Altitude Rules -- am I the only one who hates them?
I've played several air-combat games with altitude rules, and _WoW_ has by a long shot the clunkiest, most-confusing, least-practical rules for gaining and losing altitude I've ever seen. Too much book-keeping; too many exceptions to the rules; generally so annoying, if I see them being used, I walk -- it's just not worth the hassle.
(Best altitude rules: _Richthofen's War_.)
I tend to agree with you, homerules have to be made for altitude...
We just use the Col's dial up system on his bases, and find that O.K. I'm all for any device which eliminates all the little counters, and saves you the trouble of keeping track of all the details.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
Chris, do a search on Simplified Altitude Rules and see what you think.
OK, we get that you don't like them Chris, but what are you finding so awkward about the altitude rules ?
There's almost no book-keeping compared to most wargames I play, all you need to do is add a counter when you play a Climb or lose them all when you play a Dive (and adjust pegs of course).
I do agree that it'd be easier to use if the models had climb markers as well as height pegs on the bases (I'm going to pick up some of the Colonel's bases with dials at some point, right now I just place the climb markers next to the model on the table so everyone can easily see the aircraft's height status).
What exceptions are you talking about ? Outside of standard climbs and dives there's only Immelman/Split-S and Overdive sequences which affect height. Does your group have a horde of house rules or something ?
I haven't played Richthofen's War for ages, but wasn't altitude handled in essentially the same way as WoW ? You had maximum climb and dive rates for each plane and you changed height level (in 1000m bands ?) when you accumulated or lost enough increments (100m ?).
Last edited by IRM; 09-20-2010 at 12:43.
Why don't you have a look at David Kuijt's "Alternative Simple Altitude Rules" in the Files section of this site. However, I don't think they are much simpler, just better (for my tastes) than the official rules.
I agree with IRM (above) that the official altitude rules are about as simple as you can get. I certainly don't see the "too many exceptions" and "too much book-keeping" that you mention.
AND, playing without altitude rules is just fine too; we play both in our group. In fact, the only games that count towards the annual trophy are those without altitude rules. But, seriously, have a good look at David's alternative rules in the Files section.
I particularly like the altitude rules. They are simple but effective. Granted... we don't use the chits to record our current altitude, we use dials, which are much easier to keep track of.
The challenge will be when using altitude rules with the Bombers. Several of the Behemoths gun's arcs are different when using altitude. Trying to avoid thier fire when closing in will be a hell of a challenge.
And therein lies part of the problem -- having to remember "how many markers|pegs|whatever do I gain|lose if I do this-and-such?" Never mind the cosmic nightmare which is "did they collide, or not?".Originally Posted by IRM
And that's three exceptions right there....
Actually, _RW_'s was absurdly simple. Each plane had a climb rate and a dive rate, as you say -- for ex., my personal favorite, the Hanriot HD.1 was 200 and 400, respectively -- plus max. speeds for dive and "overdive" (necessary, as _RW_ used hexes, not cards). Altitude was tracked on the plane's damage sheet, using two counters (or pencil marks) -- one on the "thousands" column, one on "hundreds". If the player wished to climb, he added however much he climbed to the alt.-track; to descend, he subtracted. Aiding this: As hexes were 50 meters across, altitude was accounted in 50-meter increments; thus, one could express one's climb and dive stats as (using the HD.1) 4 and 8. It was always readily apparent what altitude every plane occupied, rather than having to recount climb counters every two minutes.
...and that's simple?
Whenever you play a different game there are inevitably some foibles to adjust to, but generally more similarities to other games, otherwise it would be the same game. It's just getting used to them... like where all the buttons are in a new car.
Not having played RW, that system seems more complex to me. I will agree that I don't think Wings of War tracking system is much better as I do not like counting all those things either every 2nd turn. That is why I designed and made the flight stands I offer:
There is no writing or counting. You simply rotate the top dial one number each time you play a climb card. Once you reach your planes climb rating number, you rotate the larger bottom dial up one number.
For diving, just reset the top dial to below 1 and lower the bottom dial by 1 number and you are done. Simple, easy and quick.
Since I mostly play with the kids I normally don't bother with the altitude rules and find the game fine without them.
Scotty
I agree with Scotty, I do not use the altitude rules either. The game is fine without them. Some people like the rules, some prefer the house rules version. Each to their own I suppose, WOW is great whichever view you take
How many aircraft do you guys generally pilot in each of your engagements? It doesn't seem like the altitude system is too taxing if you're only flying one or two aircraft. I don't have any frame of reference with other air combat games, though, so I don't know if there's a better way to do it or not. Those altitude dials would simplify the process even further.
That said, a game with three dimensions rather than two generally takes longer, so I'm pretty open to people who admire the simplicity of the wings of war system not playing with them all the time. I certainly don't. But sometimes I feel like I'm short-changing the historical side of the game when I don't play with these rules. Bombers shouldn't just be vulnerable to fighters because they are slow and lumbering turners, the fighters should also be able to out-climb them too, an advantage that's lost if you don't have some sort of altitude rules in play.
Usually 2 or 4, but I've handled as many as eight on occasion easily enough (just takes a lot longer).
If I'm short on time or playing with a newish opponent, I'll usually drop the altitude rules (but pick planes with the same climb rate to keep things fair) although I do insist on using them if two-seaters are in play.
Hi Swarbs. I and most of our group prefer to fly just one aircraft; we usually tailor the scenarios to suit the number of available pilots but fairly often one or two of us must pilot 2 aircraft. Also somebody must control any AA MGs, AA guns, and Trenches that may be in a scenario.
The games play faster if each player has only one aircraft, especially when we are using altitude rules. We try to play 3 games at our gaming sessions.
We have 4 to 8 players for our regular games (once every 3 weeks).
However, when 2 or 3 of us get together for an unscheduled game, we often will play 2 or 3 aircraft each. But, most of us find these games too busy. None of us has ever piloted more than 3 aircraft at the same time.
Yes, it is. Simple addition/subtraction; immediate resolution of a unit's exact altitude; no exceptions to the rules.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks