Another scenario: Realistic Formations

[Diamondback]

Another one I've been WAGging up for the LDGE's amusement, that I thought might have potential for development.

PLAYERS: No limits, except for one plane per player; only one of each "named pilot" (which means, for Udet either D.Va or D.VII but not both). Players will divide into Allies and Central Powers teams, and each team will break into two-player flights. Any flight containing a bomber MUST have a fighter as its other plane.
MAP: Anywhere from 36x36" to 48"x48", or whatever both teams agree on.
OBJECTIVE: Teams will agree on target types (balloons, ground targets, aircraft or combination thereof; game ends when either all targets or all of one team's aircraft are eliminated. "Bomber Busting" is probably easiest, "Balloon Burning" is probably hardest, "skysweeping" and ground-targets somewhere in between.
TARGET LOCATIONS: The quarters of the map's length closest to each player's map edge.
WINNER: Highest-scoring individual flight on the winning team where both members survive. Side bets between flight members are encouraged, to incentivize realistic tactics over points-grabbing gamesmanship--such as, the one who lets the other get KO'ed has to buy the cold ones, or any other "disincentive to lose your wingman" a flight may agree upon.

Anything need clarification? Any larger groups up for being guinea pigs?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Sounds like a bit of good fun to me Diamondback old chap. The objective choices give scope for variety which can result in no sorties ever being quite the same, even if played several times. The disincentive idea for protecting your wingman is a sheer gem, and will stop what I call "The Albert Ball effect." Would it be feasible for each side to select a different option from each other, and not be told what the others real objective was? For instance, the Allies elect to place a balloon on the Central Powers' side of the field, but are really on a photographic recon or trench straffing sortie.
Rob.

[Diamondback]

Oops, need to clarify--the targets you place are on your own side (making defense easier, trying to "Keep It Real" as the street-slang goes). Good idea about "hidden agendas"--I was thinking of adapting the "Mission" cards a boardmate wrote for War at Sea, but the problem was coming up with "Failovers" for if the specified target isn't deployed. No matter what, though, both teams must deploy at least some trenches--would say, three (every quarter) or seven (every eighth) spread evenly across the "front line" work?

Also, I'm thinking of possibly adding on-map airfields, where pilots can land and repair at risk of becoming "Ground Targets", and adding a "Level Airfield" objective option...

[MayorJim]

Hmmm...I like the "hidden" objectives part...think I's add some AA or MGs to spice it up as well. Again, they could be "hidden" e.g. a side (or both) gets 3 down cards...only 2 are the real deal...they aren't revealed until the enemy passes in range...just a thought?

[Diamondback]

Possible... especially if it's a "Whack Artillery or Moving Infantry" mission. I'll try to work up a set of possible Mission cards overnight and post 'em tomorrow--and thinking something like "draw 1 card for every 2 flights".

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Hi Chaps.
When doing balloon missions, or bombing, we allways conceal AA. and add some dummy targets unless a sucessful photo recon has taken place earlier. The guns are only revealed when planed fly within what the defender considers to be within range. No prior measuring allowed. It's great when you are looking for enemy tanks and find an AA battery instead. Oops!
The idea of being able to place objects such as an enemy balloon in their half of the board is so that they are confused as to the real mission. Are you after the balloon, their airfield or the local chemical factory? Stops them concentrating all aircraft in one place. Fog of war and all that stuff.
Rob.

[Charlie3]

Hi Chaps.
When doing balloon missions, or bombing, we allways conceal AA. and add some dummy targets unless a sucessful photo recon has taken place earlier. The guns are only revealed when planed fly within what the defender considers to be within range. No prior measuring allowed. It's great when you are looking for enemy tanks and find an AA battery instead. Oops!
The idea of being able to place objects such as an enemy balloon in their half of the board is so that they are confused as to the real mission. Are you after the balloon, their airfield or the local chemical factory? Stops them concentrating all aircraft in one place. Fog of war and all that stuff.
Rob.

Some of my favorite games have been these secret mission games. We allow the attackers to secretly select a target, then include that target in a stack of 3 or 4 others and allow the defenders to place them on the table face down. The attackers must first identify by flying over. Some times you get lucky and find it right away. You're right this keeps everyone on their toes because the attackers don't know where things are and must stay focused, and the defenders are'nt sure where you are going so have to keep spread out. Anonther nice addition is entry from a random board edge for the attacking flight.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Sounds like my kind of game Charlie. i have downloaded the tanks and field guns etc, from the files so that we can have even more variety in what is turned over. As I have said in a previous thread, random flack over no mans land on the way in and out, keeps them bobing and weaving. There is nothing to beat a sortie that completes it's mission and thinks it is home free just to be shot down over the trenches on its way home.
Rob.

[MayorJim]

... There is nothing to beat a sortie that completes it's mission and thinks it is home free just to be shot down over the trenches on its way home.
Rob.

Ooooh Rob...you ARE the evil one ;-0....but I really liked Charlie's idea in post #7...will have to try a variation of that to keep the games interesting...

[Diamondback]

Good point, FO Kyte--maybe each team places a certain amount of "goals" in each "end zone"?

Here's what I've come up with so far for some sample missions--you'll note that almost all have a "failover" back to the basic pair, and are paired as opposed objectives, so it could come up that your objective is directly counter to your opponent's rather than just "accomplish yours while preventing them from doing theirs, and revealing the card when you complete the objective.

SKYSWEEPER: Destroy all enemy aircraft; claim one Objective for each two destroyed.
PRESERVE FORCES: Enemy must not destroy more than 10% of your deployed aircraft; claim one Objective for each two aircraft remaining at end of game.

LEVEL AIRFIELD: Destroy airfield (how do we determine this, though?) and all aircraft landed on airfield. If enemy does not place an airfield, revert to Skysweeper mission.
DEFEND AIRFIELD: Prevent enemy from destroying your airfield. If enemy does not attempt to attack airfield, revert to Preserve Forces.

BURN DRACHEN: Destroy enemy balloon; if enemy deploys multiple balloons, claim one Objective for each. If enemy deploys no balloons, revert to Skysweeper.
PROTECT DRACHEN: Prevent enemy from destroying your balloons; claim one Objective for each remaining at game end.

BOMBER BUSTER: Destroy enemy bombers, claim one Objective for each shot down. If enemy deploys no bombers, revert to Skysweeper.
BOMBER ESCORT: Protect your bombers; claim one Objective for each that successfully lands at your airbase or exits your map-edge.

STRAFING RUN: Knock out three trenches. Claim one Objective for each trench knocked out.
AIR SUPPORT: Prevent destruction of three trenches by strafing. Claim one Objective for each surviving trench.

These are just a start, they're adapted from something a boardmate hatched for War at Sea that he in turn adapted from the old Seastrike game.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Ooooh Rob...you ARE the evil one ;-0....but I really liked Charlie's idea in post #7...will have to try a variation of that to keep the games interesting...

I was once called something similar by an Ofsted Inspector. Couldn't understand what he meant. That idea 7 of Charlie's is spot on. Everyone seems to have some great developing ideas. Keep them coming chaps.
Rob.