base make sure that the arrow never looks right unless you are right on top of it and the bevel in the base further distorts it, so this way seems very consistent.
I recently purchased an old Breguet and then saw what the old cards looked like (definitely think the new is an improvement in art and style). The old arrow is tougher to line up so I have been butting the base with the very begining of where the arrow stem starts (when the blue line goes black). It seems this may be a bit farther travel than the card intends, but again, I am going with consistency.
Does anyone have thoughts or is there a standard accepted system for old card movement (and new card if what I'm doing isn't correct). I get that it is a friendly game and can even take it that the planes were not as precise in the air so a mm here or there isn't a big deal as it is as likely to hurt your position as it is to help it (assuming you don't do it for advantage, but I don't play with cheaters). Me and my dad even say 'oh, the wind blew' when we accidently knock a piece or a card a little bit and know we can't put it exactly back where it was.
This was just in the back of my mind and this thread kind of resurfaced it with the whole old v. new card issue.
I find the old cards easier to read, but I prefer having that line because I think it does provide a better reference for measuring a move.
The arrows on the old cards were easier to read, but the line is an improvement (as it was in Dawn of War when it first came out). I personally like the new artwork better, but they should have changed the arrow colors so they stand out more.
Your description is the way I line my cards up, too. I figure the main thing is to try to be consistent.Does anyone have thoughts or is there a standard accepted system for old card movement (and new card if what I'm doing isn't correct).
Agreed. And to remember this is a game. Sometimes I have a hard time picking up the bases, or balancing when two planes are in the same general space, or being able to look straight down to ensure everything is perfect. Our group is really enjoying playing the game together, and in part it is due to the simplicity of the mechanics that allows us to focus on thinking about moves. We know that no one of us is trying to cheat or gain an advantage if we're slightly off. I imagine if we're at a tournament, there could be judges to help with such matters, but among friends and family, a little bit of grace and mercy go along way.
Even at Cons and the big "tourney" I run at Origins each year, we still keep it a friendly game. About the only thing that ever comes up is if someone is in the arc of fire or if someone is on the line for long or short range. If one of the players does not concede the point in a matter of seconds, I simply flip a coin. Everyone seems to be fine with that as even new players get that this is a fun game.
Does anybody else find this a little odd? I thought "pushers" (aft propellor types) were meant to be clumsy and difficult to manoeuvre compared to the "tractor" (front propellor) types, which is probably why the design wasn't used after WW1 outside of steampunk style flying games, so howcome they have the same deck?
I'm no expert, though, so I could be wrong about the DH2 (as well as the reason for rejecting the pusher design). I just find it odd that a pusher and a front propellor type would have the same deck.
For the time when pushers were about they were on a par with the German contempories and better than the Bullets and Eindekkers.
When the aircraft got better, Albatross D2 And D3 that's when the pushers became obsolete, compare the Decks for the D2 and D3 and you will see the difference.
That's my interpretation anyway
A bit of an oversimplification there as the pusher arrangement didnt have any inherent performance disadvantage as such compared with contemporary pusher designs and, until the emergence of reliable interruptor gears on the allied side had some major advantages.
The problem was more that pushers tended to be weaker structurally than a tractor type due to the need to put the tail structure on the end of booms and, since props tended to be mounted rather far back ground clearance was also a major disadvantage in the tail-dragger era.
Its interesting to note that with the advent of tricycle-type landing gear in the late 1930`s a good number of plane designers started experimenting with rear mounted props and during WWII there were a lot of never built projects and even a few experimental prototypes built that used this arrangement though few of these types ever made it into action.
The advent of the jet engine though made the whole thing irrelevent by eliminating the prop completely.
Last edited by Rabbit 3; 01-04-2014 at 04:58.
A bit of a non sequitur, but I remember reading that the pushers were also really cold. More exposure to the wind, and no bonus heat from the engine in front...
There's also the fact that pusher props are somewhat less effective than tractors -- the rest of the airplane being in the way screws up the airflow.
I remember a game set in early 1940, fall of France. The player commanding the British was told to expect a troop of tanks to support him. His look of astonishment when 3 Vickers mkV light tanks showed up was a picture. That said, not everyone likes playing with pushers but they can be a lot of fun.
See you on the Dark Side......
IIRC, the pusher arraignment was somewhat less aerodynamically stable, which is a problem for this era of plane.
Also, having the engine behind you when you crash, can be a fatal crunch!
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Ouch!
+1 for me.
Aerodynamic instability was a problem for all acft. of the period -- folks were still figuring out weight-and-balance, dihedral, and such (hint: Camel).
Crash-landings were a definite problem, tho'; having the pilot sandwiched between ground and engine, no es bueno. Post-war, airmail flights had the same problem; the pilots who crashed would get squashed between the engine and the cargo. One of the early proponents of the mailplane design which put the cargo ahead of the pilot was some dude named Lindbergh; we'd see a similar design process in his better-known work, _Spirit of St. Louis_ (if you ever wondered *WHY* the main fuselage tank was placed where it blocked the pilot's view forward...).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks