How to improve the SPAD?
Cheers!
I'm wondering if any of you have the feeling (as I do) that the great SPAD S.VII/XIII is somewhat less effective in the game than it was in real life.
I'm guessing this is mostly due to how altitude is re-created in game terms.
Do any of you have developed any house-rule to increase the performace of SPAD VII and XIII in the game? if yes, which ones?
thanks!
perhaps add some pilot skills
They improved the climb rate for the SPAD XIII from 3 (old rules) to 2 (actual rules).
It's fast and sturdy.
That's not bad at all.
Voilà le soleil d'Austerlitz!
Agreed. And when matched against era-appropriate opponents, they perform quiet well. Just don't try to get into a knife fight with a Dr.I!Originally Posted by Marechallannes
The SPAD S.VII is under-gunned, but that's not all that unusual for Entente aircraft when the SPAD first reached the Front. Only later in 1917 with the Camel and the S.E.5 do we see Entente scouts armed with two mgs as standard (unless it was a special modification).
The best improvement for a SPAD is a large playing surface that allows the plane to "stretch its legs" properly.
A single Ares-sized mat is simply too small for the SPADs and will excessively privilege turnfighters (Camel, Dr.1) and relatively boring jousts (Immelmanns followed by more Immelmanns... yawn).
However if you're playing on a larger mat (two or preferably more Ares-sized mats aligned on the long edges)... then things become much more interesting for the SPAD pilot, and realistic air combat tactics can be executed with great success. On a mat of this size, a Dr.1 stands no chance versus a SPAD XIII, especially not if it's a 2v2 (or more) encounter. The only Central plane that gives the SPAD XIII any sort of trouble in an area of this size is the Fokker D.VII - as in real life!
Not coincidentally, this issue with the play area size is also the case with the "large card" WGS fighters (P-51D, FW-190D, Spitfire Mk. IX). They need room to breathe or else they are literally hamstrung and can't perform properly.
i think the depiction of the spad is accurately historical within the limitations of a tabletop miniatures game. it was all about zoom and boom tactics at which it excels. now if you want to talk about historical inaccuracies id pooint to the morane saulnier. no distinction is made for its not having an interupter gear and, therefor, firing through its propeller arc by use of deflectors. planes using such devices, can, and did shoot themselves down on occasion. i think every time it fires the shooter should draw 1 b card fir himself and if it has an engine symbol inflict 1 engine hit (but not the damage number) to itself to reflect damage to the propeller thus delivering less engine horsepower to its flight envelope.
Short of a total rewrite of the altitude rules: It is not possible to make the SPAD a viable unit in _WoG_.
Would you care to elaborate on this sentiment?
For my part, I find the SPAD extremely viable, so long as the play surface is large enough to suit its speed and the tactics derived therefrom.
From the other thread:
Simply put: It takes 2-3 turns (depending on which altitude data one is using) to recover from a dive; by which point, the fight has wandered away from one, or is over.
Coupling the above to the SPAD's cinderblock-like turning radius, and one is reduced to "straight-Immelmann-straight" for the duration of the game. The only redeeming virtue of this is: The ending straight from one Immelmann can be used as the lead straight for another Immelmann (it's on a copy of Official Errata sitting next to me right now).
Contrast this with, for ex., _Richthofen's War_, where one can trade airspeed for altitude, or vice versa, in *one* turn with relative ease-of-play (for ex.: The SPAD 7 undamaged can climb three 50-meter altitude levels every turn, and drops its speed three 50-meter hexes if its does; so as long as it has those 3 MP to spare, it can climb if the player desires).
As you say: The SPAD is viable *if the playing area is big enough* -- however, for a standard-sized playing space (as defined in the _WoG_ scenarios), the SPAD is a one-move wonder.
i dont know. i never had a problem keeping it on a single mat as long as i was cognizant of where the edge was. and i find throwing a turn or 2 in changes the paradigm up nicely when your opponent is expecting you to immelmann. is it one of my favorite planes to fly? no. but i can make it work just as i can with an albatross Dv.
There's a long dogfight. A SPAD vs a D.Va. And you really have to watch where you are. Rudder jams are game enders, 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
How to improve the SPAD? By bolting the SPAD prop to an SE5? Did I say that out loud? : )
indeed on both counts. saw one guy have his fight ended by getting 2 rudder jams, 1 for each direction when he was too close to the edge.
Fair enough, but the closest Wings of Glory gets to emulating energy of any kind is with the WGS rule regarding playing a blank speed marker between speed changes, and the straight/reverse/straight for the Immelmann turn.
This lack of energy emulation doesn't just affect SPADs and other fast movers; it affects turnfighters, too: eg. Camels and Dr.1s can keep at their tightest turn rate essentially forever and then rocket out at full speed as though they'd been flying straight & level. Pilots are assumed to be masters who never make a mistake in execution, accidentally stalling and spinning while trying to stay on another plane's tail (something that is quite easy to do in real life)... the examples are endless.
Energy is something that I suspect is very difficult to emulate in a tabletop miniatures game while still keeping the fluidity and ease-of-play that Wings of Glory accomplishes quite well (IMHO). When I want that level of simulation, I find my PC flight sims are by far and away the appropriate solution... on the flipside, I want my tabletop games to be a fun experience, not an exercise in book keeping, and for me, Wings of Glory has proven to be a very good fit. I understand that opinions vary, but that's mine, FWIW.
But turn-fighters didn't use energy-flying as much as SPAD and other boom&zoomers did... see my next post for posibilities to fix this
IMPROOVING SPAD S.VII/XIII
Now that I’ve caught your attention, here is what I’ve been doing
Includes a set of House-Rules for every AC, plus a specific rule for SPAD VII/XIII
My guess is that SPAD doesn’t perform as well in the game as it did in reality mainly because of problems with the altitude rules.
So here are my ''solutions''. The idea is improving the hability of certain planes to better take advantage of climbing and diving.
OVER-CLIMB & OVER DIVE (BOOM&ZOOM)
OVER-CLIMB is a maneuver that mirrors OVER-DIVE:
OVER-DIVE: STALL-DIVE-STRAIGHT. AC loses a two altitude tokens, one after the DIVE and another after the STRAIGHT.
While playing the DIVE-STRAIGHT part of the over-dive, the plane is moving fasts. If the plane is shoot at while moving fast, the player may choose to discard one damage card per turn after seeing it, and trade it for a new one (official rules).
OVER-CLIMB: STRAIGHT-CLIMB-STALL: AC earns two climb markers: one after CLIMB and another after STALL
While playing the CLIMB-STALL part of the maneuver, the plane is moving slowly. If the plane is shoot at while moving slowly, all damage cards receive a +1 penalization – except for natural “0”.
In game terms this maneuvers allow planes to perform a BOOM&ZOOM tactic if you combine an OVER-DIVE (boom) followed by an OVER-CLIMB (zoom) you plane can recover altitude quicker than with regular rules.
There are two types of BOOM&ZOOM: normal and short.
Normal Boom&Zoom takes SIX maneuver cards:
STALL-DIVE-STRAIGHT – STRAIGHT-CLIMB-STALL
Short Boom&Zoom uses the final STRAIGHT of the OVER-DIVE as first maneuver of the OVER-CLIMB takes FIVE maneuver cards:
STALL-DIVE- STRAIGHT-CLIMB-STALL
(this is like using the STRAIGHT after an IMELMANN to pull a second IMELMANN). However, not every AC can do it safely:
Structural Sturdiness
I divide planes into three groups accordingly to their structural sturdiness: strong, normal, and weak.
Structurally Strong: Planes can perform any maneuver without penalization. More specifically: they can use the STRAIGHT card of an OVER-DIVE as first maneuver for an OVER-CLIMB: STALL-DIVE-STRAIGHT-CLIMB-STALL
Structurally Strong Planes are: SPAD S.VII/XIII, SE5, Fokker D.VII, Pfalz D.III/XII.
Structurally Normal: can do an OVER-DIVE without penalization. If they do a 5 cards BOOM&ZOOM they have to draw a B-Damage Card after the second CLIMB card – only points are taking into account, any special damage is ignored.
Structurally Weak: Planes have to draw a B Damage card if they play an OVER-DIVE and an A Damage Card if they play a 5 CARDS BOOM&ZOOM – only points are taking into account, any special damage is ignored.
Structurally weak planes are: Nieuport Ni-28, Sopwith Triplane, and all sesqui-planes such as Ni-11/17/24, Albatross D.III/V.
As you can see, the SPAD S.VII/XIII, being structurally strong can take advantage of their fast climbing, and combining BOOM&ZOOM 5 cards tactics freely. That makes the SPAD more maneuverable not in the horizontal/bi-dimensional, aspect of the game, but in the vertical/tri-dimensional part of it.
Additional SPAD characteristics: fastest diver
I wanted the SPAD XIII to really be the fastest diving plane in the game. To do so SPAD XIII dives differently: instead of placing the SPAD’s base matching the arrow of the DIVE card, you place the rear edge of the BASE to the front edge of the DIVE CARD. That way the SPAD dives faster than everybody else – a little bit faster than SE5a.
Last edited by Gallo Rojo; 02-14-2016 at 12:01.
This is all very clever and well thought through. But I say KIS. Maybe I will get my head cut of but as I wrote in another thread.
How about changing the SPAD XIIIs climbrate to 1. You will have an aircraft that climbs like a monkey and can really use altitude to its advantage.
There are two things I don't like about giving SPAD XIII climbrate of 1:
Firstly, it's un-historical. SPAD XIII wasn't the fastest climber in WW1. If there is a plane in WoG that may have such a climbrate that would be Siemens-Schuckert D.III or IV
Secondly: there is something good about a climb-rate of 2: a flexibility of playing IMELMANN an SPLIT-S maneuvers within (or out) the same altitude band. If you have a climb-rate of 1 you just go up and down all the time and that may not be good depending on the tactical situation
Thirdly: you can addapt that house-rule I've just presented to increase some planes climb-speed and not others. I mean: you can allow OVER-CLIMB only to certain planes and not others... you can still let everyone OVER-CLIMB after an OVER-DIVE (withing the constraint of structural sturdiness described above) but only let some AC to OVER-CLIMB just like that.
Example: in my house-rules fully loaded bombers and planes with engine damage cannot OVER-CLIMB ... you can extend that to any plane it wasn't a good climber. Example: Fokker Dr.1 may be able to OVER-CLIMB but Sopwith Triplane no (I'm just guessing for the sake of the argument). Or you denny OVER-CLIMB to all two-seaters (again, just as an example)
That was the nice part of _Richthofen's War_: It did simulate Energy, at least for vertical movement. (The rules could have been adapted for horizontal movement easily enough -- every MP put into a turn is deducted from the acft.'s current speed; since acft. used different MP values for turns, the less-efficient units would suffer more.)
In my case: I bring an A-deck Hanriot. Problem Frackin' *SOLVED*. >:)
Well Ezekiel, I think you have done some serious thinking here
The overclimb is a clever houserule. I'll give it a go I think. All of it. I don't know. It is a little to much I think.
I like to keep things simple
I painted a Pfalz Dr1 a while ago. It has a cr of 1 and it's a tricky little thing to get used to.
You go up and down like a jojo and must be very careful when you plan your cards or you will be too high.
But you can zoom and boom. Maybe in a non historical way but you can really use altitude to your benefit.
Heheh the Italian Solution! Well played sirIn my case: I bring an A-deck Hanriot. Problem Frackin' *SOLVED*. >
Well, to be accurate: Mine are American -- I just assume the US gets hold of the Hanriots much earlier than historically.Heheh the Italian Solution! Well played sir
However: There's still a serious problem with how altitude is handled in _WoG_ -- even for a "Beer-and-pretzels" game, the alt. rules are horribly unrealistic. So I adapted the alt. rules from _Richthofen's War_ for _WoG_; now one can convert altitude into airspeed, and vice versa, far more easily, and acft. designed for vertical combat become a viable option.
How does this work? Can you explain using a WGF-style example? How would it work for the SPAD or Hanriot?
Thanks!
Why not bringing a Nieuport Ni-28 instead? Two machinegun (A Deck), same F-Maneuver Deck, historically acurate American
Ditto
1) No mini yet.Why not bringing a Nieuport Ni-28 instead? Two machinegun (A Deck), same F-Maneuver Deck, historically acurate American
2) I'm not even sure there's been a official card release.
3) I like Hanriots.
Not sure which part you're asking about, so I'll give an overview.
In _RW_:
Hex-maps are used. Each hex is 50 meters across. Altitude is given in 50-meter steps. In essence, there's a 3-dimensional grid of 50m-scale blocks.
Acft. climb and dive ratings are given in multiples of 50m -- for ex.: The SPAD VII can climb 150m (3 levels) in a turn, and dive 450m (9[!] levels) in a turn. Moreover, the S.VII has a maximum dive speed of 8 hexes/turn, and a max overdive of 9 hexes/turn.
At the start of a turn, a unit has a speed value in hexes/turn set. The S.VII has a minimum of 4, and a max of 10. All units may accelerate 1, or 2, points per turn (so from a landed position [speed 0], it would take the S.VII three turns to acquire enough airspeed to take off).
In the Advanced Rules (the Basic Rules are simplified), for each 2 levels (or fraction) of altitude a unit climbs, its speed setting decreases by 1. So, if the S.VII climbs its maximum 3 levels, its move would decrease 2 (1 for the first 100, plus 1 for the next 50). If the S.VII's current speed was 7, that climb aforementioned would reduce its move to 5 (speed indicated would still be 7, tho'). Moreover, if the S.VII's speed was 5 or less, it could not climb its full value, as that would cause its speed to drop below its minimum allowed speed of 4.
Diving, naturally, works similarly, but in the other direction -- if the S.VII dived 150m (three levels), it would receive two additional forward MP on top of the 7 it started with (1 for the first 100, then 1 more for the 50). Moreover, if the S.VII's total speed exceeds its overdive speed, there's a 1/3 chance of the unit disintegrating outright. Finally, the actual dive must be performed in an unbroken string of straight-ahead moves, 1 per 100m or fraction (so the dive aforementioned would require a 2-hex straight-line move).
(Ideally: Climbing and diving would alter the unit's speed setting. Officially, this doesn't happen; but this could be implemented with ease, and I have done so.)
As can be seen: It is always obvious to all players where exactly in the air a given unit is -- not only in the X- and Y-axis, but the Z- as well. Contrast this with _WoG_, where two units at "altitude 3" might be at the same altitude, or might not, depending on how many turns previously each has been climbing; and the number of altitude chits has no bearing whatever on the unit's actual position -- a climb-2 unit has two intermediate altitude levels,a climb-3 has three, etc. Collision determination in _WoG_ is a guessing game involving a card draw; in _RW_, it's a simple matter of "same hex at same altitude -- SPLAT".
More, altitude change in _RW_ is far faster to accomplish -- one wants to go up, one goes up right then. In _WoG_ climbing even one altitude level can take anywhere from 2-5 turns. It says something that every _WoG_ game I've seen which used altitude has been a "race to the bottom", if not starting at minimum altitude; trying to climb is a waste of movement.
My adaptation of the altitude rules of _RW_ for _WoG_ is somewhere on this site -- the short version is: Altitude is divided in "levels" and "sublevels". _WoG_ unit climb rates have been altered such that each unit now gains, or loses, a number of sublevels with every climb, or dive. (For ex.: A _WoG_ unit with an "old" climb rate of 2 has a "new" climb/dive of 2/4 -- it can gain 2 sublevels, or lose 4, before taking damage. This value can be altered to accommodate units which were good, or poor, at climbing, or diving; but space considerations prohibit going into detail.) Each five sublevels equals one level. Levels are indicated by pegs, sublevels by chits; so a unit showing three pegs and two chits is at "altitude 3/2". If another unit overlaps that unit, and is showing the exact same number of pegs and chits, there is a collision; otherwise, there isn't. To climb, one plays the climb card, and adds the desired number of chits; to dive, one plays the dive card, and removes the desired number of chits (exchanging pegs for chits as required). In targeting: Each five sublevels difference equals one range increment.
Simple, straightforward, and allows the vertically-oriented fighters to yo-yo to their heart's content -- the S.VII can dive into range, take a shot if it has one, then pull away. Under current altitude rules, the S.VII can drop down easily enough; but getting back to altitude takes at least two turns, and with its bricklike cornering....
You mean you don't have a mini yet. There has been official card release since long time ago, and Nieuport Ni-8 have been released as mini in Series 8. I have all three myself and I love them all
In fact, I like them so much I'm thinking in swiching my preferred game nationality from French to American to be able to play SPADs XIII and Ni-28 -- in the Western front at least, I will still play the Italians as much as I can.
Same felling here. I like Hanriots a lot. They are really good looking bitches
The Nieuport 28 is a fantastic plane in WoG, and I think a fun matchup for the Fokker Dr. 1. With 14HP it's a bit more of an even match than the Camel, which can sometimes be a bit brutal for the comparatively weak Dr. 1 (at 13HP) to hang with. Plus the released color schemes for the N-28s really do look wonderful. SPADs and Nieuport 28s along with an American Breguet is a good time
I'm fascinated by all of the responses on how to improve a Spad...all from supporters and Entente pilots...and all well-intentioned but soon wrong!
From a CP pilot, the Deutsch view on how to improve a Spad is short and succinct...smoke, flames, and screwed into soft earth from a great height. Yeah baby!
A new angle on the zoom and boom tactic
wouldnt that be boomed and doomed?A new angle on the zoom and boom tactic
Or "bash and crash"
I use a system pretty much similar to Chris system (a bit more complex).
The main difference is that I don't use climb or dive cards.
Each peg corresponds to one level.
Each level peg has 8 height sub-levels, each sub-level is one height chit.
Example: If a plane is at level 3 sub-level 2 (or 3,2) and it dives on a 60º turn ( -4 sub-levels) it will end at level 2 sub-level 6 (or 2,6).
The firing rules are still the same as per the common game. But a plane that just made a climbing maneuver cannot fire against a plane that is below it and vice-versa.
Each card played has a counter in it. Counters can be up, down, extreme up, over-dive, extreme over-dive or level. (Use your imagination creating the counters).
Planes have maximum climb rates for stalls (it substitute the climb card, and also climb rates for straights and 60º turns.
Heavy bombers can only climb on stalls and can only dive 4 sub-levels or half a peg. They cannot over dive.
Two-seaters and scouts have a climb information that goes like this:
Max climb(stall)/half climb(straight)/Minimum climb(60º turn)
Example: Albatros D.III 3/2/1
For diving, a heavy bomber loses 4 sub levels and other planes lose an entire level (8 sub-levels) on straights and 4 sub-levels on 60º turns.
Some can also over-dive. Normal and sturdy planes. Weak ones cannot (easily).
There are two types of over dives:
Over dive - (-12 sub-levels or - 1,5 levels) the plane makes a normal straight maneuver and then an extra stall maneuver. (weak planes receive one A damage card)
Extreme over dive - (-16 sub-levels or -2 levels) the plane makes a normal straight maneuver and then an extra straight maneuver (normal planes receive one A damage card and weak planes cannot perform it)
Following an over dive (any of the two) planes can make an extreme up, making a stall maneuver and going up twice the normal maximum climb rate (weak planes take one A damage card).
The plane stats goes like this:
Airco DH.2 2/1/- (weak)
Airco DH.4 (UK) 4/2/1 (Normal)
Airco DH.4 (USA) 2/1/1 (Normal)
Albatros C.III 2/1/- (Normal)
Albatros D.II 2/1/1 (Normal)
Albatros D.III 3/2/1 (weak)
Albatros D.Va 3/1/1 (weak)
Aviatik D.I 4/2/1 (Normal)
Breget BR.14 3/2/1 (Sturdy)
Bristol F2 Fighter 3/2/1 (Sturdy)
Caproni Ca.3 2/-/- (Normal)
Caproni Ca.4 2/-/- (Normal)
Curtiss H.16 1/-/- (Sturdy)
Felixstowe F.2A 1/-/- (Sturdy)
Fokker D.VII 4/2/1 (Normal)
Fokker Dr.I 4/2/1 (Normal)
Fokker E.III 2/1/- (weak)
Fokker E.IV 3/1/1 (weak)
Fokker D.VIII 4/2/1 (Weak)
Friedrichshafen G.III 2/-/- (Sturdy)
Gotha G.V 2/-/- (Sturdy)
Halberstadt CL.II 2/1/1 (Normal)
Halberstadt D.III 2/1/1 (Normal)
Handley Page 0/0400 1/-/- (Sturdy)
Hannover C.IIIa 2/1/1 (Normal)
Hanriot HD.1 3/2/1 (Normal)
LFG Roland C.II 2/1/- (Normal)
Maachi M5 3/2/1 (Normal)
Morane Saulnier N 2/1/1 (weak)
Nieuport 11 3/1/1 (weak)
Nieuport 16 4/2/1 (weak)
Nieuport 17 3/2/1 (weak)
Nieuport 21 2/1/1 (weak)
Nieuport 23 3/2/1 (weak)
Nieuport 28 2/1/1 (weak)
Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa 3/2/1 (Sturdy)
Phoenix C.I 2/1/1 (Normal)
Phoenix D.I 3/2/1 (Normal)
Pomilio PC 2/1/- (Normal)
RAF RE8 2/1/- (Normal)
R.A.F. SE5a 4/2/1 (Sturdy)
Rumpler C.IV C 3/2/1 (Normal)
SAML S2 2/1/1 (Normal)
Siemens Schuckert D.I 2/1/1 (Weak)
Siemens Schuckert D.III 4/2/1 (Sturdy)
Sopwith Camel 3/2/1 (Normal)
Sopwith Snipe 4/2/1 (Normal)
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter (single seater) 2/1/1 (Normal)
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter (two-seater) 2/1/- (Normal)
Sopwith Triplane 3/2/1 (Normal)
Spad VII 4/2/1 (Sturdy)
Spad XIII 4/2/1 (Sturdy)
UFAG C.I 2/1/- (Normal)
Zeppelin Staaken R.VI 1/-/- (Sturdy)
If you find any error on my stats, please do say so.
Last edited by Blackronin; 02-17-2016 at 07:26.
Great topic.
I’ve been reading the ideas for new altitude rules. I’ve have to say I like them all. I think csadn and Blackronin’s are very realistic.
Yet I prefer Gallo Rojo’s one. The are simpler and builds up on official rules we all already know: over-climb as a mirror of over-dive as he said. It’s easier to learn and easier to teach.
Something I like about WoG is that it works as an introductory game I can teach to my nephews. Both newbies and Grognard can play. For more complex and realistic rules I would just jump to Blue-Max/Canvas-Eagles.
Just my two cents.
Regards.
Simple is good. I think Zoe's Cancon rules have a simplified altitude system as well... and so does Flash, for that matter. Let me see if I can dig up some links.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks