Ares Games
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Altitude revisited... again

  1. #1

    Default Altitude revisited... again

    As many of you will know, the official altitude rules lack internal coherence and have a tendency not to conform to any reasonable reality. There are simplified versions which at least make the flawed system rather painless, but even these don't fulfill my requirement of having a simple system that bears some resemblance to reality.

    Calculating the value of a level of altitude using the official rules can give wildly different results depending on how you calculate it -- maximum altitudes will give you one value, climb rates will give another. And then you have to try to reconcile the fact that you can still fire at a target one altitude level different. Not only that, if you were to try to draw an 'arc of fire' in the vertical dimension you can easily see that you can fire at a target directly above you and yet you can't fire out to long range if the altitudes are different.

    I'm going to propose a solution... actually two solutions: a basic one that leaves most of the existing altitude rules intact (for those who are more conservative with changing game elements), and an advanced one (for those who want the full solution!).

    [EDIT: This has been revised and refined. See next post.]

    THE BASIC PROPOSAL:
    1. Each altitude level is defined to be 100 yards. This corresponds to half a ruler at the accepted ground scale of ~ 1:900. (I know there is some debate about this. Humour me.)
    2. Aircraft one level apart may fire at each other normally, except that pilots have a blind zone and are unable to fire at aircraft within short range.
    3. Aircraft two levels apart may fire at each within half a ruler as if firing at long range. Only observers may do this.*

    THE ADVANCED PROPOSAL:
    Eliminates altitude levels altogether, redefining everything in terms of climb counters which are defined to be 25 feet.
    1. Climb rates from 1 to 6** are inverted, so that 'official' climb rate of 2 becomes 'new climb rate' of 5. This is the number of climb counters that will be accumulated for each climb maneuver.
    2. Use climbing and diving as normal, but accumulate your new climb speed in counters for a climb, losing double that for a dive. Simply keep track of a level above an arbitrary baseline and give the aircraft one peg per 6 climb counters as a visual representation.
    3. Aircraft up to 6 counters apart may fire at each other as normal. Pilots have a blind zone and may not fire at aircraft more than 3 counters apart at short range.
    4. Aircraft up to 12 counters apart may fire at each other within half a ruler as if firing at long range. Only observers may do this.*

    That's it. The mechanics of altitude remain largely unchanged, but there is an internal consistency to it all and the arcs of fire make sense. Not only that, but collisions can more easily be worked in (if you want) since each climb counter / altitude level has a defined and consistent value.

    * Optional: A lewis gun on a fosters mount may fire in this case if the enemy is above and with the bases overlapping.
    ** Note: I don't have a good conversion factor for climb rates above 6

    It should be noted that I haven't actually tried this yet. (Soon!) But the theory fits together quite well.
    Last edited by steel_ratt; 12-01-2014 at 09:09.

  2. #2

    Default

    As I'm out of the shop at the moment, I really need to play this out with various aircraft before I can comment on its playability Jon.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  3. #3

    Default

    I've been doing some re-work on this to refine the system, so you may want to hold off on this for a bit. As you may be able to tell from my "dive rates" thread, that dive speeds are among the refinements. Stay tuned!!

  4. #4

    Default

    Ok. I've had a chance to revisit and rewrite this. I'm going even finer on the graduations (5m per 'climb counter')... possibly too fine for easy tracking, but we shall see. It looks a lot more complicated than it is since I have included all the rules for overdiving, collisions, landing etc...
    Also, I'm sure a certain amount could be left out, or could be optional.

    Special Rules for Altitude:
    1. Basic altitude
    a. Altitude will be tracked in 'altitude units', with each unit representing 5 meters (~16 feet).
    b. One peg should be used for each 20 altitude units (or fraction there-of).
    Optionally one peg per 10 altitude units could be used if there are sufficient pegs.
    2. Climbing
    a. Climb rates for aircraft are defined in terms of the number of altitude units gained for each climb maneuver. New climb rates may be converted from existing climb rates by subtracting the existing rate from 9.
    RE.8 climb rate 3
    Sopwith Triplane climb rate 6
    Albatros D.III climb rate 5
    b. Climbing is planned as normal, and the aircraft will gain the stated elevation units when the climb is played.
    3. Diving
    a. Maximum dive rates for aircraft will depend upon the speed band of the aircraft. Maximum dive rates are as follows*:
    Very Fast max dive 36
    Fast max dive 30 (Sopwith Triplane)
    Slow max dive 24 (RE.8, Albatros D.III)
    Very Slow max dive 18
    b. Diving is planned as normal. However, when the dive card is played the aircraft will lose one third of the maximum dive rate elevation units. A dive counter may then be placed on up to two following moves. As each move with a dive counter is played, the aircraft will lose an additional third of the maximum dive rate altitude units. The aircraft is considered to be in a dive an long as moves with dive counters are played. (Dive counters should be placed face-down, with blank counters used in place of any dive counters not used. Dive counters carried over to the next turn must be planned as such, but are set aside until the moves are planned.)
    c. Overdiving is planned as normal. When the dive card is played, dive counters are placed as per diving and elevation units are lost in the same manner (one third per card). When overdiving all dive counters must be used. When the straight card is played, the aircraft will lose an additional number of altitude units equal to the maximum dive rate of the aircraft. The player must then draw 3 'A' damage cards. If the total damage is equal to or greater than the remaining structure points of the aircraft, it suffers critical damage and is removed from play. (Treat the explosion card as a 0, and ignore any special damage.) These cards are not retained and are returned to the deck immediately.
    4. Special Maneuvers
    a. Immelman – straight, immelmann, straight – no change in altitude
    b. Split S – stall, immelmann, straight – lose one third maximum dive rate altitude units
    c. Half Loop – straight, immelmann, stall – gain climb rate altitude units
    5. Collisions
    a. A collision will occur if aircraft overlap pegs and are at the same number of altitude levels
    6. Landings etc.
    a. Landings / Crashes may be performed by playing a dive to 0 altitude units or below. The usual rules for landing at take-offs otherwise apply.
    7. Firing
    a. For every 20 elevation units difference between the firer and the targets, treat the target as being one range category further away.
    b. Forward-firing guns (pilots' guns) have an arc of fire vertically as well as horizontally. These guns may not fire at a target more than 10 elevation units different per half-ruler length away, or more than 2 elevation units different if there is base overlap.
    c. When climbing or diving, the pilot's vertical arc of fire is doubled in the direction of the climb/dive, but no fire is possible in the other direction.
    d. When overdiving, the pilot's may fire at a target at a lower elevation that is at least 10 elevation levels below per half-ruler length away.
    e. Flexible-mount guns (observers' guns) have a blind zone across the rear base of their aircraft if the target is at the same or lower elevation, and if there is base overlap and the target is at a lower elevation.
    f. Firing at a target at a lower elevation, or at the same elevation if diving, grants the +1 aim bonus. (Note that this does not apply to ground targets.)
    g. Firing at an overdiving target allows the target to redraw up to one damage card during the dive, straight, or the following card with a dive counter.
    Last edited by steel_ratt; 12-01-2014 at 08:58.

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks for the work Jon; it was well written and fully understandable to me.
    For in-person gaming I suspect that it's too complex (albeit more realistic) for me and my local gamers, but I intend to test-play it with 2 of my local lads over the winter.
    I've already rewritten your work into "Bruce speak" in preparation for the test games, and I'll also think it through from a PBeM perspective.
    I'll keep ya posted.
    Bruce

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    For in-person gaming I suspect that it's too complex (albeit more realistic) for me and my local gamers,
    I agree. One of the beauties of this game it its simple mechanics (for the most part) that are easy to pick up and play - even for a complete novice walking up to the table at a convention. I'm all for realism in any form of wargame, but trying to account for different performance characteristics of each individual aircraft type is drifting into the area of flight simulation which does not appeal to the average casual gamer; most of these differences only serve to keep players out of the fight for long periods which while being realistic isn't terribly interesting to folks who want to jump into the cockpit and get on with the business of shooting down opponents! That said it deeply saddens be to see convention games where no altitude rules are used because they are too complex and time consuming for the venue.

    To that end we devised a very basic, simplified system that is easy to use but in keeping with the spirit of the original 2d card game that was Wings of War back in 2004. Altitude in game is represented by a number of 'flight levels' - as indeed it is in real life: aircraft are deemed to be occupying one of these levels, and will play a climb card to go up one level and a dive card to descend one (or two - power dive, if capable). Normal shooting rules apply for firing up/down one level. Yes it is abstract, but so are the firing arcs, fuel, and ammunition levels in the game rules as written.

    A happy by product of this is far fewer collisions, but if two aircraft should overlap at the same flight level, we simply cut the 'A' damage deck and a collision only occurs if both numbers drawn are the same, otherwise the higher number id deemed to have flown over the lower one, missing by inches!

    The other thing we do is differentiate between the Immelman and Split S maneuvers, replacing the first 'straight' card with either a climb (Immelman) or dive card (split S) and either ascending or descending one flight level at the end of the move as appropriate.

    We normally use just three flight levels for simple games, so you are either above, below or at the same level as your opponent; we have used as many as six levels, but found it just drags out the game: tooling around for half an hour trying to get high enough to shoot at an enemy leads to more frustration than fun. Our system is simple - maybe too simple for some tastes, but it works and has given us a lot of fun over the past nine years we have been playing it.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2096.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	222.2 KB 
ID:	246239

  7. #7

    Default

    Simple is good Stuart. Zoe has used something along similar lines for many years too.
    Like your collision draw solution, very neat, most people I play use the base over peg method to determine collisions to cut the occurrence rate down as overlapping bases are so frequent, this idea could cut it further.
    Not sure why you'd need to differentiate the Immel & Split S as they start with different cards, can see what you've tried to achieve but that has also reversed the nature of both moves in terms of distance travelled - each to their own I suppose !

    "He is wise who watches"

  8. #8

    Default

    I still have trouble with altitude.
    Mostly, I think because I play strictly solo games and it's hard to fathom what the AI would do (other than when firing - move up or down one peg as needed)

    I try to use Flash's Simplified Altitude or Zoe's version but still have yet to get to my Eureka! moment ...

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Not sure why you'd need to differentiate the Immel & Split S as they start with different cards, can see what you've tried to achieve but that has also reversed the nature of both moves in terms of distance travelled - each to their own I suppose !
    Well we did this a long time ago and worked from the original rule book where the was no altitude at all and climb/dive cards were being issued in booster packs! The original Immelmann rule has the maneuver going like this:

    "The card with a is an Immelmann turn. You have to play a straight move (one with the symbol) just before the Immelmann turn and another just after. If the last card of the previous turn was a straight, you can use a Immelmann as the first card of the new turn"

    There was no Split S in the book, so we just adapted the existing rule at the time. We felt that the classic Immelmann where you climb, half loop and dive back to your original level was a precision maneuver that should be restricted to ace pilots, but that the similar but less difficult Chandelle maneuver that gains height should be possible, and just kept the card name for simplicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandelle

  10. #10

    Default

    So the Immel isn't an Immel it's an idea of a Chandelle and you didn't adopt the Split S when it came in - Gotcha !
    Played with ideas for a three card Chandelle recently:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...delle-manouver

    "He is wise who watches"

  11. #11

    Default

    You will get no counter-argument from me that the altitude system is the weakest part of the game. I have often stated such . But I wonder:
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross
    Altitude in game is represented by a number of 'flight levels' - as indeed it is in real life: aircraft are deemed to be occupying one of these levels, and will play a climb card to go up one level and a dive card to descend one (or two - power dive, if capable). Normal shooting rules apply for firing up/down one level. We normally use just three flight levels for simple games, so you are either above, below or at the same level as your opponent; we have used as many as six levels, but found it just drags out the game: tooling around for half an hour trying to get high enough to shoot at an enemy leads to more frustration than fun. Our system is simple - maybe too simple for some tastes, but it works and has given us a lot of fun over the past nine years we have been playing it.
    So, am I to take it that aircraft ceilings have never come into play in your scenarios? (I will grant you, every convention game I've set up has avoided these issues as well: but I can see where a regularly-meeting group might want to do something along these lines.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross
    A happy by product of this is far fewer collisions, but if two aircraft should overlap at the same flight level, we simply cut the 'A' damage deck and a collision only occurs if both numbers drawn are the same, otherwise the higher number id deemed to have flown over the lower one, missing by inches!
    Seems to me a different issue: and I've seen few enough collisions with the one peg must overlap any other base optional rule that I don't see the need for this aspect-YMMV, of course, this is not to be taken as a criticism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross
    The other thing we do is differentiate between the Immelman and Split S maneuvers, replacing the first 'straight' card with either a climb (Immelman) or dive card (split S) and either ascending or descending one flight level at the end of the move as appropriate.
    For my part again, I think this needs to be part & parcel of altitude considerations.

  12. #12

    Default

    The collision thing became an issue at a convention years ago (someone else's game, no altitude used) where the guy next to me must have learned to fly in Walmart parking lot as he took me down no less than three times!

    We don't use ceilings etc because it's all about combat: players want to get stuck in, and stay in the fight - even the bomber jockeys love handing out damage cards from their defensive guns!

    Only in a campaign game where you want to fly another day and save points do you try to escape. We have tried using six levels of altitude, but all that did was give us a longer and more tedious game were players took longer to get into firing positions and didn't really add anything positive to the experience.



Similar Missions

  1. WSF Fokker D-VI Revisited!
    By clipper1801 in forum Shapeways Models
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 00:16
  2. SWays Halberstadt D.II Revisited.
    By gully_raker in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2011, 18:37
  3. Altitude revisited
    By Redwolf in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-05-2011, 08:16
  4. WWI-String bags revisited
    By afilter in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 12:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •