Ares Games

View Poll Results: Which Movement System

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Multiple moves (card+base+card+base)

    3 15.79%
  • Using Multiple cards (card+card+card+base)

    10 52.63%
  • Using measuring sticks.

    6 31.58%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Movement System for Post-WWII

  1. #1

    Default Movement System for Post-WWII

    There is a little contention, and some consensus on potential movement systems for Post-WWII.
    Three have come to people so far:

    1. Using current cards, doing a full movement multiple times.
      This is probably the simplest, doesn't need anything new, but isn't very granular for some speeds.
    2. Using current cards, place multiple cards one after another.
      This allows for more planes easily, but requires at least one extra straight card to keep secrecy.
    3. Using Movement sticks (like other systems I wont mention )
      This is the furthest from the design of the game & requires new parts to be made. It requires a way to designate the secret moves, which probably would just be a standard deck.
      It may infringe copyright too.


    Thoughts, preferences & other ideas?

  2. #2

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    Oooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrr, what I do, skip trying to match WWII with post WWII and treat the cards and a whole new set of speeds. For instance, I used the C deck for the MiG-21 and the H deck for the F-4 Phantom

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Ninja View Post
    Oooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrr, what I do, skip trying to match WWII with post WWII and treat the cards and a whole new set of speeds. For instance, I used the C deck for the MiG-21 and the H deck for the F-4 Phantom
    Having a different ground scale has been discussed on another thread, and possibly maybe looked at, but the general consensus over there was to make it backwards compatible. Though there is a voice for 1/300 or 1/350 too, which would do that.

  4. #4

    Default

    If we're going the full monty here, I'd just make new decks. They could be based on what WGS has, if we can figure what would be an equivalence for the early jets.
    Alternatively, just figure what decks are equivalent, and use them. That way, you just need new decks for any carry over planes from WW2 (F-51s, Corsairs, etc.).
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    If we're going the full monty here, I'd just make new decks. They could be based on what WGS has, if we can figure what would be an equivalence for the early jets.
    Alternatively, just figure what decks are equivalent, and use them. That way, you just need new decks for any carry over planes from WW2 (F-51s, Corsairs, etc.).
    Karl
    I'm to a degree with you on this Karl, I have the skills to make new cards etc.
    But I can see the argument too of keeping things done in a way to make it potentially accessible to the majority.
    If you look over on the Scale Poll thread, it went somewhat off topic, and ended up with Mike & I batting ideas about on movement systems and guesstimates on which decks work with x2 & x3 manuevers etc.

  6. #6

    Default

    I suggest making new decks, keep things internally coherent to each other as in the length of arrows with respect to other planes in the post-WWII era (ground scale makes sense in terms of time, so reduce the time of each card), and not try for backwards compatibility. I think the backwards part could complicate things more than the return on investment would justify. I would keep planes at 1:200 or you could lose the eye-candy and collectibility aspect.

    We've had various conversations about ground (sea) scale with respect to SoG, gun ranges, etc. In the end, it is a fun game despite the scaling problems. I think the same could be true here.
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  7. #7

    Default

    I'd go for new decks, new ground scale.

    Although movement templates does work well. One of my friends in Stroud has a fun WW2 air combat game that he plays that uses various templates for straights, turns and manoeuvres, and we tried a fun "Top Gun" game using X Wing templates and those old Revell snap together modern fighter models. Alas I lost the notes we made, but it was definitely an idea worthy of greater consideration, if I had the time.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7eat51 View Post
    I suggest making new decks, keep things internally coherent to each other as in the length of arrows with respect to other planes in the post-WWII era (ground scale makes sense in terms of time, so reduce the time of each card), and not try for backwards compatibility. I think the backwards part could complicate things more than the return on investment would justify. I would keep planes at 1:200 or you could lose the eye-candy and collectibility aspect.

    We've had various conversations about ground (sea) scale with respect to SoG, gun ranges, etc. In the end, it is a fun game despite the scaling problems. I think the same could be true here.
    Mathmatically it's should be easy enough to change the ground scale to one that uses the current cards. Especially as my comments on 1950s planes seem to be 'very fast bricks'
    With the possibility of making a few new decks for oddities, like we do already for WGS & WGF.
    The problem then becomes persuading people that these two 1:200 systems, though they look identical, aren't actually compatible.
    Easily done between WGF & WGS due to the scale change.
    I actually like the idea of a ground scale change. Especially as a few 1950s planes I've stated up so far can't turn for s**t.
    But I'm playing devil's advocate until a consensus is formed.

  9. #9

    Default

    My thoughts start with what mechanism will facilitate fun playing. WoG is elegant with respect to this. Therefore, I would start with a similar system as WGS, play one, plan one, or some similar schema that captures the nature of the planes of the period. Take the fast plane going full out, and its fast straight would run the length of the card, thus determining the ground scale. As you stated, doing the math for the rest of the maneuvers is not too difficult once the given speeds for the planes are agreed upon.

    I think if ground scale starts the conversation, you could end up with a less satisfactory maneuvering system. So I suggest starting with discussions of mechanics, and go from there; the ground scale will take care of itself. So it is not that ground scale is irrelevant; I think it is not the starting discussion.

    Does that make sense?

    As for 1:200 incompatibility, it is folks prerogative if they want to mix-and-match, even though scale inaccurate. All you can do is state the systems are not compatible and let folks do as they will. As has been pointed out, there is already a supplier (AIM) of 1:200 post-WWII planes.

    Now, for the range ruler and shooting ...
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7eat51 View Post
    My thoughts start with what mechanism will facilitate fun playing. WoG is elegant with respect to this. Therefore, I would start with a similar system as WGS, play one, plan one, or some similar schema that captures the nature of the planes of the period. Take the fast plane going full out, and its fast straight would run the length of the card, thus determining the ground scale. As you stated, doing the math for the rest of the maneuvers is not too difficult once the given speeds for the planes are agreed upon.

    I think if ground scale starts the conversation, you could end up with a less satisfactory maneuvering system. So I suggest starting with discussions of mechanics, and go from there; the ground scale will take care of itself. So it is not that ground scale is irrelevant; I think it is not the starting discussion.

    Does that make sense?

    As for 1:200 incompatibility, it is folks prerogative if they want to mix-and-match, even though scale inaccurate. All you can do is state the systems are not compatible and let folks do as they will. As has been pointed out, there is already a supplier (AIM) of 1:200 post-WWII planes.

    Now, for the range ruler and shooting ...
    I disagree, getting the basics like scale etc would be the backbone of the game.
    I think it's taken as read that the system we use is WGS, but with tweaks.
    But your thoughts are cogent, I was thinking a similar thing. Take the P or R decks, as they are the fastest, and work them up as the cards for transsonic planes, i.e. around the 700-800mph range. That covers the 1950s pretty much, and doesn't shorten things too much that it seems wrong. Go for a larger card for newer/faster planes. Though 50s seem the popular option so far.

    As for the ruler, it logically have to be shortened by the same amount. But in game terms, for fun, I'd just leave it the same.
    It doesn't all have to be exact.
    The weapons rules can be left as they are.

  11. #11

    Default

    The reason I stated that one should start with mechanics is exemplified in #2 in the OP, if I am understanding it correctly. If I play multiple cards in a single play, it could become unwieldily having multiple players at the table converging. If maneuvering feels cumbersome, I think folks would forego the system and stick with WGF or WGS. I realize I might not be understanding your intentions in #2 properly, though.

    I have seen something like this when running larger SoG games and ships come with proximity to each other. The collision rules can feel, not sure what the right word is, but it bogs down play when multiple ships are involved. Once I jettisoned RAW and made quick rulings based on first-face plausibility, the games moved again and players remained engaged.
    “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7eat51 View Post
    The reason I stated that one should start with mechanics is exemplified in #2 in the OP, if I am understanding it correctly. If I play multiple cards in a single play, it could become unwieldily having multiple players at the table converging. If maneuvering feels cumbersome, I think folks would forego the system and stick with WGF or WGS.
    You're right there, it's bad enough getting one card down in a furrball.
    Mmm, this may call for another poll. We are a democracy after all.
    Consensus seems to be 1:200 planes, 1950s era.
    So the new question will have to be
    • Backwards compatible with WGS, needs new, possibly unwieldy, maneuver rules
    • Change distances/ground scale, possibly needs new cards.

    Does that sound fair?

  13. #13

    Default

    Changing ground scale will solve the problem with faster aircraft but we still have the problem faced in WGS with slow aircraft. In Korea the first practical helicopters were used and there were plenty of slow piston aircraft.

  14. #14

    Default

    If we have to go beyond WW2 with our game I suggest the development of a new card and scale of planes ( scale large enough for some detail) . In other words an almost new game WW2 continues

  15. #15

    Default

    Changing ground scale will solve the problem with faster aircraft but we still have the problem faced in WGS with slow aircraft. In Korea the first practical helicopters were used and there were plenty of slow piston aircraft.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Changing ground scale will solve the problem with faster aircraft but we still have the problem faced in WGS with slow aircraft. In Korea the first practical helicopters were used and there were plenty of slow piston aircraft.
    Piston planes can be fitted in with slow cards; they were ground support, and except in rare instances, didn't dogfight. Choppers in Korea, if they were around aircraft, were targets.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  17. #17

    Default

    An Me-262 does about 870 km/h, meaning about 19cm move. So use an appropriate deck - possibly G - but place a base immediately between the aircraft's base and the movement card. For a Mig15 or Sabre, use one of the bigger card decks. A Do335 does about 770, so a J deck will suffice.

  18. #18

    Default

    I would say putting the base in between. Not putting the base in between would increase manoeuvrability and my idea with these early jets is that they are actually less manoeuvrable. They are faster though.
    Ideally, I would make my own cards. Take a few reference aircraft from the game with their manoeuvre cards. Find some old POH's (Pilot Operating Handbook, this is what pilots use to study all the performance stuff from that specific aircraft) and figure out how the cards were decided. Then get some POH's for the aircraft you want to add and make your own cards.

    Cool project!

  19. #19

    Default

    honestly, as much as i prefer the card based movement system of wings. i think a measuring stick with templates much like xwing and staw would work better for faster jet aircraft. still NO DICE ​though.

  20. #20

    Default

    I did not vote but a new post WGS movement system should have:

    Much more movement cards
    More curves
    More straights
    More climbs and dives
    Special maneuvers like a roll or a loop (...and this could be tricky - imagine a maneuver that is printed on two or more cards - like the first and the second half of a loop )

    Beside this, you need to reduce the scale of the arrows on the movement cards, otherwise the cards get longer and longer.


    I don't think that the standard WGS system can display this at the moment...
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  21. #21

    Default

    We have played the Korean and Vietnam wars with 1/300th size models and existing card and it 'looks' right! It's a lot cheaper as well as the models are usually less than Ł2.50 each and are widely available.

  22. #22

    Default

    Perhaps we need to consider movement cards with three or four speed band arrows.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Perhaps we need to consider movement cards with three or four speed band arrows.
    Perhaps, rather than a bunch of arrows on a card, a plane could be allowed to place anywhere between the minimum or maximum speeds? This would allow throttle adjustments without being too complicated (the reason I like Wings of Glory, being an awesome compromise between realism and fun).

    Most of the options in this poll seem to be based on the retro-compatibility option. Also, IIRC, the 1950's period was driven by a 'No Missiles' preference. The farther into the present we go, the faster planes become, and the ground scale has to be adjusted (current average top speeds around 2,200 kph-ish). Perhaps, with really fast fighters and vertical take-off capable planes we need a completely new, and backwards-incompatible game, as happened between WGF and WGS.
    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

  24. #24

    Default

    Use peg (not base) as marker, plan two cards together (as if they are one card) and make armament range bigger.
    Plus, if needed add some different speed markers.



Similar Missions

  1. Scale for Post-WWII
    By Foz in forum PW2: General Discussions
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 05-10-2023, 11:56
  2. Eras for Post-WWII
    By Foz in forum PW2: General Discussions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 08-25-2018, 15:06
  3. Alternative Point system for WWII?
    By Antabires in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2017, 22:44
  4. WGS movement system in WGF
    By steel_ratt in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-05-2013, 12:48
  5. WWI system vs WWII system question????
    By Propjockey53 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 14:14

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
  •