WWI Altitude Rules Questions

[Dwarflord22]

I have been a very casual gamer with very little time for gaming since I started playing WOW/WOG several years ago. I typically have only played with the Basic and Standard Rules for ease of play since I didn't play much and didn't have a regular group of players to play with.

Now that things have changed for the better this year, I am now consistently playing at least once every 4-6 weeks and have several players who are regularly joining my gaming sessions, we plan to add in the altitude rules. After my review of the WWI altitude rules, I would appreciate assistance with a few questions!

Assuming we are playing with the standard (4-peg) WWI altitude rules.

Q: What is the maximum number of climb counters that can be gained in one three card turn?
A: One climb counter per turn (via climb card or Immelmann Turn). The Immelmann Turn can not be executed in the same turn as a climb per the official Ares WGF FAQ (for Page 15 of the Rules and Accessories Pack Rulebook).

Q: What is the maximum number of climb counters or pegs (to decrease "altitude") in one three card turn?
A: One per turn. A Split-S can not be executed the same turn as a dive (per Page 15 of the Rules and Accessories Pack Rulebook). A dive card decreases altitude by one peg and removes all climb counters. A Split-S removes a climb counter or may decrease altitude (if executed with no climb counters).

Q: What happens when an Immelmann Turn is executed when a plane is already at maximum altitude (i.e. 4 pegs, not playing with Flying Higher Optional Rule)?
A: Nothing. I am NOT a fan of "house rules", but it seems this hasn't been addressed in the rules. My recommendation is that the Immelmann Turn may be executed, but without adding a climb counter. The rulebook states that a Split-S executed at Altitude 1 with no climib counters, it crashes to the ground and is eliminated (per Page 15 of the Rules and Accessories Pack Rulebook).

[Teaticket]

I'll put in an attempt...

1st question you have correct.

2nd question, a split-S drops you one climb counter. Say you are in a plane that takes 3 climbs to reach a new level and are flying at level 3 with no climb counters When you perform a split-S you would drop one counter to level 2 with 2 climb counters.
The dive removes all climb counters and one level.

3rd question, this is a fuzzy one. As level 4 is 4 pegs and one less climb counter than it takes to get to level 5 you could play it that way, or nothing over level 4 with no climb counters. An Immelmann into a restricted elevation would be an illegal maneuver, so that would have you replace the illegal maneuver with a straight and take one 'A' damage card.

[Dwarflord22]

Thanks for the response Peter! I understand your explanation for #2. I also like your Basic Rules illegal maneuver penalty idea for the Immelmann at maximum atitude (4-peg rules) for #3 (vs. no penalty).

I'll put in an attempt...

1st question you have correct.

2nd question, a split-S drops you one climb counter. Say you are in a plane that takes 3 climbs to reach a new level and are flying at level 3 with no climb counters When you perform a split-S you would drop one counter to level 2 with 2 climb counters.
The dive removes all climb counters and one level.

3rd question, this is a fuzzy one. As level 4 is 4 pegs and one less climb counter than it takes to get to level 5 you could play it that way, or nothing over level 4 with no climb counters. An Immelmann into a restricted elevation would be an illegal maneuver, so that would have you replace the illegal maneuver with a straight and take one 'A' damage card.

[Naharaht]

Question 1) You are correct. A plane cannot gain more than 1 climb counter in a 3 card turn.

Question 2) If you use the Overdive rule (page 15) by playing Stall, Dive, Straight, a plane can lose 2 pegs plus any extra climb counters in one turn.

Question 3) There is a discussion in another thread about whether a plane can be at level 4 and have extra climb counters, as long as the number of extra climb counters is less than the number required to reach the next level.

Look at http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-Immelman-Turn

Some Ace skills may modify the above.

[Dwarflord22]

David,

Thanks for pointing out the Overdive rule!

Question 1) You are correct. A plane cannot gain more than 1 climb counter in a 3 card turn.

Question 2) If you use the Overdive rule (page 15) by playing Stall, Dive, Straight, a plane can lose 2 pegs plus any extra climb counters in one turn.

Question 3) There is a discussion in another thread about whether a plane can be at level 4 and have extra climb counters, as long as the number of extra climb counters is less than the number required to reach the next level.

Look at http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-Immelman-Turn

Some Ace skills may modify the above.

[flash]

...Q: What happens when an Immelmann Turn is executed when a plane is already at maximum altitude (i.e. 4 pegs, not playing with Flying Higher Optional Rule)? A: Nothing. I am NOT a fan of "house rules", but it seems this hasn't been addressed in the rules...

The only way it is addressed is in relation to the climb card following the climbing example on p.15:
"A climb cannot be planned if it would bring the airplane to an altitude greater than 4"
As the Immelmann in the game causes it to climb you can say you can't plan one and if you do it's an illegal manoeuvre and follow Peter's example.

Alternatively -
The historic Immel is actually different from the modern version represented by the game.
Unlike the modern version which is an upward half loop that gains altitude it starts and finishes on the same level and is much more like what is called a hammerhead turn:

There is still an element of climbing in that so you may not want to allow it still.
It is argued that machines, particularly earlier models, were unable or would struggle to perform a half loop & roll out at the top, I'm inclined to believe that as Immelmann was flying Eindeckers at the time.
The immel subject can be a can of worms so I suggest you go with what you think will work best for you & your chaps.

[kengelma]

Someone on BGG interpreted altitude changes this way: My interpretation is that you play the UP card which kicks the plane's nose upward, and place the UP marker on your control card. Then you play non-steep maneuver cards until the total cards played equal the climb rate for the plane. When you reach your desired altitude, you remove the climb marker from your control card to resume level flight. The DIVE card represents a nose down roller coaster drop! so you go down FAST. Using this system makes the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker DR1 Triplane really nasty to fight because they can go up one alt. level in one Game Turn. (Up card-Maneuver card-Maneuver card) which puts them almost instantly at long range or out of range completely! and on the next turn they can dive right onto your tail.

It doesn't sound like that is your interpretation. Have you ever played it that way? Does it sound reasonable? That way of doing altitude would make me more likely to use altitude rules because things move along more quickly instead of lumbering up over many turns.

[Flying Helmut]

"Lumbering up over many turns" is MUCH more realistic!

The climb rates of these fragile planes were really slow, in the order of half an hour to reach "operational" height in many cases.

Allowing rapid climb seriously devalues altitude; if it is too easy to gain height, then you can throw it away willy-nilly whenever you like, knowing that you can quickly and easily regain it.

The advantages to be gained by flying higher than your enemy should be hard to get, and precious.

[kengelma]

Thank you for the feedback!

[Flying Helmut]

That's just my opinion, of course.

John Tuffley, who invented the "Full Thrust" starship combat game, put it best:

You have paid for the game, it's yours now; play the rules how you want, make any changes you like and don't let anyone tell you you're "doing it wrong"!

[kengelma]

That's just my opinion, of course.

John Tuffley, who invented the "Full Thrust" starship combat game, put it best:

You have paid for the game, it's yours now; play the rules how you want, make any changes you like and don't let anyone tell you you're "doing it wrong"!

Agreed, but I appreciate your input. :-)

[flash]

Someone on BGG interpreted altitude changes this way: My interpretation is that you play the UP card which kicks the plane's nose upward, and place the UP marker on your control card. Then you play non-steep maneuver cards until the total cards played equal the climb rate for the plane. When you reach your desired altitude, you remove the climb marker from your control card to resume level flight. The DIVE card represents a nose down roller coaster drop! so you go down FAST. Using this system makes the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker DR1 Triplane really nasty to fight because they can go up one alt. level in one Game Turn. (Up card-Maneuver card-Maneuver card) which puts them almost instantly at long range or out of range completely! and on the next turn they can dive right onto your tail.

It doesn't sound like that is your interpretation. Have you ever played it that way? Does it sound reasonable? That way of doing altitude would make me more likely to use altitude rules because things move along more quickly instead of lumbering up over many turns.

Never heard of that way of playing it Kaarin though it sounds like it may work OK and produce a more dynamic use of altitude, however, I would disregard the shooting rules associated with the WoG altitude rules and substitute something else as it just doesn't fit the more dynamic rule. If you wanted to have a half range stick firing rule make it where there is a clear level of altitude between the aircraft, at least that may make the fast climbers less overwhelming.
The Camel has a climb rate of 3 now so it's not as good as the Dr.1. ( Climb Rates and Maximum Altitude Table http://www.aresgames.eu/12022 )

[kengelma]

Never heard of that way of playing it Kaarin though it sounds like it may work OK and produce a more dynamic use of altitude, however, I would disregard the shooting rules associated with the WoG altitude rules and substitute something else as it just doesn't fit the more dynamic rule. If you wanted to have a half range stick firing rule make it where there is a clear level of altitude between the aircraft, at least that may make the fast climbers less overwhelming.
The Camel has a climb rate of 3 now so it's not as good as the Dr.1. ( Climb Rates and Maximum Altitude Table http://www.aresgames.eu/12022 )

I had never heard of it either. It was an interesting different interpretation, though when I reread the rules and reviewed the discussions, I could tell that it was not a standard interpretation. I certainly think that it would still be necessary to measure based on a clear level of altitude between the planes--just like when using the standard rule.

The more I contemplate, the more I think I've rarely played with altitude rules for various reasons--often because I am teaching new people.

At the moment I'm just trying to decide if it is worth trying the simplified climb rules :-)

[flash]

..... At the moment I'm just trying to decide if it is worth trying the simplified climb rules :-)

It's always worth trying, several forum members have written their own alt rules and use them regularly, me included. Take a look in the files section under WW1 house rules.

[Flying Helmut]

Playing with altitude greatly enhances the game, in my opinion, but it severely restricts the opportunties for shooting. A pure dogfight will last MUCH longer; a 4 vs 4 at Doncaster in 2014 run by me lasted over 3 hours!

For this reason, I tailor my scenarios involving altitude to include a specific "success" level: ie, a strafing scenario REQUIRES flying at one or two pegs height at most; or a bomber intercept, where the bombers' altitude level attracts both interceptors and escorts.

Thus most of my Participation Game scenarios at Conventions, involving new players, are played without altitude rules

[kengelma]

For our game, we played with the following: Climbing will be performed differently than described in the rules. Playing a climb card adds one climb marker. The plane changes altitude (adds a peg) when the pilot has finished playing the number of non-steep maneuver cards indicated in the plane’s climb rate (e.g., 5 cards for a Morane-Saulnier Type N). Add one climb marker for each non-steep card played. If you play a steep card, you must play another climb maneuver to add a climb marker again.

We didn't really see a lot of altitude changes, but there were some, and a few times it affected whether or not shots could happen or line of sight was open.

I think I will try it again. I will add that if you choose to not continue climbing--and, thus, don't take a climb marker when you play a non-steep card, you need to play another climb maneuver to start climbing again.

[zenlizard]

For our game, we played with the following: Climbing will be performed differently than described in the rules. Playing a climb card adds one climb marker. The plane changes altitude (adds a peg) when the pilot has finished playing the number of non-steep maneuver cards indicated in the plane’s climb rate (e.g., 5 cards for a Morane-Saulnier Type N). Add one climb marker for each non-steep card played. If you play a steep card, you must play another climb maneuver to add a climb marker again.

We didn't really see a lot of altitude changes, but there were some, and a few times it affected whether or not shots could happen or line of sight was open.

As I was playing that game, I was also contemplating the original altitude/climb rules vs the change in question. Overall it seemed to be a better option, with one weakness: if there was a gap in the sequence of gaining a climb maker (i. e., a player played a non-steep maneuver card, but opted out of the climb maker), it was fairly trivial to resume at any later point. Modifying the rule thusly:

I will add that if you choose to not continue climbing--and, thus, don't take a climb marker when you play a non-steep card, you need to play another climb maneuver to start climbing again.

seems to me a better answer.

[kengelma]

I did not change it during the game, because I had ruled the other way at the beginning, and I wanted to be consistent. However, after thinking about it, I realized that the change had to be made for the future.

[Von Warren]

This seems like a better system which I will give a try. The lumbering up may be more realistic but its a lot of counting markers. you are correct the dr1 is always at massive disadvantage using the existing altitude rules, yet from what ive read it was a very good machine for its moment in time with it's amazing climb rate being its ace in a hole.

[Teaticket]

My simple attempt to make altitude more playable is to have the climb card give you 1 or 2 climb counters (your choice). An Immelmann can be 0 or 1 climb counter, Spilt-S is lose 1 climb counter. I like letting you gain 2 on a climb so it doesn't take forever to get back to altitude after someone has done a dive.

I have it easy as I don't use counters or pegs so there is less fiddling with those pieces.

Another way to climb and drop easier are the counters available in the Aerodrome Store. 'HERE' They allow you to add or subtract counters on normal cards played. Going slow you can gain 1 counter, going fast you could lose 1 counter.

[Karo7]

Hi, I want to give the altitude rules a try. Therefore I will use the dials in the file section to keep the tracking of the altitude comfortable.

Which rule don you recommend?: Standard or Flying Higher? The second one sounds more to my taste.

Why are there no dives for curves? I can understand, that a curve isn't effective for gaining hight, but no curve on a dive?

[Karo7]

Hi, I want to give the altitude rules a try. Therefore I will use the dials in the file section to keep the tracking of the altitude comfortable.

Which rule don you recommend?: Standard or Flying Higher? The second one sounds more to my taste.

Why are there no dives for curves? I can understand, that a curve isn't effective for gaining hight, but no curve on a dive?

[flash]

When the game was conceived it was a two dimensional game played with cards and altitude was not part of it. When the models came along and it became a 3 dimensional game there became a need to add in altitude to it, so, the altitude rules were bolted on. Altitude cards as we know them were added to the box sets and to the card decks with the models.
To add altitude cards for all manoeuvres would have doubled or tripled the deck size as well as the cost so they decided to give us what we got which is limited to say the least. It's worth looking at the alternate house rules, you may find something you like better.

[Von Warren]

This is a variation we play.
Climbing Rates - Before playing a climb card you must have played at least the same number of non-stress cards as are listed in the climb rate chart for that aircraft. eg. A Fokker Dr1 would need to play 2 non stress cards before playing a climb card. A Nieuport 11/16 would need to have played 5 non stress cards before playing a climb card and another 5 non stress cards before playing a climb card again. As soon as you play that climb card you have pulled back on the stick and are up one level. This system is is dead simple but easy to use and feels like real combat with altitude changes.

[Von Warren]

well said, many people forget it did start as a 2D game that you played on the kitchen table.

[Karo7]

This is a variation we play.
Climbing Rates - Before playing a climb card you must have played at least the same number of non-stress cards as are listed in the climb rate chart for that aircraft. eg. A Fokker Dr1 would need to play 2 non stress cards before playing a climb card. A Nieuport 11/16 would need to have played 5 non stress cards before playing a climb card and another 5 non stress cards before playing a climb card again. As soon as you play that climb card you have pulled back on the stick and are up one level. This system is is dead simple but easy to use and feels like real combat with altitude changes.

I guess "non stress cards" are non steep maneuvers? I like the idea, but remembering the number of cards in a row without stress cards seems not simple to me.

[Karo7]

well said, many people forget it did start as a 2D game that you played on the kitchen table.

Indeed! And the altitude rules really seems like hastily "boltet on". They just don't share the same elegance of the standard rules.

[Karo7]

I think I will add an additional left/right turn dive card with a slightly shorter arrow and furthermore a very short left/right turn raise (steep). Maybe the D.VII gets the second one as a non steep maneuver.

I've also thought about a more comfortable, but cheap to produce way to change the actual altitude of the model. Instead of pegs there could be two parts: a pipe with four integrated recesses and a stick with a "hook" to fix the stick in the altitude recesses (similar to the "technology" behind a ballpoint pen). So the altitude could be easily changed by slightly turning the stick/plane while moving the stick/plane up-/downwards in the pipe. Another slightly turn and the new altitude is fixed again.