Ares Games
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Simple, Common-Sense House Rules – The List

  1. #1

    Default Simple, Common-Sense House Rules – The List

    Summary: A short list of simple, intuitive rules to improve historical accuracy without hindering game playability

    After examining years of various proposed house rules, I put together what I hope might be a “definitive” list, which I believe a great many players (veterans and newbies alike) might find useful.

    To qualify for this list, a rule has to meet four criteria:
    A) The rule must not hamper game playability.
    B) The rule must improve the game in a specific way (such as by making it more historically accurate).
    C) The rule must be easy to remember (and preferably can be stated in only one sentence).
    D) The rule must make clear, logical sense.


    The following list consists of rules which have been repeatedly tested by my gaming group and confirmed to fit the above criteria.
    …..

    THE LIST – Version 1.0

    1) RULE: For all intents and purposes, an aircraft’s base peg is considered to be its horizontal location in relation to other aircraft and the ground.
    REASON: Although the scale of the aircraft models is 1/144, the ground (movement) scale has been calculated to be closer to 1/1000, so having the base peg represent the aircraft allows for more realism in determining issues such as mid-air collisions and whether aircraft are within firing range of each other.

    2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed.
    REASON: At close range, two cards are combined to determine damage because this simulates greater accuracy when shooting at a nearby target. Because it does not represent a greater number of shots being fired, the chance of jamming should remain the same as a long-range shot.

    3) RULE: All pilots are considered to automatically have the “Height Control” skill.
    REASON: Although aircraft had a maximum safe diving speed, it seems only logical that a pilot who wished to decrease his aircraft’s altitude less than its maximum could do so as needed.

    4) RULE: The “Immelmann” reverse maneuver does not affect an aircraft’s altitude.
    REASON: Contrary to popular misconceptions, in World War I the Immelmann maneuver was not a climbing half loop, but was instead what is known today as a “wingover”. The maneuver began with a steep climb causing the aircraft to almost slow to a stall, upon which the pilot applied full rudder to pivot the aircraft’s engine downward, followed by the aircraft diving back to its original height to regain speed.

    5) RULE: The “Split S” reverse maneuver allows a decrease in altitude as if a “dive” card had also been played.
    REASON: A diving half-loop reverse was a standard maneuver for many fighter aircraft during The Great War. The maneuver, however, did not require the pilot to engage in a perfect vertical circle, and instead allowed the aircraft to dive significantly if desired before the reversing loop was completed.

    …..

    FYI, I consider this to be a “living” list, in that I am very willing to make additions and/or modifications depending on feedback from other players. Therefore, PLEASE let me know what you think regarding anything in this post – not only the list of rules, but the list of criteria for the rules as well!

    I’d love to see if this could be a “sticky” in the House Rules section, to allow players to find it immediately and encourage discussion over time.

    Finally, I’d like to explain that I love Wings of Glory, and this list of rules is not in any way an indication that I dislike the set of rules published by Ares Games. However, I got to thinking about the idea of a set of generally accepted house rules while recently playing a popular American Civil War game which I enjoy. For that game, two very simple house rules have become so widely accepted among players that even the game’s creator has expressed his enjoyment of them, and I hope to contribute to the Wings of Glory community in the same way with this list.

    See you in the skies!
    Last edited by Eris Lobo; 11-08-2016 at 07:03.

  2. #2

    Default

    Bravo, Eris! We could fly against each other any time, and not be butting heads.

    On the other hand, you think like I do, and that may not be considered a compliment in some circles. Sorry.
    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

  3. #3

    Default

    6) RULE: A plane on fire plans moves without restriction. It doesn't need to avoid straights.
    REASON: This is the original WoW method of play. I have no idea why it was implemented in WoG, as the idea that straights are worse than turns is seriously flawed in that turns would keep flames from going over the cockpit. If a pilot executes a proper coordinated turn, the airstream would stay directly over the fuselage of the plane, and therefore over the cockpit. Turns, therefore, do nothing to prevent flames affecting the pilot. Yawing (using the rudder to turn the nose from side to side while maintaining travel in a given direction by drifting sideways) would help, but isn't well indicated with the current maneuver cards used in the game. Tailing would not be possible, as the pilot is busy dodging flames, not anticipating maneuvers of a plane in front of him. Putting a Stall maneuver in each turn could indicate that the plane is yawing a whole bunch, and results in a lose of forward airspeed.
    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

  4. #4

    Default

    I've always did the split-S so a plane looses climb counters equal to half it's climb rating rounding up. I like your idea to, maybe after the reverse card if play a straight you lose half your climb rate, if you use a dive you drop one altitude level. I never understood why a aircraft with worse climb performance could pull out of the split-S with less of a loss of altitude than a better climbing plane.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post

    2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed.
    REASON: At close range, two cards are combined to determine damage because this simulates greater accuracy when shooting at a nearby target. Because it does not represent a greater number of shots being fired, the chance of jamming should remain the same as a long-range shot.
    I used to think this rule makes sense, but decided the gun could jam at the end of the burst (second card) as easily as the first.
    Plus - it's a pain when the first card is a jam and the second does significant damage that would not count.


    I know the designers wanted to keep the game simple, but I think a second draw pile for gun jam would work better instead of including on a single card.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post
    I used to think this rule makes sense, but decided the gun could jam at the end of the burst (second card) as easily as the first.
    Plus - it's a pain when the first card is a jam and the second does significant damage that would not count.
    .
    I think you misunderstand. Gun jams only affect the attacker's future shots, and do not affect the damage caused during the phase in which the gun jammed.

    It doesn't matter which of the two damage cards in close-range combat is used to determine if the attacker's guns jammed. What's important is you choose ahead of time (before looking at the cards) which card to use, and only use that card to determine if a jam occurs.

    Also realize that the two damage cards inflicted during close-range combat occur simultaneously, so neither happens "first".
    Last edited by Eris Lobo; 11-06-2016 at 11:08.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    6) RULE: A plane on fire plans moves without restriction. It doesn't need to avoid straights.
    REASON: This is the original WoW method of play. I have no idea why it was implemented in WoG, as the idea that straights are worse than turns is seriously flawed in that turns would keep flames from going over the cockpit. If a pilot executes a proper coordinated turn, the airstream would stay directly over the fuselage of the plane, and therefore over the cockpit. Turns, therefore, do nothing to prevent flames affecting the pilot. Yawing (using the rudder to turn the nose from side to side while maintaining travel in a given direction by drifting sideways) would help, but isn't well indicated with the current maneuver cards used in the game. Tailing would not be possible, as the pilot is busy dodging flames, not anticipating maneuvers of a plane in front of him. Putting a Stall maneuver in each turn could indicate that the plane is yawing a whole bunch, and results in a lose of forward airspeed.
    You have a point, but a think a better house rule would be as follows:

    6) RULE: If a plane on fire plans at least one straight maneuver during a turn, an additional fire counter is added at the end of that turn.
    REASON: Verified accounts indicate that skilled WWI pilots sometimes had a chance of putting out fuel fires if they engaged in repeated sideslips and dives. Otherwise, the fire would often engulf the fragile canvas aircraft, destroying it and killing the pilot. Because a fire counter is resolved and removed at the beginning of each turn after the planning phase, adding a single fire counter simply keeps the fire going at the same level into the following turn.

    The subject of aircraft fires in WWI is actually more complicated that many people realize. Engine fires were relatively uncommon, and often if a fire occurred it would happen someplace else. Fuel could be splattering all over the aircraft in flight, and fires could ignite in places such as near the fuel lines or at the engine’s exhaust ports – neither of which were directly in front of the pilot. If your engine did actually catch fire, the best action was usually to drain all its fuel and dive to the ground in hopes of fanning out the flames and/or conducting an emergency landing – and either way, even if you did survive, you were out of the battle.
    Last edited by Eris Lobo; 11-07-2016 at 07:14.

  8. #8

    Smile

    Not to be a "Damp Rag" or "Wet Blanket" on this discussion but why mess with the Rules As Written?
    Its a Game chaps & the old KISS principle appeals to me.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Not to be a "Damp Rag" or "Wet Blanket" on this discussion but why mess with the Rules As Written?
    Its a Game chaps & the old KISS principle appeals to me.
    Why? Because of Rule Criteria B (listed above), each rule in this list "must improve the game in a specific way (such as by making it more historically accurate)."

    And as the other criteria state, the rules on this list must all make sense, be easy to remember, and not hinder game play. Therefore, the "KISS" principle has also definitely been incorporated into this rules list.

  10. #10

    Default

    FYI, the first post has been tweaked to add an overview summary and an additional rule to the list.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    6) RULE: A plane on fire plans moves without restriction. It doesn't need to avoid straights.
    REASON: This is the original WoW method of play. I have no idea why it was implemented in WoG, as the idea that straights are worse than turns is seriously flawed in that turns would keep flames from going over the cockpit. If a pilot executes a proper coordinated turn, the airstream would stay directly over the fuselage of the plane, and therefore over the cockpit. Turns, therefore, do nothing to prevent flames affecting the pilot. Yawing (using the rudder to turn the nose from side to side while maintaining travel in a given direction by drifting sideways) would help, but isn't well indicated with the current maneuver cards used in the game. Tailing would not be possible, as the pilot is busy dodging flames, not anticipating maneuvers of a plane in front of him. Putting a Stall maneuver in each turn could indicate that the plane is yawing a whole bunch, and results in a lose of forward airspeed.
    Personally I find the "no straights" rule to be ideal.
    It is one of the more subtle rule implementations, where even if the written word is perhaps not entirely accurate, the outcome of the rule is a good thing.


    If a burning plane is left free from the "no straights" restriction, then the pilot can completely ignore the Fire!
    He can split-S, Immel, charge straight at an enemy, joust; in effect, he can fly his plane exactly as though there was no on-board fire, ie as aggressively as he likes.
    The tracking of the fire, and any damage caused by it, is reduced to a mere bean-counting exercise.

    Contrast this with the implementation of the "no-straights" rule................
    He can't split-S or Immel; he can't "joust" with an Immeling opponent, but must employ turns instead; he can't rush straight at an enemy, but must approach with stalls and sideslips...............all in all, he is forced to fly his plane less aggressively, taking up a more defensive posture.
    He is forced to acknowledge the presence of the fire!

    If it irritates him enough, he can overdive to try to put the fire out, but the loss of altitude forces him out of the fight for a few turns, until he can climb back up; again, the fire has had a psychological effect.


    A most subtle, and effective, rule.

    That's why I won't replace it.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Personally I find the "no straights" rule to be ideal.
    It is one of the more subtle rule implementations, where even if the written word is perhaps not entirely accurate, the outcome of the rule is a good thing.


    If a burning plane is left free from the "no straights" restriction, then the pilot can completely ignore the Fire!
    He can split-S, Immel, charge straight at an enemy, joust; in effect, he can fly his plane exactly as though there was no on-board fire, ie as aggressively as he likes.
    The tracking of the fire, and any damage caused by it, is reduced to a mere bean-counting exercise.

    Contrast this with the implementation of the "no-straights" rule................
    He can't split-S or Immel; he can't "joust" with an Immeling opponent, but must employ turns instead; he can't rush straight at an enemy, but must approach with stalls and sideslips...............all in all, he is forced to fly his plane less aggressively, taking up a more defensive posture.
    He is forced to acknowledge the presence of the fire!

    If it irritates him enough, he can overdive to try to put the fire out, but the loss of altitude forces him out of the fight for a few turns, until he can climb back up; again, the fire has had a psychological effect.


    A most subtle, and effective, rule.

    That's why I won't replace it.
    I like the rationale in this (must have an effect on flying the plane), I don't like the restriction on straights as the way to deal with it. As I stated above, turns are just as bad for having flames in the pilot's face.

    Imposing a stall might indicate lots of yawing and minor side slipping. Using the side slip cards could negate the stall card, though. Now, we are drifting out of the "simple" criteria.
    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

  13. #13

    Default

    Hey! Didn't anybody read MY response to the "burning planes" rule idea? I feel soooo ignored!!!

    Seriously, I did address both the rule suggestion and the historical basis for requiring burning planes to flying curving maneuvers (as well as the fact that most fires were not engine fires).

    To me, a compromise makes the most sense -- a fire can only go out if the pilot desperately twists and turns the plane, so you can ignore the fire and fly straight -- but at your own peril!

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    Hey! Didn't anybody read MY response to the "burning planes" rule idea? I feel soooo ignored!!!

    Seriously, I did address both the rule suggestion and the historical basis for requiring burning planes to flying curving maneuvers (as well as the fact that most fires were not engine fires).

    To me, a compromise makes the most sense -- a fire can only go out if the pilot desperately twists and turns the plane, so you can ignore the fire and fly straight -- but at your own peril!
    Eris,
    Don't 'think' you were ignored: I did ignore your suggestion. I didn't like it, either. Turning doesn't help, straights are no worse. The mechanics using the maneuver cards don't give us an accurate way of dealing with this situation. That is why I tended to go with the original Wings of War rules. Adding more fire tokens is not the way to go.

    There was a house rule somewhere that the fire continues to burn if you are drawing numbered damage cards, and the fire would go out if you drew a zero on your last card. Otherwise, if there was damage, you kept burning. Nasty, but reflective of the situation.

    I still say that turns don't do anything for fire, any more than straights make it worse. I do like Tim's concept that something must affect flying the plane, though. I just can't stomach the straight restriction as the answer. Cause it doesn't make any sense, whatsoever, to me.

    PS: I think any sane individual would dive for the ground, attempting to get on the ground as soon as possible, if they were on fire. Overdives to put the fire out, notwithstanding. If we want realism, a plane is out of the fight, if the pilot is anything other than suicidal.
    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

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    FYI, the first post has been tweaked to add an overview summary and an additional rule to the list.
    Call me blind but I don't see the additional rule, just The Original Six*




    * That's an NHL Hockey reference

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I think any sane individual would dive for the ground, attempting to get on the ground as soon as possible, if they were on fire. Overdives to put the fire out, notwithstanding. If we want realism, a plane is out of the fight, if the pilot is anything other than suicidal.
    See, that's the real kicker -- in the very few verified accounts I've found in which a pilot survived a serious fire (and pretty much all of them were serious), they were able to make it ONLY because they were able to land before the fire engulfed the plane.

    If we really want to be realistic, then a fire damage is essentially a ticking time bomb -- to the point that, instead of the fire going out after three turns, the fire actually should cause the plane to explode (i.e., become a spiraling death coffin) after three turns. That would potentially allow a low-flying pilot to land his plane, but spell doom for the ones flying high.

    What do you think? If we want to change the rules to invoke greater realism, I think it's really the only way to go.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post
    Call me blind but I don't see the additional rule, just The Original Six*




    * That's an NHL Hockey reference
    There were originally only five rules in the list. The sixth rule (concerning how to handle planes on fire) is currently being debated.

    My home group has tested the first five rules numerous times, but the sixth rule isn't set in stone yet and (because of the controversy regarding it) may even be removed entirely from the list.

  18. #18

    Default

    I kind of like the idea that fire only goes out if you draw a 0 card, otherwise keep drawing an "A" damage until you land or explode.

    My OTT pilots might not like it, however ....


    (or how about just randomly shuffling your cards and playing the first 3 - the pilot is fighting for his life and not planning any kind of move unless he plans a dive or overdive)

  19. #19

    Default

    Eris, I must say I wish your rules were implemented in the so called RAP 2.0. They are realistic and do not make the game more complicated. Well done.
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  20. #20

    Default

    Rule 1 - peg to peg shooting - yep, I do that.
    Rule 2 - Close range jam - Don't do that, see what you're saying but it's a bit gamey and a jam goes un-played.
    Rule 3 - Height control I do that - probably the worst ace skill ever - one to fill the pack I feel.
    Rule 4 - No climb on Immel - Yep, I do that, most do once they know what the old Immelmann is (I'd say resembles a hammerhead - a wing over is very different)
    Rule 5 - Alt on a split S Yep, do that too on occasion to a limited degree - but don't treat it as a dive - play the dive card for that.
    Rule 6 - Fire rules. Why change ? - Tim nailed it perfectly & I have enough trouble remembering to do that !
    Last edited by flash; 11-08-2016 at 11:30.

    "He is wise who watches"

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    I think you misunderstand. Gun jams only affect the attacker's future shots, and do not affect the damage caused during the phase in which the gun jammed.

    It doesn't matter which of the two damage cards in close-range combat is used to determine if the attacker's guns jammed. What's important is you choose ahead of time (before looking at the cards) which card to use, and only use that card to determine if a jam occurs.

    Also realize that the two damage cards inflicted during close-range combat occur simultaneously, so neither happens "first".
    This is one of Zoe Brain's house rules I was introduced to at Wintercon. I have since adopted it - jams occur only on the first card drawn. So if you get a close range shot on your opponent they draw one card and check if it is a jam, then draw the second card taking damage but ignoring any jam icon.

  22. #22

    Default

    FYI, I updated the first post to remove Rule 6 (the rule regarding fire damage).

    I did this for one main reason : after mulling over historical precedents, I felt Rule 6 did not improve the game or add realism in a way that made clear, logical sense. The only way to make a fire more realistic, I believe, would be to make it much deadlier than it is in the existing rules, and most people seem to feel the existing rules regarding fires are fine as they are.

    Because of the variety of disagreements regarding whether and how to change the game's rules regarding burning aircraft, I think that issue might be better discussed in its own separate thread -- but if people want to keep discussing it here, that's okay, too.

    Cheers!

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    FYI, I updated the first post to remove Rule 6 (the rule regarding fire damage).

    I did this for one main reason : after mulling over historical precedents, I felt Rule 6 did not improve the game or add realism in a way that made clear, logical sense. The only way to make a fire more realistic, I believe, would be to make it much deadlier than it is in the existing rules, and most people seem to feel the existing rules regarding fires are fine as they are.

    Because of the variety of disagreements regarding whether and how to change the game's rules regarding burning aircraft, I think that issue might be better discussed in its own separate thread -- but if people want to keep discussing it here, that's okay, too.

    Cheers!
    I've toyed with the idea that special damage is treated individually, so you could have more than one fire! Nasty when you get a double gun jam too.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    ...The only way to make a fire more realistic, I believe, would be to make it much deadlier than it is in the existing rules...
    Agreed. I suppose if someone wanted to move that way they could take the 3 turns of damage then on subsequent turns keep drawing until they pull a zero which indicates the fire has gone out. Combines a rule with a house rule and may provide the extra edge they need.

    Rule 2
    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed.
    REASON: At close range, two cards are combined to determine damage because this simulates greater accuracy when shooting at a nearby target. Because it does not represent a greater number of shots being fired, the chance of jamming should remain the same as a long-range shot.
    "Because it does not represent a greater number of shots being fired"... Doesn't it ? It's an abstract game, maybe it does, maybe it's a combination of the two reasons given above.

    Some previous thoughts from others on rule 2 worthy of consideration:
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    I guess the biggest question you have to ask is this:
    How fair is it to the opponent that the negative special damage effects of that second card apply to him (all 6 of them), but the one negative you can get from it does not apply to you?
    While you may think of it as an accuracy thing, he may think of it as a burst thing. Not something I'd house rule as there is no definitive historical reasoning behind it beside personal opinion. That could be the very reason Andrea did not explain it in the rules.
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-jam-frequency

    Quote Originally Posted by diceslinger View Post
    Not to be a naysayer, but statistically you don't double your chance to draw a jam. You have about an 11.43% chance to draw a jam I believe (for A damage), and you simply get another 11.76% chance on the second card. There is a .33% increase since there is one less card in the deck. And when you consider there are only 2 jams with 0 damage in the A deck, you almost always get something for your pain, even if you jam. I believe the odds of getting one jam in two draws where the first card is not the jam are 10.416%, slightly less than your 11.43% chance on one draw.
    To put it in prespective you also get a second 2% chance to draw an explosion card, 2% for engine damage, 2% for pilot dead, 2% for fire and an 11% rudder jam. Would it be more fair to ignore all special damage on the second card?
    I guess I think about this question, "Would you not draw the second card to avoid the jam?" Not I. I'm playing a game of chance and the dice gods can't smile upon me if I don't roll the dice.
    With that being said, your rule would only affect the results 10.416% of the time and on both sides, so I would still be fine playing it. I don't see that it gives an unfair advantage, perhaps it favors faster planes that can get close more often, but I wouldn't think it would matter much.
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...o-Damage-Cards
    Last edited by flash; 11-08-2016 at 11:59.

    "He is wise who watches"

  25. #25

    Default

    Nobody's commented for a few days, which I think might be good, as it possibly means most people have said their piece about my rules list.

    Now then, regarding Rule 2 ... I see no reason to believe that a pilot shoots any more bullets at short range than at long range. No reason whatsoever.
    What makes the most sense to me is that the a number of bullets shot at short range would do much more damage that the same number fired at long range because of increased accuracy.

    Numerous ace pilots, such as Richthofen himself, specifically said that one of the primary reasons they racked up so many kills was because they waited until they were very close to an enemy plane before they made their shots. They spoke of accuracy, and never (to my knowledge) said they shot more bullets at close range than they did at long range.

    Therefore, there is no reason a pilot should be faced with double the chance of a jam at close range. Instead, the chance for a jam should be the same as at long range -- meaning only one card should be used to determine if a jam occurred.

    Also, it is perfectly fair that a target of a close-range attack should be subjected to all the effects of two cards -- both numerical damage and special damage. The attacker, being at close range, is firing much more accurately than at long range, and therefore is likely to do much more damage.

    Finally, regarding the statistical chances of a jam doubling, diceslinger seems to be splitting hairs, and is ignoring the point. He says that with one card, the chance for a jam is 11.43%, and for two cards, it's 11.43% + 11.76% (which equals 23.19%). Double 11.43% and you get 22.86%, which is only 33/10000th (0.33%) less than the chance of a jam with two cards. Therefore, diceslinger's own calculations show that the chance for a jam with two cards is effectively twice the chance for a jam with one card -- which really doesn't seem to matter, as the whole point is that the chance for a jam at short range should be the same as the chance for a jam at close range.

    To me, Rule 2 makes perfect sense both intuitively and mathematically, so I'm keeping it as is in the list.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    Nobody's commented for a few days, which I think might be good, as it possibly means most people have said their piece about my rules list.

    Now then, regarding Rule 2 ... I see no reason to believe that a pilot shoots any more bullets at short range than at long range. No reason whatsoever.
    What makes the most sense to me is that the a number of bullets shot at short range would do much more damage that the same number fired at long range because of increased accuracy.

    Numerous ace pilots, such as Richthofen himself, specifically said that one of the primary reasons they racked up so many kills was because they waited until they were very close to an enemy plane before they made their shots. They spoke of accuracy, and never (to my knowledge) said they shot more bullets at close range than they did at long range.

    Therefore, there is no reason a pilot should be faced with double the chance of a jam at close range. Instead, the chance for a jam should be the same as at long range -- meaning only one card should be used to determine if a jam occurred.

    Also, it is perfectly fair that a target of a close-range attack should be subjected to all the effects of two cards -- both numerical damage and special damage. The attacker, being at close range, is firing much more accurately than at long range, and therefore is likely to do much more damage.

    Finally, regarding the statistical chances of a jam doubling, diceslinger seems to be splitting hairs, and is ignoring the point. He says that with one card, the chance for a jam is 11.43%, and for two cards, it's 11.43% + 11.76% (which equals 23.19%). Double 11.43% and you get 22.86%, which is only 33/10000th (0.33%) less than the chance of a jam with two cards. Therefore, diceslinger's own calculations show that the chance for a jam with two cards is effectively twice the chance for a jam with one card -- which really doesn't seem to matter, as the whole point is that the chance for a jam at short range should be the same as the chance for a jam at close range.

    To me, Rule 2 makes perfect sense both intuitively and mathematically, so I'm keeping it as is in the list.
    I have only been playing this house rule since July and it makes sense to me as well. The way Zoe demonstrated the process is when firing at close range you pick the first card, hand it to the opponent and ask "Am I jammed?" The opponent answers "Yes" or 'No", showing the jammed symbol if present but concealing the numerical damage value. You then select the second damage card and give it to the opponent. For this one jam symbols don't count but damage points take effect.

  27. #27

    Default

    Well, we are going to have to work on the fire rule, but for the jam rule, I think the idea is sound.

    Some that house rule ammo restrictions hand out damage cards equal to a specific plane's ammo load at the beginning of a game. The cards are not examined, just placed beside their console/cockpit. When a shot is taken, the firing player gives one of the cards to the target player. If the shot is at close range, an additional card from a communal deck is given. When a player runs out of damage cards, the ammo load is exhausted, and the player is out of bullets. For added difficulty, players declare shots before measuring. If the target is in range, damage is handled normally. If the target is out of range, the firing player shuffles one of his ammo cards into the communal deck, indicating that ammo is expended (wasted).

    If using this type of game mechanic, and Rule 2 above, the player ammo load card is the only card that jams. The communal card only counts for any other special damage, if any is indicated. And, yes, this means a jam is ignored.

    Just an aside, but if playing with Ace Skill cards, and using Strong Constitution, or Lucky Pilot, and a player ignores a pilot wound, what are the chances he will draw another? And if another player has already drawn the only other wound card (no longer secret damage in WGF), does that mean the two players will never get a second, fatal, wound? This throws the odds completely off, does it not?
    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

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    ..Just an aside, but if playing with Ace Skill cards, and using Strong Constitution, or Lucky Pilot, and a player ignores a pilot wound, what are the chances he will draw another?
    That will depend on how many damage decks you play with won't it ?

    "He is wise who watches"

  29. #29

    Default

    For those that study this, how often were pilots able to put these fires out once they started in the air

  30. #30

    Default

    Whilst I use some house rules myself, at shows it is by the book unless it is forum members only and we use Chris (Hedeby's) excellent fuel and limited ammo rules. That said House Rules are what they say House Rules. You either love em or hate em, you use em or you dont. Personal choice and whatever floats your boat.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Whilst I use some house rules myself, at shows it is by the book unless it is forum members only and we use Chris (Hedeby's) excellent fuel and limited ammo rules. That said House Rules are what they say House Rules. You either love em or hate em, you use em or you dont. Personal choice and whatever floats your boat.
    I agree Neil, for public games I use RAW (rules as written), otherwise it can cause confusion.

    Save the extras for the home games, or on agreement with the regular crowd

  32. #32


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Grey
    Location
    Maryland
    Sorties Flown
    31
    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default

    I'm quite fond of a house rule I saw in a video - if you're playing on teams, you can only use hand signals to communicate game info with your fellow pilot(s)

    of course chit-chat is ok. I always loved this rule for its historical accuracy (and humor!)

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gr3yh47 View Post
    I'm quite fond of a house rule I saw in a video - if you're playing on teams, you can only use hand signals to communicate game info with your fellow pilot(s)

    of course chit-chat is ok. I always loved this rule for its historical accuracy (and humor!)
    I, also, use the house rule that players may only communicate using simple (hopefully non-offensive) hand signals

    For what it's worth

    1) RULE: For all intents and purposes, an aircraft’s base peg is considered to be its horizontal location in relation to other aircraft and the ground.
    I use peg over base to determine if a collision has occurred but I measure firing from the base as it increases the opportunities of firing.

    2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed.
    Good idea but I'm too lazy to keep track.

    3) RULE: All pilots are considered to automatically have the “Height Control” skill.
    I do this as it makes height more strategic.

  34. #34

    Default

    I am very keen on simple easy to follow rules. Definitely not fond of having to refer to different rule sections repeatedly just to play. That is why I usually favor the rules are they are presented. Some of these seems fairly simple and easily implemented.

    THE LIST – Version 1.0

    1) RULE: For all intents and purposes, an aircraft’s base peg is considered to be its horizontal location in relation to other aircraft and the ground.
    I'm not sure how I feel about this. I wouldn't mind it so much for collisions but there is an easy to use additional 6 card collision deck that works too which I might prefer.

    2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed.
    I do like this

    3) RULE: All pilots are considered to automatically have the “Height Control” skill.
    I can see that it does make sense

    4) RULE: The “Immelmann” reverse maneuver does not affect an aircraft’s altitude.
    I can see that it does make sense as well

    5) RULE: The “Split S” reverse maneuver allows a decrease in altitude as if a “dive” card had also been played.
    We are pushing the easy to remember the more rules as add, but this does make sense too.


    If I may I would like to suggest one that, as I've been reading, seems quite common. When a pilot is within three (3), five (5) for rookies or heavy bombers, or less remaining damage they must retreat. The pilot is not allowed to initiate combat or climb with the exception the pilot may return fire if the target is in their arc. The pilot should make their way by the most direct route to their side of the map allowing the avoidance of enemy fire, both ground and air. The observer in a two-seater or gunners in bombers may fire as usual.

    I'm not sure about the no climb thing, what are your thoughts?
    Last edited by Ken at Sunrise; 03-07-2017 at 10:25.

  35. #35

    Bunnyman's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Mike
    Location
    California
    Sorties Flown
    43
    Join Date
    Mar 2023

    Default

    I just discovered this interesting thread. I will look it over, consider the ideas, and most surely comment.

    Mike G.



Similar Missions

  1. Altitude vs Performance - simple rules
    By Zoe Brain in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-27-2015, 11:34
  2. Utra-simple altitude rules
    By Zoe Brain in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-21-2013, 08:38
  3. Simple Wind Rules
    By somaliavet in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 08:48
  4. Simple Tournament Rules
    By Marechallannes in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2011, 04:11
  5. Simple Aviation Rules and Reminders
    By Horse4261 in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 14:36

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
  •