Ares Games

View Poll Results: Scale for Post-WWII

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1:144 or bigger

    4 10.53%
  • 1:200

    22 57.89%
  • 1:300

    5 13.16%
  • 1:350

    5 13.16%
  • 1:700

    3 7.89%
  • Even smaller!

    1 2.63%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 88

Thread: Scale for Post-WWII

  1. #1

    Default Scale for Post-WWII

    Lets get the ball rolling.
    What scale do you see Post-WWII played in?
    Considering at straight at 700mph in 1:200 in the current rules would be just over 17cm.

  2. #2

    Default

    Well, aircraft scale doesn't have to match ground scale, so I would say use either 1/144 or 1/200. In fact, I'm rather sure the ground scale doesn't match the aircraft scale in either WGF or WGS.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Well, aircraft scale doesn't have to match ground scale, so I would say use either 1/144 or 1/200. In fact, I'm rather sure the ground scale doesn't match the aircraft scale in either WGF or WGS.
    Karl
    There is an argument that if it matches WGS, people will expect it to work with WGS. Depending on the era, that could mean planes doing mach 2 or more. So say 1500mph, which would be 44cm for a fast straight, allowing for a 8cm base, as the planes would be a chunk bigger.
    Nexus/Ares set a president when they did WGS of making the planes smaller to account for the increase in speeds.
    I would argue the same here again.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    There is an argument that if it matches WGS, people will expect it to work with WGS. Depending on the era, that could mean planes doing mach 2 or more. So say 1500mph, which would be 44cm for a fast straight, allowing for a 8cm base, as the planes would be a chunk bigger.
    Nexus/Ares set a president when they did WGS of making the planes smaller to account for the increase in speeds.
    I would argue the same here again.
    Actually, the set the scale due to the larger (real) size of the planes, so that they would fit into the same sized packaging.
    Note that there is no ground/air scale nor time scale in the WoG system.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  5. #5

    Default

    OK,
    A quick look at some modern jets for average wingspan gives me a ballpark 14m. So, 7 cms for 1/200 planes?

    And if we drop the 1/2250-ish ground scale to 1/4500-ish? We get about 7-ish cms? Which puts us in the range of euro-cards?

    We will have to work out the reverse (index to index) speed cards for all the slow planes, though.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Note that there is no ground/air scale nor time scale in the WoG system.
    There has to be a ground scale, as we have a fixed distance per cm of movement. It is true though that we don't know or have a length of time per movement. Which does make it difficult to work out the ground scale.
    But then I was basing my musings on the current bits we do have, and the perception I would think people would have.
    It may be as easy as just telling people that even though it's the same physical scale as WGS, the systems aren't compatible.
    Then just increase the distance per cm to shorten the arrows.

  7. #7

    Default

    I would rather Aries do more WW1&2 planes . . Only my two cents worth

  8. #8

    Default

    I would like to see a movement system not unlike X wing. Variable length of measuring rod/ruler that could incorporate a graded measuring marking to simulate power settings dependent on turning etc. Missiles (ground and air) could be managed by the X Wing targeting system, ECM and Chaff in a similar manner to the defensive chits in X Wing. (Only played this twice so correct me if I'm wrong).

    Machine guns handled the same way as we do now.

    Mechanics the same as X Wing is what I'm trying to say with just different weapon systems.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  9. #9

    Default

    I voted 1/700 per the other thread.
    Unless we are to play on a gymnasium floor ...

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post
    I voted 1/700 per the other thread.
    Unless we are to play on a gymnasium floor ...
    Pete,
    You do realize the ground scale of WGS is not 1/200? It is around 1/2250-ish. The planes are 1/200 scale for visibility, not movement or weapon range.

    I would think planes at 1/700 would be too small, visually. Just like WGF planes would be nearly invisible, if the models were the 1/900 scale that the movement decks represent.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  11. #11

    Default

    Yes, Mike, I do realize that.
    But the movement of Sabres and MiGs would be much more than WGS, so I think the cards would need to be smaller or they'll be off the board in no time.

  12. #12

    Default

    There is a spectrum with abstracted game on one end and simulation on the other. Without deciding where on the spectrum a game like this should be, it will be difficult settling scale issues and other game mechanics. If you make the planes smaller then 1:200, you will lose, most likely, the visual appeal and the collectibility of the minis. So, personally, I would lean more toward the abstract game end of the spectrum, keeping the cards a similar size to WGS. The important thing, I would think, is how the planes fly relative to each other, and not absolutely with respect to the ground.

    The really important questions are how to incorporate Cthulhu and zombies.
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  13. #13

    Default

    For some perspective, at least the way I'm looking at this, I did up a quick comparison:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WGS-Card-ComparisonCmp.jpg 
Views:	183 
Size:	83.8 KB 
ID:	183562

    This is for planes in the Korean Conflict, with 650-700 mph. 27cms in WGS scale? So, Pete is right that we'd be off the table, if we kept to WGS scale. However, if we want to use the standard sized decks for movement, we'd need to change the ground scale to 1/8000, if I have the math right (and this assumes the "combat speed" that usually ends up on the cards, so lower than 700 MPH, not the max listed in usual aircraft stats).

    What do we do with the light spotter planes and helicopters?

    PS: This is the maneuver scale, not the plane scale. Planes may need to be a bit smaller for modern jets to fit them in the packages.
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 12-18-2015 at 00:05.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  14. #14

    matt56's Avatar May you forever fly in blue skies.
    Major

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Matt
    Location
    Ohio
    Sorties Flown
    4,107
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default

    I don't think I would want 50s-era jets much smaller than 1/200 scale - this would also allow for cross-over between late-war WW2 planes produced by Ares that served in the Korean conflict, as well as in some of the 'brush wars' of the 50s and 60s. Some 1/200 MiGs and Sabre jets, and a few Panthers would be lots of fun to fly...

    I'm sure the card and ground scale issues can be worked out - and Neil's idea about and X-Wing-style movement has merit...

    Looking forward to how things develop (if they do) in the post-WW2 venue.

    All the best,
    Matt

  15. #15

    Default

    Voted 1/200 but I would possibly push the minimum scale down to 1/300 to allow for later, larget aircraft and the fact a few 1/300 aircraft are available in metal.
    Run for your life - there are stupid people everywhere!

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guntruck View Post
    Voted 1/200 but I would possibly push the minimum scale down to 1/300 to allow for later, larget aircraft and the fact a few 1/300 aircraft are available in metal.
    I agree . The 1/200 pool of aircraft is well established and there must be a way round the movement /scale problem. Neil suggestion of the X wing rules sounds good , but why not start from scratch and create a card/ maneuver system for ourselves.


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  17. #17

    matt56's Avatar May you forever fly in blue skies.
    Major

    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Matt
    Location
    Ohio
    Sorties Flown
    4,107
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default

    As I'm sure you all know already, Armaments in Miniature (AIM) already has a fairly nice selection of Korean War aircraft available in 1/200 scale - I was on their site today looking around, and it's pretty impressive from a selection standpoint...

    He also has various other 'brush wars' stuff available.

    All the best,
    Matt

  18. #18

    Default

    Not being a Korean war buff but are there many reported instances of prop aircraft ie P51's fighting Migs? Or where they mainly used in the ground attack roll?

    Perhaps we may think of keeping both aspects separate for movement decks and scale back the length of movement for jets using either fast size or normal size cards as we have in WW2 at present. If there is a ix of prop and jet then that is where the problem lies with cards. One or the other has to change/be introduced.

    Neil
    See you on the Dark Side......

  19. #19

    Default

    Sabres and Mig-15s are about 11 meters in wingspan, so that is even with Spitfires in 1/200 scale.

    And if we went with 550 MPH as the combat speed, we would end up with 7.4cms per movement card at 1/6750th scale, which is triple the current WGS scale. So, you could use jets with three cards to each WGS card, and it would be "to scale" for each other. Planning moves would be the same, but the jet would use three cards for each WGS plane.

    There. We have the post-war game!

    Oh! And we could use current WGS maneuver decks, for scratch games, while we wait for ARES to produce the real stuff! And AIM 1/200 scale minis!

    We are IN, folks!
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 12-18-2015 at 15:49.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    So, you could use jets with three cards to each WGS card, and it would be "to scale" for each other. Planning moves would be the same, but the jet would use three cards for each WGS plane.
    I think you're on to an idea there. The 5.8cm arrow cards, but with two movements, i.e. card+base+card+base equals 718mph, just a little too fast for a Sabre or Mig 15, but pretty near the variance normally allowed.
    The P deck, would be 813mph. So without a dig etc, I think the idea would cover all 50s subsonic planes, possibly even into some of the early transsonic planes.
    The 5.8cm speed decks have the most variations of manuever options too, so can be tailored to each plane better.

    p.s. This is working out in the same way as WGS for ground scale etc, so would be compatible for what if games. We may even be able to reenact that bad 80s movie when the Nimitz goes back to WWII

    p.p.s Nix the idea of the F-14 for the moment, it would require 4x cards per manuver for it's speed, and a stupidly sized table.
    Last edited by Foz; 12-18-2015 at 16:21.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quick guesstimates on these planes:

    North American F-86 Sabre
    Base: Fighter
    Deck: Mx2
    Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)
    Ceiling: 17
    Damage: 22
    Weapons: BBB/BA

    Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig 15
    Base:Fighter
    Deck: Dx2 (45° turns removed)
    Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)
    Ceiling: 17
    Damage: 20
    Weapons: DCC/CC

    Douglas A-1 Skyraider
    Base: Heavy Fighter
    Deck: C (45° and fast side slips removed)
    Climb: 3
    Ceiling: 10
    Damage: 24
    Weapons: CCCC/CC

    Hawker Hunter
    Base: Fighter
    Deck: Nx2
    Climb: x3 (Can climb 1-3 altitude levels per climb manuver)
    Ceiling: 17
    Damage: 26
    Weapons: DDDD/DD
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 01:07.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    I think you're on to an idea there. The 5.8cm arrow cards, but with two movements, i.e. card+base+card+base equals 718mph, just a little too fast for a Sabre or Mig 15, but pretty near the variance normally allowed.
    The P deck, would be 813mph. So without a dig etc, I think the idea would cover all 50s subsonic planes, possibly even into some of the early transsonic planes.
    The 5.8cm speed decks have the most variations of manuever options too, so can be tailored to each plane better.

    p.s. This is working out in the same way as WGS for ground scale etc, so would be compatible for what if games. We may even be able to reenact that bad 80s movie when the Nimitz goes back to WWII

    p.p.s Nix the idea of the F-14 for the moment, it would require 4x cards per manuver for it's speed, and a stupidly sized table.
    Hmmm... The speed per card assumes one card for a plane, per phase. So, I missed the base? Perhaps. What about the L deck for shorter arrows?

    PS: or perhaps use three cards on top of each other, then put the plane's base on the last arrow?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    PS: or perhaps use three cards on top of each other, then put the plane's base on the last arrow?
    Problem with that is you don't have three of the same card in a deck. I just thought it maybe easier just to place your card down as normal, and when you reveal it, you do it twice.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Problem with that is you don't have three of the same card in a deck. I just thought it maybe easier just to place your card down as normal, and when you reveal it, you do it twice.
    You could lay down the first card, put the second down for the next part of the move, and re-use the first card for the last part of the move. Or, have more than one deck for the jets to make moves. You will need to have a fourth card for your second planned move, too, if it is the same.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  25. #25

    Default

    And it begins for this conflict...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F86-334FISGabbyC3.png 
Views:	170 
Size:	609.6 KB 
ID:	183612
    [Edit: Three cards + Base movement option]

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mig15-Card_523IAP_SamoilovC3.png 
Views:	169 
Size:	377.4 KB 
ID:	183613
    This plane is in North Korean markings, but was probably a Russian plane, flown by a Russian pilot. So, it is identified with the Russian information.
    [Edit: Three cards + Base movement option]

    PS: Notice how nice these aircraft look? Fifty years after they built the Burgess-Dunne, and people are finally building planes the right shape!
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 12-19-2015 at 12:04. Reason: Redone Mig-15 Card
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  26. #26

    Default

    The problem I can see with any version of multiple cards, now I've slept on it, is turns. If you do multiple turns in a row as a single manuever, the plane becomes more agile than it should be. i.e. 2x30°=60° 3x30°=90° etc.

    So if it were me, with the double move system, I would lay down the move planned. If it is anything except a turn or reversal, just do it twice (or more for higher multiples). For reversals you do a straight, then the reversal. Using the spare straight in your hand.
    For turns, you do the turn then a straight. This preserves the angle, and puts the plane approximately where it should be with a fast turn.
    Not exactly, but as close as we can do with a system like this.

    With higher multiples, you do n-1 straights, then the reversal, n being the multiple.
    For turns, x3 would be straight, turn, straight. x4 straight, turn, straight, straight.

    Another advantage as I see it, this means if you plan any non-straight manuevers, it keeps one straight in your hand, maintaining the level of secrecy for the next manuever.

    How does that all sound for an after sleep ramble?
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 01:14.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    And it begins for this conflict...

    Attachment 183576
    This plane is in North Korean markings, but was probably a Russian plane, flown by a Russian pilot. So, it is identified with the Russian information.

    PS: Notice how nice these aircraft look? Fifty years after they built the Burgess-Dunne, and people are finally building planes the right shape!
    Superb cards, though sorry, I edited my workings on the Mig 15 this morning. I had got locked out of the Committee forum due to a server error, so couldn't look bits up. The weapons should be DCC/CC.
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 05:03.

  28. #28

    Default

    For Tonx, as he's ill.

    Avro Vulcan
    Base: Bomber
    Deck: Jx2 (with 60°, extreme side slip, and reversal removed)
    Climb: 1
    Ceiling: 18
    Damage: 88
    Weapons: Bomb load only (though that can be a nuke, so game over!)
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 01:01.

  29. #29

    Default

    de Havilland Venom
    Base: Fighter
    Deck: Kx2
    Climb: 1
    Ceiling: 14
    Damage: 22
    Weapons: CCCC/CC

  30. #30

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    For Tonx, as he's ill.

    Avro Vulcan
    Base: Bomber
    Deck: Jx2 (with 60°, extreme side slip, and reversal removed)
    Climb: 1
    Ceiling: 18
    Damage: 88
    Weapons: Bomb load only (though that can be a nuke, so game over!)
    Cheers liking the look of this - especially Damage 88 as I had damage at 58 (I think?) Also liking could be a nuke, so game over! Only ever flew XH560 as conventional bomber with modified R Manoeuver Deck @ 1:200 Scale. Ship taking a sabbatical at the mo as Chief Pilot has landed himself in rehab for a month or two. Wish it was drink-related because it would be simple then!!!

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonx View Post
    Cheers liking the look of this - especially Damage 88 as I had damage at 58 (I think?) Also liking could be a nuke, so game over! Only ever flew XH560 as conventional bomber with modified R Manoeuver Deck @ 1:200 Scale. Ship taking a sabbatical at the mo as Chief Pilot has landed himself in rehab for a month or two. Wish it was drink-related because it would be simple then!!!
    You're welcome.
    Mike and I are thrashing out various movement ideas. Unless there is a consensus soon, I suggest people try both, or come up with other ideas. Of course I like mine
    If you look back up the thread here you'll find my last ramblings that cover the multiple movement I was thinking of for jets, now that most people seem to want to keep to 1/200 planes and possibly backwards compatibility to WGS.
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 05:58.

  32. #32

    Default

    Right, after having a think on it all, I actually prefer Mike's system. There are Pros & Cons to both, but they are opposite.
    Mike's Cons are that you require at least an extra straight card, so possibly another deck, to keep the secrecy.
    My Cons are that the system is less granular on speed. Mike's scales better.

    So here are the decks worked out for Mike's card+card+card+base system.

    F-86 Sabre: Bx3 (45° turns removed)
    Mig 15: Mx3
    Skyraider: C (45° and fast side slips removed)
    Hunter: Cx4 (45° turns removed)
    Vulcan: Dx3 (Fast side slip & reversal removed)
    Venom: Mx3

    This system can be used for WWII planes that are faster than the P deck too, as it can be used as x2,x3 etc.
    i.e. Me.262: Qx2 (45° turns removed)

    Side slips may need to be looked at.

    Any thoughts or preferences to the card+base+card+base or card+card+card+base systems?

  33. #33

    Default

    There are many 1:700 scale models available. A Seafury would be about 13mm long; a B-52 about 70mm long.

  34. #34

    Default

    Cards updated.

    David, I don't think we want to go as small as 1:700 scale. Not very appealing visually. And for the Korean Conflict, most of the fighters were the wingspan of WWII planes, anyway. The B29 is already available in 1:200 scale, with people using it for WWII. And if we keep the scale a multiple of the 1:2250-ish ground scale, we can use the existing decks to make this work.

    Depending on how crazy I am, and what free time I can steal, I am thinking of doing up a deck or two for the above planes, so that the three card turns are properly scaled, too.

    Updated Vulcan Card:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WGS-Work-Vulcan-B2-Card-27SqnC3.jpg 
Views:	170 
Size:	194.5 KB 
ID:	183614
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 12-19-2015 at 12:15.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    So if it were me, with the double move system, I would lay down the move planned. If it is anything except a turn or reversal, just do it twice (or more for higher multiples). For reversals you do a straight, then the reversal.
    For turns, you do the turn then a straight. This preserves the angle, and puts the plane approximately where it should be with a fast turn.
    Not exactly, but as close as we can do with a system like this.

    With higher multiples, you do n-1 straights, then the reversal, n being the multiple.
    For turns, x3 would be straight, turn, straight. x4 straight, turn, straight, straight.
    Mike,
    Even with the multi cards + base system of movement, turns & reversals do pose the same issue as my system did, so I propose the same fix as quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WGS-Work-Vulcan-B2-Card-27SqnC3.jpg 
Views:	170 
Size:	194.5 KB 
ID:	183614
    I'm tempted to get a Vulcan model now myself!

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Depending on how crazy I am, and what free time I can steal, I am thinking of doing up a deck or two for the above planes, so that the three card turns are properly scaled, too.
    Remember we want to try and keep it to as few custom cards as possible, same as we do for unofficial WWI & WWII planes. No harm in doing custom decks, but we have to put together rules/ideas that can work for people without printers etc.
    Last edited by Foz; 12-19-2015 at 12:28.

  36. #36

    Default

    I've been using 1/300 for modern air wargaming for 20+ years now, ever since I wrote "Fox Two". Its a nice scale, seems about right for fighter combat. B-52s are a bit of a handful though.

    1/600 and 1/700 work OK as well though. I use them with my 1/1200 and 1/3000 modern naval games, but they do work ok for air combat games as well

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    I've been using 1/300 for modern air wargaming for 20+ years now, ever since I wrote "Fox Two". Its a nice scale, seems about right for fighter combat. B-52s are a bit of a handful though.

    1/600 and 1/700 work OK as well though. I use them with my 1/1200 and 1/3000 modern naval games, but they do work ok for air combat games as well
    I actually initially voted for 1/350, as I know there is quite a bit out the in the modelling community for it. Since that point I found out there is rather a good selection in 1/300 too.

    I think currently though, people are looking to keep to the same scale as WGS, so things are compatible.
    But the there is a 1/144 community for WGS, so no harm in trying to throw together two different scale rules.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7eat51 View Post
    The really important questions are how to incorporate Cthulhu and zombies.
    I so didn't see this comment until now! Eric, anything with added Cthulhu is better!
    I'm collecting the Achtung! Cthulhu books from Modiphius, and it's a wonderful setting. We could work an idea off of that.
    But I have absolutely no idea what.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    I think currently though, people are looking to keep to the same scale as WGS, so things are compatible.
    have you seen how big a 1/200 B52 is

    (I have one for my 10mm Vietnam wargaming collection, and a few C-130s as well)

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    have you seen how big a 1/200 B52 is

    (I have one for my 10mm Vietnam wargaming collection, and a few C-130s as well)
    Nope, but it's only 28.2cm wide. That's less than the Zepplin Staken coming for WWI I believe, or very close.

  41. #41

    Default

    Yes, but the Staaken is stupidly big for gaming

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Yes, but the Staaken is stupidly big for gaming
    Some people like it big!

    Though you do have a point, as the ZS can't do 650mph, or 22cm movement.

  43. #43

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    I have been personally using 1/285 scale aircraft for my Vietnam trial missile fights

  44. #44

    Default

    Not sure of what maneuver deck or damage this should have:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F9F-Card_VF781_WilliamsC2.png 
Views:	161 
Size:	555.0 KB 
ID:	183630
    [Edit: Updated with info from post #46]

    It should be carrying rockets and bombs, as the USMC were using it for ground attack missions.

    The final four MiG-15s were downed on 18 November 1952 by Lt. Royce Williams of VF-781, flying off the carrier Oriskany during a series of air strikes against the North Korean port of Hoeryong, right across the mouth of the Tumen River from the major Soviet base at Vladivostok. Williams' victories were notable because all four were flown by Soviet Naval Aviation pilots.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F9F_Panther
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 12-20-2015 at 22:58.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    I would like to see a movement system not unlike X wing. Variable length of measuring rod/ruler that could incorporate a graded measuring marking to simulate power settings dependent on turning etc. Missiles (ground and air) could be managed by the X Wing targeting system, ECM and Chaff in a similar manner to the defensive chits in X Wing. (Only played this twice so correct me if I'm wrong).
    Machine guns handled the same way as we do now.
    Mechanics the same as X Wing is what I'm trying to say with just different weapon systems.
    I was thinking that for fast jets too - rather than creating new bigger movement cards use a card/movement stick combination. ie play the standard sized cards on the 'cockpit' to show the shape of the manoeuvre being played and use the movement sticks to move the model.

    "He is wise who watches"

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Not sure of what maneuver deck or damage this should have:

    It should be carrying rockets and bombs, as the USMC were using it for ground attack missions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F9F_Panther
    One thing I can say for a lot of 50s jets, the numbers indicated they flew like very fast bricks.

    Sticking to Mike's system now for the moment, unless people decide otherwise.

    Grumman F9F Panther
    Base: Fighter
    Deck: Qx2 (45° and extreme side slips removed)
    Climb: 1
    Ceiling: 15
    Damage: 20
    Weapons: CCCC/CC

    I need to find my WGS rulebook. I don't remember rocket rules in there. I would use something similar to, or the same as the rocket rules in WFS.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    I was thinking that for fast jets too - rather than creating new bigger movement cards use a card/movement stick combination. ie play the standard sized cards on the 'cockpit' to show the shape of the manoeuvre being played and use the movement sticks to move the model.
    The problem I can potentially see with the stick system, is that it maybe copyrighted.
    Also as I see it we want to keep any ideas as close to original as possible, that way some or all of them may be integrated officially.
    If we go completely off kilter we're making a whole new game.

  48. #48

    Default

    Hey Folks,

    This KS might be of interest (Phantom Leader Deluxe):

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ref=nav_search
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    I so didn't see this comment until now! Eric, anything with added Cthulhu is better!
    I'm collecting the Achtung! Cthulhu books from Modiphius, and it's a wonderful setting. We could work an idea off of that.
    But I have absolutely no idea what.
    Ha. Wonderful.

    I am not sure what the whole zombie craze is. I recently saw a zombie-themed American Civil War game. One of the ToC books I have centers on WWI: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/160836/d...-trail-cthulhu

    Last night, George (CelticCat), his wife Colleen, Sue (ling), and I played Elder Sign. It was quite fun. We're going to play Arkham Horror over the break; we played once before at another friend's, but we now have our own copy. I was unfamiliar with the Cthulhu mythos, but I am becoming a fan. I started collecting Trail of Cthulhu and some Call of Cthulhu RPG books. I have been eyeing the Achtung series as well. I have several friends, geographically dispersed, who might be interested playing via Skype. Let me know if you would have any interest in such a thing. I would like to run some sessions as well as play in some sessions.
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    I would like to see a movement system not unlike X wing. Variable length of measuring rod/ruler that could incorporate a graded measuring marking to simulate power settings dependent on turning etc. Missiles (ground and air) could be managed by the X Wing targeting system, ECM and Chaff in a similar manner to the defensive chits in X Wing. (Only played this twice so correct me if I'm wrong).

    Machine guns handled the same way as we do now.

    Mechanics the same as X Wing is what I'm trying to say with just different weapon systems.
    Well, not to rain on anyone's parade, but the last thing I'd want to see in ANY Wings of War/Glory game is a template movement system. It would be worse than using dice, by a long shot. It really isn't flexible enough to allow for multiple plane flight speeds and maneuver capabilities. X-Wing reduces all ships down to set speeds (basically three identical bands), and only two types of turns. Barrel rolls allow side-slips. Boost maneuvers add some diversity, but these have no basis in physics or reality.

    Besides, I have a distinct feeling of betrayal any time I think about playing X-Wing. Using a template movement system with Wings of Glory would be so much like going total traitor. I'm not going to apologize for completely dismissing the idea out of hand, but I won't be implementing anything that even hints at templates.

    So, in imitation another Forum member's expression:

    NO TEMPLATES!
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 10:06
  2. Scale Pilot's in 1/144 scale and other's
    By Fabric Flyer in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 10:04
  3. scale?
    By rockyr in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2010, 14:44
  4. WW2 1/144 scale
    By gregbond77 in forum 1/144 Scale Dawn of War
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-24-2010, 14:37
  5. B-17 1/144 scale Want to trade for 1/200 Scale
    By CappyTom in forum 1/144 Scale Dawn of War
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 15:19

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
  •