'Falling Leaf' Manuever and Altitude changes

[usmc1855]

Unfortunately my scanner isn't cooperating, so bare with me on this.

The maneuver decks have cards that appear as 'lazy S's'. As presented, they do not affect altitude.

A 'Side Slip' is what I see these cards as presented in the game to represent, it allows a plane to basically shift (roll) to it's right or left while continuing forward and maintaining level flight (no altitude change).





I have developed a House Rule which uses the same card as described above, but when used, the pilot can choose to have the aircraft to drop one elevation counter. It would be same effect on altitude as as doing a Split-S.

This would be the maneuver I have heard referred to as a "Falling Leaf".

One play of the card would basically be one movement of the plane to the left or right, while dropping in elevation by one climb counter.

This illustration would demonstrate several of them in a row.




To differentiate this maneuver from a simple 'Barrel Roll" where there is no elevation loss, the pilot would have ot play a Stall card immediately prior to playing the 'Lazy S' card.

Comments?

Recommendations?

[krolik]

Play with it a few games, and tell us how it works out.

[usmc1855]

Play with it a few games, and tell us how it works out.

We used it Tuesday night, and it worked rather well. It helped to bring an attacking plane down to the same altitude as it's target which allowed for firing at long range, and on one occasion it made the difference between a collision and a near miss.

[Oberst Hajj]

I like the sound of it and will keep it in mind for my next game... whenever that is

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Looks a great idea. I'll try it out at the weekend, and see how it goes down.
Rob.

[usmc1855]

You could imagine.... opponent is at altitude 6 (no climb markers) you are altitude 7 (no climb markers and a climb rate of three). You are at long range and can not engage due to the altitude difference. You do a falling leaf maneuver and drop one counter which brings you down to altitude 6 plus two climb counters. Now both planes are at 6 and you can engage at long range.

[flash]

Liking this Brian - I think it's valid a valid combat manouevre & alot of aircraft had to side slip to lose altitude for landing - many because they could not see over their nose !

Is there a file anywhere that custom manouevres are logged into ?

[Oberst Hajj]

Not there is not flash, but there needs to be!

[flash]

Perhaps we could persuade Don 'LGKR' to reproduce some in the same way he covered bombing !
I'd love to introduce new moves to my gaming - I've heard loops & barrel rolls mentioned but seen no explanations - how do they work?

[usmc1855]

A barrel roll is nothing more than two or more side-slips done consecutively.

In game mechanics, you would have to have in your maneuver deck, two or more of the 'Lazy S' cards and play them one immediately after the other (all moving your plane to either the left, or the right side).

Your altitude would remain unchanged.

The Loop? Hmmm... Only aircraft with the immelmen card in their maneuver decks could do the loop.

if you had three of the stall cards, the ones with the very short forward motion with the stall symbol in your deck, this is how I would simulate the loop.

You have to place all three of the short forward moving 'Stall' cards into play consecutively. On playing the first card, you would gain one climb counter, on the second card, you would display the card, but not move your plane. On the third card, you would discard the climb counter obtained when playing the first card, and continue move you aircraft as required by the card.

The 'C' Maneuver deck which comes with the Sopwith Camel, has two Stall cards, # 13 an 14. and one short forward moving Climb Card which is # 21. For the example described above, you'd play this sequence. Cards #21 (take a climb counter and move forward a short movement. Play card #13, do not move your plane. Play card #14 and move you card forward a short movement and discard the climb counter.

I've developed this with a three card movement, since it best suits the mechanics of the three card turn. I believe if it was done as a four card sequence, with the the second and third cards played as non-forward motion cards, it would better simulate the time actually spent in the loop.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I've made a note of all this Brian. It is far clearer than all the descriptions from the original sources. It shows how graphics have progressed since 1914. Thanks.
Rob.

[erictholmes]

I believe what you are looking for is called the "vrille." The aircraft goes into a bit of a side slip and falls to the left or right based upon the rudder action applied by the pilot. I might be wrong....Eric

[Bruce]

Hi Brian. Question please.

How do you differentiate between a "Falling Leaf" Stall - Sideslip pair of manoeuvres and the same pair of manoeuvres (Stall-Sideslip) that you don't want to lose a climb counter?

Do you require that the pilot must "declare" the "Falling Leaf" at the start of the Sideslip manoeuvre phase before any other player's manoeuvre card is revealed? If this is the case, the consequence of being "late" in making the declaration (or not making the declaration at all) would simply be that you would fly a normal/standard Sideslip which had been preceded by a Stall (i.e. the aircraft would not lose a climb counter).

[usmc1855]

As I understand aerodynamics of powered flight... conducting stall prior to tipping a wing over to bank left or right, would decrease your power and cause a loss of lift as the wings are tipped, which... when you bank would result in a loss of elevation. If you play the left or right banking card without a stall preceding it, then you should maintain enough air speed to maintain lift, and not have to relinquish a climb counter.

[Oberst Hajj]

Brian, I think some of your "house maneuvers" would fit in well with an Ace system. I'm actually thinking about modifying my 2 Tiered system to allow the Ace to chose one of these moves as an additional card that is added to his deck. For this move, it would be very simple to just change the blue line of the side slip to a the red/orange used on teh climb and dive cards.

[usmc1855]

Keith,

Sounds good.

[Bruce]

Thanks Brian. And, Col. Hajj, I agree that a new file for his/our growing "inventory" of House-Rule-Manoeuvres is an excellent idea ..... in due course ..... when you have time ..... if ever .... but I hope you can.

As I interpret Brian's answer, his "Falling-Leaf" House Rule is that ANY TIME a non-steep Sideslip manoeuvre (single or double sideslip) is played immediately after a Stall manoeuvre it becomes a "Falling Leaf" Sideslip (i.e. a loss of 1 climb counter in addition to the Sideslip). I like this much better than my earlier thinking that the pilot would have to verbally "declare" that it is a "Falling Leaf" Sideslip. I also like it this way because, as Brian said, the aerodynamics of making a Stall and then immediately going into a Sideslip would certainly cause the aircraft to lose altitude no matter what the pilot did with his WW I technology engine, throttle, ailerons and tail control surfaces.

In addition, I assume that this new House-Rule "Falling Leaf" manoeuvre would be used in the context of the fundamental rule that there may not be two altitude-loss manoeuvres in the same Turn except for a House-Rule "Over Dive" [a 2-level dive; STALL - DIVE (lose 1 level) - STRAIGHT (lose a 2nd level)].

I must also note that the House-Rule "Over-Dive" manoeuvre (I love it) permits both 2 altitude-loss manoeuvres in the same Turn and 2 steep manoeuvres in a row. This would place a significant extra stress on the aircraft. In this regard, I am trying to find a list of WW I aircraft that were strong-enough and fast-enough to consistently make "Over-Dive" manoeuvres without breaking-up. I prefer such a selective list rather than allowing any aircraft with an Immelmann card to make "Over-Dive" manoeuvres without risk. I also like the idea of having such a selective list of "no-risk" over-divers (e.g. SPAD XIII and a few others) AND allowing all other aircraft that have an Immelmann card to make an "Over-Dive-with-consequences". The consequences would require drawing one or more A or B Damage cards (damage-only taken into account) to reflect the high risk of damage for these aircraft during such a high-stress manoeuvre. I have seen this idea expressed/defined elsewhere but haven't had time to track it down.

The Col.'s comment about making the House-Rule "Falling-Leaf" manoeuvre an ACE Attribute/skill or better-yet an EXPERIENCE Skill makes sense to me because being able to make such a manoeuvre consistently must have been a matter of flying exprience/skill. Whereas the House-Rule "Over-Dive" manoeuvre is much more (but not entirely) a matter of the aircraft's as-built characteristics.

I think that those who use Altitude Rules regularly in will be especially eager for a "House-Rule Manoeuvres" file on the site.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Brian, I think some of your "house maneuvers" would fit in well with an Ace system. I'm actually thinking about modifying my 2 Tiered system to allow the Ace to chose one of these moves as an additional card that is added to his deck. For this move, it would be very simple to just change the blue line of the side slip to a the red/orange used on teh climb and dive cards.

Col Hajj sir. Despite the fact that only yesterday I reduced all your ace skills to A5 and printed them on a duplexed card backing, which I subsequently laminated, I applaud your decision to look at these moves with a view to including them. I don't really mind doing the work again. The cards would fit in very well with the ones for the K deck which is already on the files section. I am just thinking about how these can be included in our games, and making them an Ace attribute would seem to fit in well with our approach to the game. A card is a quick fix, a rule has to be read or memorised.
Rob.

[Oberst Hajj]

I also like that the cards fit in with the game design of having all the moves a plane can make built into the deck. We (I) am already using cards for the Ace Skills, so doing more cards is not a problem at all.

[Oberst Hajj]

This is just a ruff sketch, but here is a falling leaf card for the G deck.

[Bruce]

Okay, I think I follow you Col. H and L.Col Rob, but I'd like you to confirm that:

- this new card would need to be preceded by a "Stall" in order for it to be played; and
- this new card would be "earned/selected" as an Ace skill/ability; and
- it would still be possible to play a "Stall" followed by a normal "Sideslip" and NOT lose a climb counter.

If this is the case, I think it is very workable provided we are able to make the new card well enough to look like the other manoeuvre cards in a given deck. However, I think it is not quite what Brian originally presented.

I think that Brian intended that ANYTIME that ANY aircraft followed a "Stall" manoeuvre with a "Sideslip" the aircraft MUST lose 1 climb counter (assuming altitude rules are being used). This also works well and it does not require a new card, but admittedly it does require the players to remember that a climb counter is lost.

I really like the basic idea of being able to "scrub-off" a single climb counter rather than having to "Dive" and lose a whole altitude level. Using this pairing of manoeuvres ("Stall" followed by "Sideslip") does the job, but I prefer that all aircraft have this ability not just aircraft flown by an Ace.

I also prefer not to have to make new manoeuvre cards.

[Oberst Hajj]

I think if you are not going to use a dedicated "falling leaf" card, you would have to lose the climb counter if you did a Stall - Side slip combo. Other wise, the player could change his mind after the move was selected at the start of the turn if we wanted to drop altitude or not.

I think it would be fine for all aircraft to preform this maneuver, I just thought it would be cool as an Ace Skill since it is not in the official rules and fits in nicely with a more experienced pilot getting more out of his aircraft.

[flash]

Col - I like your falling leaf card - can you do a climbing turn so pliots can do the Chandrelle...?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Col - I like your falling leaf card - can you do a climbing turn so pliots can do the Chandrelle...?

I believe that one of those is also included in the modified K deck in the files.
Rob.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I think if you are not going to use a dedicated "falling leaf" card, you would have to lose the climb counter if you did a Stall - Side slip combo. Other wise, the player could change his mind after the move was selected at the start of the turn if we wanted to drop altitude or not.

I think it would be fine for all aircraft to preform this maneuver, I just thought it would be cool as an Ace Skill since it is not in the official rules and fits in nicely with a more experienced pilot getting more out of his aircraft.

Absolutely, Col. The dedicated card is the way to go. No room for misunderstanding. Not that anyone on this site would cheat just to gain a fleeting advantage.
Rob.

[Oberst Hajj]

I'll add it to my to do list.

[Oberst Hajj]

. Not that anyone on this site would cheat just to gain a fleeting advantage.
Rob.

From my experience, it's only fleeting for the guy cheating... it's quite often eternal for the other guy

[Aero825]

I would like to piont something out; If you look at some of those early videos of WWI Dogfights, the planes are going up, down, left, right, and everywhere, more often than in WOW. I think there should be some kind of turning dive, climbing turn, etc. And another thing, shouldn't a plane be able to climb out of a dive, and shouldn't that climb be longer that normal? I am referring to the "Roller coaster effect". I could be wrong, so please point out if I am.

Hunter

[Oberst Hajj]

You are correct Hunter. I the issue really comes down to how simple the game that Andrea wanted to design. He has said many times he did not want a simulation of WWI dogfights, but a fun and fast paste game that would be easy for anyone to pick up and play. The fact that there are many 6-7 year old kids out there playing this, shows he hit the mark for what he wanted. He also has to keep costs in mind when deciding how many cards should be in a maneuver deck.

He has given us, the players, great leeway and support for modifying his game to be more "realistic".

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Hi Hunter.
If you look in the files section, you will find a downloadable optional K Deck. This has extra cards in brown for climbing turns and diving ones. You can modify any manouver you like as long as your playing partners agree to it. The sky's the limit as they say.
Rob.

[BeastlyHun]

Liking this Brian - I think it's valid a valid combat manouevre & alot of aircraft had to side slip to lose altitude for landing - many because they could not see over their nose!

You lose altitude in a rudder-only side-slip because you're skidding sideways and increasing drag against the side of the fuselage thereby reducing forward velocity therefore less lift therefore loss of altitude. Any side-slip maneuver always needs to result in slower speed in addition to loss of altitude.

[Bruce]

Okay Beastly, I follow your explanation. But you've described a "skidding turn", I think, not a sideslip.

What do you call this?
Move the stick left, up goes the left aileron, down goes the right aileron, down goes the left wing, up goes the right wing and the aircraft "peels-off" to the left losing a little altitude as it goes because the lift vector is no longer vertical. Then, apply a little bit of opposing rudder and elevator to bring the nose back on-the-original line and even-up your ailerons by bringing the stick back to center in order to resume your original direction and aircraft attitude.

I think that what you have here is a sideslip that did not lose forward speed, and isn't this what we are after - a way to scrub-off a little altitude (just 1 climb counter) while maintaining forward speed without having to do a Split-S?

I could be wrong, but ......

[BeastlyHun]

I could be wrong, but ......

likewise here. Sometimes I think I understand this stuff and then I When you apply rudder-only the a/c rotates around its yaw axis. So let's say you're yawing the a/c's nose left. This causes the right wing to move forward, increasing the air flow over the right wing and increasing its lift. At the same time, the left wing has moved backward, decreasing the air flow over the left wing and decreasing its lift. As a result the a/c will roll left. In order to keep wings level you then have to apply aileron. Now the airplane is skidding. Although it's nose is pointing left and the lift vector is straight up, momentum is moving the a/c sideways, as the right side of the fuselage acts like a big air brake slowing it down. The air is now also moving sideways over the wings rather than perpendicular to the leading edge, hence less lift resulting in altitude loss. I don't think this is an attitude you can maintain for very long without stalling. Not quite sure where I'm going with this line of reasoning, just trying to understand the a/c behavior.

[Oberst Hajj]

I think we are getting confused on what name we applied to the card. A side-slip in a real aircraft does cause the loss of some altitude. I think what the card actually portrays is a bank to the right followed by a bank to the left.

If the card was meant to be a side-slip, I think the direction of the plane at the end of the move would be slightly off center.

On the other hand, when the cards were first made, there was no altitude in the game... so it's not taken into account on the card.

[Raffvantye]

I use the Falling Leaf in my campaign. The card setup i use is a Stall, Climb, Then a straight. The pilot plots by pulling an altitude chip stating what level he intends to go to. on the card with the Climb, which would consitute an illegal manuver under normal rules. He must roll a 5 or a 6 to recover control of the plane, and he can add one to his die roll for every level lost.

The only requirement is that newbie pilots cannot preform this manuver, and must have 5 sorties before attempting.

On another note, if a pilot were to preform an illegal manuver, loose one level, then roll a D6, on a die roll of a 1 or a 6, he recovers. If he fails to recover, he loses another level, and rolls again, same as above; repeating this until he either he recovers, or becomes a member of the insufficent altitude club.

If the Pilot recovers, rolls a twelve sided die, to determine which direction he is going to go (1 for 1 o'clock & so on). He substitues the illegal card with a straight, and plays the rest of the turn normally.

Following this, i'm prolly sitting at a 50/50 to a 2/3 recovery rate. And when they do plow into the ground, the whole table is usually watching with rapt attention.

Our table usually averages about 16 planes in a sortie, and we use elavations usually from the deck to level eight, on a table sixteen feet long by six feet wide. Our Record is 25 individually controled planes. Talk about a GM's nightmare!

[Pooh]

One of the things we've added to our altitude rules is that pilot may voluntarily lose 1 pipe of altitude per turn (3 cards) on any non difficult or climb/dive manouver. This is to reflect the fact that on underpowered planes the tendency is to gradually lose height when manouvering. We put our climb pips on the base of the aircraft then announce during movement that we are losing a pip of altitude when we remove the counter. For us, the falling leaf would already be legal (though we could only lose 1 pip per turn).

Pooh