PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ON 'HOUSE RULES' AND THE REALISM LEVEL OF THE GAME

[usmc1855]

Regarding 'Realism' in the game. There are several other Miniature rule sets for WWI airplanes out there which have exceptional levels of realism built into them, but with almost all of them, I have found that the trade off on playability and fun are too excessive. In my humble opinion the WoW rules (as written) offer a very good balance between playability and realism, while keeping the pace of game play very fast, and the enjoyment level very high. The rules are rather simple, and from the participation on this and other forums, proving to be very popular. There have been several discussions about home made making changes to the rules to increase realism in the game, or to provide 'Balance' between different types of aircraft.

Me? I'm not absolutely against 'House rules' and have even added a post in the discussion regarding 'Fires', however..... I'd caution trying to introduce too many house rules to increase the level of realism because such changes are likely to decrease the playability and enjoyment level of the game.

How do others feel?

[kaufschtick]

Regarding 'Realism' in the game. There are several other Miniature rule sets for WWI airplanes out there which have exceptional levels of realism built into them, but with almost all of them, I have found that the trade off on playability and fun are too excessive. In my humble opinion the WoW rules (as written) offer a very good balance between playability and realism, while keeping the pace of game play very fast, and the enjoyment level very high.

Yes, I would agree with the above statement. The only extra rule I'm considering is an "ammo" rule.

The rules are rather simple, and from the participation on this and other forums, proving to be very popular. There have been several discussions about home made making changes to the rules to increase realism in the game, or to provide 'Balance' between different types of aircraft.

Me? I'm not absolutely against 'House rules' and have even added a post in the discussion regarding 'Fires', however..... I'd caution trying to introduce too many house rules to increase the level of realism because such changes are likely to decrease the playability and enjoyment level of the game.

How do others feel?

Hmm. I think I'm right with you on this. There is a fair amount of detail represented in this game, and some of it winds up being quite "seemless" to the players.

One of the key aspects I like about the game is the flight characteristics of the planes and the decisions the players have to make. When you get right down to it, on the WWII planes especially, there isn't a great deal of difference in the manuever decks. The differences that do exist are very subtle.

Players are faced with aircraft that are able to do basically the same things. The seemingly insignificant differences in the manuever decks can be deceptive at a casual examination, and are really very important.

A lot of the games I've played are kinda like a wrestling match, where you have two opponents grappling with one another, and constantly looking for an opening or oportunity to take advantage of in order to gain the upper hand and a victory.

It is so funny how the games often times wind up mirroring the way the actual pilots describe actual dogfights from the History Channel's series DogFights. A mistke made here, or one planes strength that happens to come at just the right time against another planes weakness.

The game reminds me of checkers, in a funny way. It is so simple and basic, but a good player can notch wins consistantly by following some of the very rules the actual pilots endorse.

The Dicta Boelcke consists of the following 8 rules:

1.Try to secure the upper hand before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you
2.Always continue with an attack you have begun
3.Only fire at close range, and then only when the opponent is properly in your sights (this is where an "ammo" rule would be nice)
4.You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses
5.In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind
6.If your opponent dives on you, do not try to get around his attack, but fly to meet it
7.When over the enemy's lines, never forget your own line of retreat
8.Tip for Squadrons: In principle, it is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent

Believe it or not, some of the priciples stated here actually apply to success in this game too!

And that is one of the things I dig about this game, that it has been able to "capture" that feel of air to air combat, where the machines are on fairly equal terms in many instances, and it is the pilots who determine victory.

[Oberst Hajj]

As you guys know, I've written up several house rules to make a good, solid campaign set. The rule I set for my self when writing these as: Keep it as simple and true to the core rules as possible. If you read the KotA book, you will actually notice that most of it is just clarification on what should be done in certain situations. About the only game changing rules I've added are the guns for the balloons and limited ammo. Every thing else is for pilot development and missions.

The golden rule with most things in life: KISS Keep It Simple Stupid

[usmc1855]

I have used the KoTA campaign rules, and enjoy them. The few 'House Rules' introduced there in are almost transparent, integrate well with the published rules, and help further the Campaign emphasis of the game play.

[rkhlegacy]

I think the K.I.S.S. method is the way to go too. I find myself playing the game most often with my wife, who happens to love the game. We have developed some house rules that seem to add a new level of realisim to the game without bogging it down.

Some of our house rules are similar to the KotA rules, which I'm in the process of reading so we can give those a try.

When I play with my brother and his kids, we stick to the core rules of the game for simplicity. Either way works for me, I'm just happy when the opportunity for a game presents itself.

[aarondpjames]

The K.I.S.S method and keeping it as close to the original game, is the way ahead.

The only house rules my group use is for the DOW campain thats been uploaded in the files section, and that was because the WW2 game had not progressed that far at the time.

[Setarius]

Oh to be in a position to have a group you can play with and come up with House rules.

From what house rules I have seen on here and other sites, so far I like the limited amount of ammunition. I am going to try to go to Owensboro, KY on the 10th and play some against Davot and his group and might offer a suggestion for just such a rule to test its future usage. One of the rules I liked when playing Dawn Patrol, or was it in Dogfight, it's been so long since I have played either I am not sure, was whether you used a long, medium, or short burst. This cost 3,2,1 points of ammo usage and the long burst had a tendency to overheat your guns if used too many times consecutively and would cause a jam.
House rules have their place and can be used as long as they do not impact the overall playability of any game. And they should be discussed thoroughly before playing.

[usmc1855]

The theme of 'playability' appears to be a common concern when developing house rules.

I like the idea of limited ammunition, but to date we haven't had that many situations were any of the planes were engaged long enough, or had enough multiple targets that unlimited ammunition was a factor.

If we were to have a situation with a very large number of planes in the air, where it would be possible to bring an enemy into your firing arc at almost every other maneuver sequence, then limiting the ammunition might be a factor. In a campaign game I can really appreciate the purpose of imposing limited ammunition as it would force the pilot to consider not only his immediate threat, but also saving ammunition to survive the return flight after your immediate objectives had been achieved. For limited ammunition, I like the rules in KoTA that Kieth developed.

[WilliamBarkerVC]

The theme of 'playability' appears to be a common concern when developing house rules.

I like the idea of limited ammunition, but to date we haven't had that many situations were any of the planes were engaged long enough, or had enough multiple targets that unlimited ammunition was a factor.

If we were to have a situation with a very large number of planes in the air, where it would be possible to bring an enemy into your firing arc at almost every other maneuver sequence, then limiting the ammunition might be a factor. In a campaign game I can really appreciate the purpose of imposing limited ammunition as it would force the pilot to consider not only his immediate threat, but also saving ammunition to survive the return flight after your immediate objectives had been achieved. For limited ammunition, I like the rules in KoTA that Kieth developed.

This is where I stand. Our games are over fast enough that the ammo rule, whilst appearing very good, hasn't been important enough for anyone to complain.

So far we play RAW - Rules As Written. This game is just about perfect "as is". Not too many games that you can say that about, is there?

[SHVAK]

I find that the limited ammo rules generally only come into play when firing Lewis guns - when you need to change the 97 round magazine.

[Desaix]

For me I it all comes down to the results achieved...
Like the majority I want to keep the game simple and fast paced... But I also want it to have has much historical chrome a possible for the simplest rules possible, it is the ratio that matters for me...

So if by having a house rules increasing complexity by 5% I gain 30% of historical chrome, I go for it...
In general I can live with the game gaining around 20% complexity and I think that we can probably increase historical flavor by a good 80% or more...

Many house rules like the one discusses on the fire will make the game faster (burning more), simpler (no more burn counters) and more historic. Definitely a keeper for me.
My rules on damages also make the game 20% to 30% faster and more historical by the same amount as well with a 0% increase of rules...

So for me it mostly comes down to complexity increase versus results obtained...

[Hjortfot]

This is where I stand. Our games are over fast enough that the ammo rule, whilst appearing very good, hasn't been important enough for anyone to complain.

So far we play RAW - Rules As Written. This game is just about perfect "as is". Not too many games that you can say that about, is there?

Same here we play it RAW, we like it as it is, simple and fast playing. We haven´t put in so much houserules yet and there is nothing we have discussed to change, the only thing we "don´t like" is that you sometimes forget your hidden damage, pilot, engine, rodder damage,(there we use desaix houserule for damage rodder, superb..." might be that I am a rookie to the game 9 matches, it change me and my friends life so much that sofar we play every tuesday night.

I also like the idea about limited ammo but our games is over before that 10 ammo counter, we play hard and dead on.

Over and out.

[nachinus]

I use quite a lot of house rules (not only in this game, but in almost everything I play), both added to original rules and/or substituting or modifying them. Mostly to add realistic feeling to the way different planes work. The idea is to make that the RL tactics and advantages/disadvantages of each plane are reflected in the game, so you 'fly' the planes close to how they were historically. BUT a golden rule that I always use for all the games I modify is that no matter how complex calculations or complications are behind each rule or process you are, it must not take (significantly) more time than the original stuff. Games in general, and this one in particular, are best when things flow rapidly.

[Charlie3]

Personally I think the mark of a good game is the fact that players like it so much they want to make it even better. In general I have found that changes in a system unballance something else in the game, however everyone needs to play the game the way they enjoy it. Me, I did make some adjustments, and our group has changed some things back to the printed rules because we just want to have some fun. To each his own!

[KirkH]

To me there's no "perfect" game out there so I modify things as I see fit to make them as enjoyable for me as possible. Any wargame balances reality and playability and in my eyes there's no problem with adding some rules that add color to a game. As an example, I don't like the fact in WoW there are planes with non-historical armament aren't penalized in any way. My son and I play and he asks me why every Fokker EIV didn't have three MG's. My answer is to add maneuverability penalties to provide the reason why every plane of that type didn't have that many guns.

[brasidas]

Sertarius Wrote:

One of the rules I liked when playing Dawn Patrol, or was it in Dogfight, it's been so long since I have played either I am not sure, was whether you used a long, medium, or short burst. This cost 3,2,1 points of ammo usage and the long burst had a tendency to overheat your guns if used too many times consecutively and would cause a jam.

It may be in the games you named, but that sounds like Blue max too.

I like the idea of limited ammo, but I looked at quite a few planes and they pretty much seemed to have about the same amount.

I think deflection was very important (hence the quote about always firing from directly behind).

[Pooh]

We don't use any homerules where we game although there are a few I might like to try. On the yahoo site, one player introduced chandelles and (whatever the diving turn is called). I'd like to try adding those manouvers and see how it affects play.

In DoW, I think that the limited fuel rule has much the same effect as limited ammo. The planes are so hard to line up on with only 2 rounds per turn that we are finding that even the most adept player only gets a small number of shots before fuel forces them to turn for home.

In our last game, 3 spits vs. 3 109s; 1 spit was shot down, 1 109 went down in a collision (2 109s were trying to jump the same spitfire), 1 damaged spifire broke for home before the 2 remaining 109s had to break off. One of the 109s almost didn't make it back as he was trying to catch the damaged spitfire and almost overstretched his fuel. One more turn would have seen him ditching in the channel.

Fuel usage brings up another feature of the game that can be used as a tactic. Lure to dogfight to your side of the table then tie the other guy up in a dogfight. He'll have to break off first which gives you a shot. Or he might not be watching his fuel carefully enough which causes him to go down anyway.

Pooh

[Oberst Hajj]

Pooh, have you guys been tracking how many turns you can play with X amount of fuel in a plane? It would be useful for missions to have a good table of turns per fuel amount used I think.

[Pooh]

Col.

In the game i mentioned all aircraft started with 40 fuel. All aircraft burned 1 fuel at low speed, 2 at high speed as per the rules. As we were playing on a blue game mat, we said we were over the channel. We kept track of fuel by using 2 D20. We used altitude rules straight from the rules with all aircraft starting at altitude 4. No one went above altitude 5 or below 3 during the game. The game lasted just under 2 hours with 6 people.
Everyone felt that 40 fuel worked out just about right for the senario we were playing. I wouldn't want a fighter to have much less fuel unless you wanted to really restrict his freedom of movement. 20 fuel, for example, would allow a fighter to come on the board, make a couple of high speed passes, then depart.

Pooh

[Oberst Hajj]

Thanks for the info. 2 hours for a 6 play game seems like a long time compared to the games we've had around here.

[KirkH]

Lure to dogfight to your side of the table then tie the other guy up in a dogfight. He'll have to break off first which gives you a shot.

That can be a really realistic rule if you're playing a scenario/battle where that was an issue such as in the Battle of Britain where the Bf-109's had very limited loiter time.

[Pooh]

Col.

That 2 hours (I believe we started at about 7:30 pm and finished up by 9:30) includes much telling of bad jokes, singing of songs (usually badly) and consumption of several bottles of wine. Our style of play can be described as Liesurely.

It is not much different from a WW1 game when we don't use fuel.

Pooh

[Doug]

I with my sons basicly play the game as it is, although we have about 6 house rules. I don't like to modify things to much as the rules are very good so why fix something if it is not broken. Perry one of the house rules we have is for upper wing Lewis guns, you can fire them for 3 turns, then you have to reload, this is done with one jamed counters, but only for the Lewis gun all other guns can fire.