I just have to decide on layout #6 (post #34) or layout #7 (post #40) for the final version. I already have the required files done for both of them. I'm expecting to have a prototype in hand some time this week to make sure every thing is a go. Then it should be only about a week to get the first production pieces in my hand. I will not know the price or shipping cost until after I have the prototype.
I'd go with 34 out of personal choice. However, I would not want to sell the WW2 gamers short if you only to manufacture one type.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Two types is not a problem at all and I'd personally like to do it that way I think.
I would greatly prefer a board I can use for both games. I will likely buy 10-12 boards for our larger games, but I cannot buy that many for both.
This is a good point Col., I feel the same. I suppose producing 3 boards would be impractical?Originally Posted by Bixby
John.
Having 3 boards might be pushing it a little. However, this morning I did spend a few minutes messing around with what would be a WWII FCB. I actually started making it as a Bf 109 FCB thinking that a board for each major aircraft type might be cool. Not sure if this will work out though.
Just want to elaborate on my earlier post. I bought a bunch of the previous accessories and I am VERY pleased with the quality and value. As a game night organzier, I tend to buy stuff to support game nights of 10-12 people. I do not know how many other members are in this boat, but the prospect of buying 24 boards is a bit daunting. Consider this my empassioned plea for a consolidated board for WWI & WWII.
This helps those that have both Wings of War games and may be an enticement for players with one game to maybe try the other. The game is expensive enough as it is if you buy most of the official materials.
If I am the lone voice in the woods on this, I will just wander back to the hangar bar and have another Guinness.
I can see the appeal of tailor-made boards for the major aircraft type, but I have a suspicion that a 'universal' board would appeal to lots of players, particularly those who would prefer to save their pennies for more miniatures - just a thought.
John.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd gladly buy a board designed specifically for WoW, and a simple one, more like the first layouts.
I'll use them to teach new players, so the simpler, the better.
I like the slides to place Ace Skill cards, but I wouldn't like anything else optional.
I think altitude SLIDERS on the side would be awesome. Altitude on one side and climb on the other side. It would save room.
How difficult would it be to do up a set of bases with decimal dials? These:
Are gorgeous, but my group uses an altitude system that ... errr, how to say this... makes sense, which the rulebook one doesn't. Altitudes are 25 meters per level; 5 levels makes one additional range unit (short range becomes long), 10 levels makes it out of range. Climb and dive is in 25-meter levels, and planes get a dive rating not just a climb rating (so a Spad 13 dives much better than a Nieuport 10).
Anyway, we need decimal dials. We don't really need to represent three digits -- max ceilings for planes range from 120-160 for early war planes to the 200s for late war planes, but within one dogfight the hundreds digit can be assumed. So the dials would work great -- but we need decimals.
Is that difficult? Is that a possibility?
Lots of great ideas, the sliders.. decimal dials etc. but i think Kieth is going with what he already has in production. Integrating his current dial into the control board is a simple manufacturing and cost effective decision. Same with limiting the different variations of the conrol boards. While I won't use the Ace card slots, or the fuel dial, I'll still take the control board and use it.
Let's commend the Col. for taking the bull by the horns and working to provide us gamers with some great supplemental game materials. He's been generous in sharing his pre-production designs with us and has taken many suggestions into consideration as he produces these items. While his end product may not be 100% useful by all of us, all of the time.... it's evedent that most of us will make good use of the majority of what ever we end up with.
I say make them different.
Rick
I can't say I don't like the idea, but I think that the main strenght of this game isn't the sense. If I wanted realism above all I'd have chosen another game.
Wings of War is fun, and extremely fast to learn and master. All I have to say to my new players is: "do this and that, and yes, when you do the Himmelmann do also this". Five minutes and they fly, often knowing what they are doing, and that's even more surprising.
I believe that adding or changing rules in favor of a major realism distorts the nature of the game itself.
I have to agree with Ducalutra to a certain extent. The Col. is trying to make the board work within the existing rules, and give us something which is easy to apply, and takes some of the work out of the mechanics of the game. I'm all for anything that makes the game more playable for newbies. If we start adding ancillary items to suit every personal rule that different group has introduced into its playing system, we will have an unmanageable control board, and it will never get into production because we will all spend too much time arguing about what goes into it. There I've had my say. Now I'll shut up.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I agree with Brian, and Rob (Flying Officer Kyte). It can't be practical to try to produce a board for every possible variation of rules, particularly local group variations. We could easily bandy design features and ideas back and forth and never settle for anything! Keith has done a great job in providing us with useful extras. Anyway, who knows what future changes there may be to the game, that any design produced now can be guaranteed to accommodate? Design 7 (post 40) meets all my needs, and I would be delighted to buy that. If Keith produces two versions, one for WOW and one for DOW, then I guess I will need some of each. But I have no doubt that I won't be using several of the features on any of the boards, whichever they may be. If the Col. can use products such as his dial sets, that are already available, that makes great sense. Why reinvent the wheel? Maybe he could additionally supply blank dials that can be tailored with lettraset, numerical decals or paint by the individual, if there is a sufficient demand for them?
Anyway, them's my thoughts.
John.
Last edited by bumblie3; 06-12-2010 at 02:02. Reason: typos
Hey guys, I was just asking if the Col. could make a 10-dial for his bases. If he can't, or it is too much trouble, that's fine. But I'm not suggesting it should be added to the main thing. Calm down, and let him respond. Surely he will know best what demands are unreasonable (but polite, in this case).
As I look at the bases again, it is even simpler than I thought -- the only thing that would be needed to make them perfect for my purposes is to have the second dial (the one numbered 1-8) numbered 1-10 instead. The bottom numbered ring (1-16) could be unchanged. Since that second dial is (of necessity) a separate piece, which means it is produced by a separate process, it really shouldn't be a big deal. The only question is the overhead in work and cost, of which the Col. would be the best judge.
David, I wouldn't like to be misunderstood.
I was just passing a comment on optional rules in general, you have all the rights to ask for custom base dials, as of course you have to play as you choose!!
It's my personal opinion that a decimal altitude rule could be nice, just that the result won't be worth the effort to learn a more complicated rule.
Hi David,
I never intended my posting to be a personal attack on you. It is just that I have seen what can happen. As Francesco says you have just as much right to have your say as the rest of us. sorry for any offence. As you say the Col will decide on what is the best route to take.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I didn't really post my query to start a debate here about my altitude system, but I think you're missing the point.
Everything you say is true, and I agree -- ONLY if it makes the game more difficult to learn and master, or if it impedes the fun of the game.
If a better altitude system is still "fun and extremely fast to learn and master," none of your concerns apply.
As it turns out, what I'm using is actually simpler to explain and use than the Wings of War system (which has some real oddities); the whole thing occupies two pages (one page of rules, and one page being a performance chart listing each plane, its climb, dive, and ceiling). The page of rules covers the same maneuvers as the Wings of War rules (climbs, dives, split-s, immelman, overdives) in about the same amount of space.
So yes, I'm not a fan of complexity for its own sake. But there are limits to simplicity even in a game intended for fun and speed. The idea that a Sopwith Snipe and a Fokker Eindekker climb differently, but dive the same, is a little silly.
I'll wait and get the current prototype in my hands and run a few mock games through and see if there is really a need for a WoW and a DoW version. If there is, I'll product them that way. If there is not, I might do a limited offering of game specific versions.
David, shoot me a PM with exactly what you would like in a base and the quantity you would most likely be interested in and we can see what we can do for your group. If you can sketch it out and email it to me, all the better.
Sure. And in 30+ years of gaming a million systems I've seen what adding complexity can do to break a good game -- anyone remember Starfleet Battles? Or Squad Leader, for that matter?
Actually, I think I've responded too often on this thread already -- I'm not trying to suborn the thread.
If you're interested, though, I could send you my two-page altitude rules. Or maybe I should try to figure out how to post it in the files section. Hm.
Actually, further looking at your bases makes me think it is really quite simple. See below:
All that I really need is to have the dial on the center (the one that is separate and numbered 1-8) so that it is numbered 0-9 instead. Then I can use the inner numbers as the least significant digit and the outer numbers (1-16 unmodified) as is, letting me represent altitudes from 10 to 169. It would be even better if the outer dial was numbered 0-15 instead of 1-16, so I could represent altitudes from 00 to 159, but that isn't a big deal and I'd be happy enough with just having the center 1-8 dial be a ten-number dial numbered 0-9.
I'll let you know by private email how many we'd be talking about.
I'm sure they would make a good addiction to the files section
Let me know when you have uploaded them.
They're uploaded to the house rules section, but it looks like they may be waiting on moderator approval.I'm sure they would make a good addiction to the files section
Let me know when you have uploaded them.
Good!
I think that they are in.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Are Ace Skills in the WWI game represented by square cards? From the look of the dashboard it makes me think so.
I ask because the Ace Skills for the WWII game are represented by small circular discs, about the size of the high speed/low speed markers. I don't suppose there'd be any problem putting small circular discs where it looks like cards would go, but I wanted to bring it up just in case.
[QUOTE=Tallyho;17539]Are Ace Skills in the WWI game represented by square cards? From the look of the dashboard it makes me think so.
They are rectangular.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
On layout 2 you could put either the Allied logo's or Hun logo's, so each board is used per side so to speak (I can understand keeping them off for a marketing side of things)Thanks for the feed back guys. I took a quick moment this evening and rearranged the first layout:
Layout 4
Do you guys still prefer Layout 2? If so, why is that? Is it the added place for ammo cards? Do you have any ideas on what could fill up some of the dead space on the left on that one (besides the logo)?
I have been watching this debate with interest. The arguements swing back and forth over the same few poitns, but the one essential remains:
How would the individual use them for the way that they play the game?
Would not a solution be to produce a blank board with a series of recesses of the right size for cards, tokens, dials, etc and supply a sheet of decals / stickers / printed plates, then they could be tailored by the individual for either WoW or DoW?
There are many similarities to both systems boards layout, but fundamental differences in the tokens / cards used.
The economic choice is either individual fully loaded boards for each system or a single board which is user customisable by a seperate sheet.
You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time....
Either way, keep up the good work Col.
Sorry, for some reason I missed the last few posts to this thread.
There actually are no Ace Skill cards for WWI. I was thinking about making some decks up as and accessory that you could purchase if you like. These would be of the same quality as damage/maneuver cards that come with the game. I think I already have a source for them.
I thought about this too, but as you say, would add to the cost of stocking them. I did think about offering them in both blue and red, similar to the range rulers that come in the game.
This is what I'm thinking for aircraft specific FCBs in Dawn of War. Here we have a Bf 109.
I've made this FCB with only two maneuver card slots and placed the speed tokens in the empty space that was left.
The area for the plane stat card and maneuver deck are unchanged.
I've incorporated limited ammo bases on the number of rounds the real plane carried and divided that by 50 (rounded up) to get a usable number for the game. Since DoW uses chits instead of cards for damage, I've made a spot for each "round" of ammo as well as a larger area to place damage chits that you have taken from other players.
I've also added two small circles for special damage markers at the bottom and kept the altitude peg holders over on the far right.
Going this route would cost a lot more if a player wanted to get multiples of several of the different aircraft, but I think for those of us that are die hards for this game it would be pretty sweet!
Thoughts?
Hi Col.
The aircraft specific board is excellent, in my opinion, but I have to honest and say that I doubt that I would go for it.
Board 5 had just about everything I believe I need. So, if you produce that, or boards 6 or 7 those are what I will buy, although I probably wont use some of the features on the latter two. Since I had the cheek to stick my three pennyworth in to earlier postings, I thought I should respond to this.
I am sure that there will be many others who will really go for aircraft specific boards. I just want a 'simple' control board which can be used for both WoW and DoW.
John.
It looks nice, but I really think the speed tokens need to be physically closer to the maneauver cards they are associated with. It makes a lot of sense and is more intuitive to players, I would say.
If there isn't enough space on the board for that, is this possible: laser etch an indentation in each maneuver card slot that is the size of the speed token. That way, a player would place their speed token into the indentation and then place the maneuver card on top. I suppose players could do that even without the indentation, but having an indentation would clearly let players know what they're supposed to do.
I know its some aditional work but I agree with Rick
This is what I'm thinking for aircraft specific FCBs in Dawn of War. Here we have a Bf 109.
I've made this FCB with only two maneuver card slots and placed the speed tokens in the empty space that was left.
The area for the plane stat card and maneuver deck are unchanged.
I've incorporated limited ammo bases on the number of rounds the real plane carried and divided that by 50 (rounded up) to get a usable number for the game. Since DoW uses chits instead of cards for damage, I've made a spot for each "round" of ammo as well as a larger area to place damage chits that you have taken from other players.
I've also added two small circles for special damage markers at the bottom and kept the altitude peg holders over on the far right.
Going this route would cost a lot more if a player wanted to get multiples of several of the different aircraft, but I think for those of us that are die hards for this game it would be pretty sweet!
Thoughts?
The dammage sector, there is no +1 damage, only aditional damage counters...
By the way, they look very good!
Colonel,
I think you nailed it with #5.
Hello Katipunero,
Don't just be tempted by the gimbal mounts, get 'em! I got them and they are great!
Really makes your planes look like they are flying. Plus, when you are in a tight bank sometimes a shot that would have gotten you if you were flying straight and level misses.
Gray Wolf
That is a very good point.Really makes your planes look like they are flying. Plus, when you are in a tight bank sometimes a shot that would have gotten you if you were flying straight and level misses.
Gray Wolf
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
You would rather see them next to the maneuver deck instead of next to the two maneuver cards you have in play?
Good catch! I just pulled that part over from the WoW/dual board and never even thought about it!
I've started a new thread to discuss the development of the plane specific boards.
I think this project looks smashing. I have been wanting to order some of the other products and am waiting for the fcb to be ready.
Really like the WW2 idea in particular as there seems to be more to track.
David K. Is on here!?! He runs all the new kids away on the Dba forum.
Ooo, that's harsh! I'm wounded!David K. Is on here!?! He runs all the new kids away on the Dba forum.
On a seperate note, have you considered making a card dispenser like they have in casino's but for the damage decks etc (would be nice if they were big enough to accept the cards with the 45mm x 68mm protective sleeves fitted also) ??
Means I could have seperate decks in a different dispenser and not have them over the table and likely to be knocked etc.....
Not looked into that. Would be a lot more complicated as it would have to be multiple parts that would have to be put together... or injection molded which is expensive.
If you look at my posting in the hobby room for the 6th May under card sleeves, you will find that I came to exactly the same conclusion. Great minds think alike.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
I'm very late to this thread, so I missed most of the design discussions, but at least I can say that I'm looking forward to these.
Flight Stands
I am considering buying fliight stands but I want to know are they suitable for both 1st and 2nd WW. As from the pictures the rear arc does not appear to represent the rear arc of the Stuka?.
John B
John, the Stuka does need to have a special stand made up for it. I'll get working on that next week. The rest of the two seaters out for DoW (Val, SBD and stuff) use the same rear fire arc as the WWI planes.
Thanks for the reply
John B
Hey Col. H., can you give us an update on these stands (both WoW and DoWW) -- and any other teasers of your aerodrome products?!
BTW, your smoke and flame markers were a hit at our games yesterday afternoon!
Cheers,
KW
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks