Collision Chart

**tonyc206** · 10-31-2010 03:54

I know this has been done before, but I thought I would share my version of a plane collision chart indicating where planes with differing climb rates would colide based on the approximate height that they would be at.

The 'No climb counters or ANY climb counters' rule is fine for basic play, but when you get beyond that it's silly that a climb rate 4 plane with 1 climb counter would colide with a climb rate 4 plane with 3 climb counters. Hence the table for quick resolution during game play.

There's also a copy in my photo album

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 10-31-2010 05:49

I like the chart. It must stop a lot of arguements, and gives an instant resolution to the maths involved. Well done.

Rob.

**Pooh** · 10-31-2010 10:18

We had to go with an alternate collision system too. Our dogfights are always knotting up into a tight ball which resulted in too many collisions with the basic rules.

Pooh

**Aero825** · 10-31-2010 11:17

Nice job Tony! I've never seen anything like it! Well done!

Hunter

**crashx** · 10-31-2010 11:48

I like it. It could be very useful, thanks for sharing it with us.

**Willi Von Klugermann** · 10-31-2010 15:19

Tony, I'm curious why there are no collisions with planes having climb rates of 6 and 7 with 1 marker or 5/6 markers each? I'm just extrapolating from what you've done with the 7 and 8 rates. I assume you used a cutoff of 10m which may have to be tweaked for bombers/zeppelins dut to their size.

Nonetheless, an excellent reference. I will definitely be incorporating it.

**tonyc206** · 10-31-2010 16:05

Originally Posted by Willi Von Klugermann

I assume you used a cutoff of 10m which may have to be tweaked for bombers/zeppelins dut to their size.

You have it exactly. You may want to tweak it for Zeppelins, but I think the 10m allows sufficient space for the bombers. However you are free to use it as you wish. Glad you guys find it useful

**Bruce** · 10-31-2010 17:03

Well done, and thanks for sharing.

We are still wrestling with the official collision rule. Some want to keep it simple (the official rule); some want to find ways to reduce catastrophic "events" in general and would like to eliminate any sort of collision rule. We played today (6 players of 12 in our group). Our first game is always a free-for-all Dogfight without altitude rules that generates points towards our annual trophy. It was surprising how many drew the "Fire" card (four) and as a direct result (in our view) all four were shot-down, or burned-up after leaving the board. So, there is not much support for other by-chance things that can destroy an aircraft (i.e. Explosion Cards and collisions). We have already eliminated the Explosion Cards from the decks for this type of "coliseum" game and do not use the collision rule. But for altitude games I like your chart because it will reduce the number of collisions to a less aggravating number while still having some risk of collision and while maintaining a better logic than the less detailed official rule. Of course I'm not sure my group will agree, and I suspect they'll only be "happy" if we do not use any collision rule at all. The frequently fatal effects of "Fire" is enough for them. They prefer to play/manoeuvre and let the better flyer win for the most part; too many victories decided by the luck of the draw (including collisions) is not so much fun ..... even if it is more realistic ...... it is more realistic isn't it?

**Goering Ace** · 11-05-2010 15:45

Great job Tony!! Well done.
Thanks for taking the time to put it together and post it for us!!

Scott

**Willi Von Klugermann** · 11-07-2010 11:37

Originally Posted by tonyc206

You have it exactly. You may want to tweak it for Zeppelins, but I think the 10m allows sufficient space for the bombers. However you are free to use it as you wish. Glad you guys find it useful

It is most useful Tony and thanks again for a great reference.

**Ed2** · 11-07-2010 12:02

I made my copy, thanks.

**tonyc206** · 11-07-2010 13:26

My pleasure guys. I so glad you find it useful and thanks for all the comments

**Oberst Hajj** · 03-25-2011 06:12

I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it. If I'm reading your chart correctly, a DR.I with one climb counter could never collide with a SPAD VII or a Ni 17??

**sparty** · 03-25-2011 07:22

This is extremely handy. One of those great things to have in your bag "just in case" someone wants to get fresh about the maths of climb rate + elevation tokens...

**mtyree1972** · 03-25-2011 12:30

I like it, but I'm not sure if the altitude rules as written or this version would be easier. This is more realistic, but as the Col. points out, I would say you might just arbitrarily choose an 'almost mid point' spot to drop a collision spot into the gray areas.

**Bartman** · 03-25-2011 19:06

This is a really great effort. Thank you for putting it together.

**MayorJim** · 03-26-2011 08:49

Nice chart...and the Col. makes an interesting observation. The few times we do use altitude, we just look at what climb counter each plane is at...we ignore climbe rates. So, if I'm at marker two and opponent is at marker 3, then no collision. Not exactly super accurate, but works for us...

**Niclas** · 07-27-2012 08:50

A bit late with the praise, I know, but - Great chart, Tony!
Thanks for sharing!

/Niclas

**csadn** · 07-27-2012 13:54

Never has there been a better illustration of just how unutterably FUBAR the Altitude rules as-published are.

**wargamer** · 07-27-2012 14:25

roflmao... you should find someone with a copy of Flying Circus (SPI game from S&T magazine 31), uses just about the same method of altitude climbing. Then have them tell you when it was published

Originally Posted by csadn

Never has there been a better illustration of just how unutterably FUBAR the Altitude rules as-published are.

**csadn** · 07-28-2012 15:02

Originally Posted by wargamer

roflmao... you should find someone with a copy of Flying Circus (SPI game from S&T magazine 31), uses just about the same method of altitude climbing. Then have them tell you when it was published :)

No need to -- I'm familiar with it. And it's as old as I am, which goes to show: No one ever learns anything from History.... :P