Ares Games
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Playing Wings of Glory the Harold Wood way...

  1. #1

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Playing Wings of Glory the Harold Wood way...

    For some time now I have been wrestling with my major objection to Wings of War and Wings of Glory, namely the 'guessing game' element of choosing cards and trying to get your aircraft into the correct attacking position. Inevitably this gives two-seaters a certain advantage they did not enjoy in real life as their arc of fire is always greater than a fighter's restricted front gun arc.

    Going back in history, let me explain that at the former Romford Wargames Club and its successor, the Harold Wood Wargamers, both in the London Borough of Havering, we played a similar style of game from the early 1970s and well into the 1980s. In our version 1/72 scale Airfix and Revell kits were assembled with a narrow slot in the two fuselage sides which matched the width of a piece of Meccano strip. Pieces of Meccano strip were then fastened to wooden bases and created a vertical metal strip of about 20 holes in height which neatly matched the 20,000 feet or so of combat altitude in WW1. A matchstick could be inserted into any hole and the model slid down until it sat on that stick. Therefore an aircraft in Meccano hole 10 was at 10,000 feet. Each aircraft type had a climb and dive rate matched to known or suspected performance; if it dived two levels we took out the matchstick and moved it down two holes. We used cardboard turning circles (size A [small] to size G [large]) matched to each aircraft's wing loading in pounds per square foot of known wing area. Percentage dice were used for obtaining hits. If a hit was achieved, you then diced for each area of the target; engine, crew members (each), fuel tank, wings, tail. We used the same system as Wings of Glory for points as the aircraft weight in pounds was divided by 100 gave us the points value. A 1,300 pound aeroplane like a Nieuport was 13 pts. When all points were lost it broke up. Aircraft could also crash if the pilot was killed, an uncontrollable fire was started, etc. But wing and tail hits also increased your turning circle. Engine hits could reduce speed or climb. Leaking fuel this turn increased the chances of fire if the fuel tank was hit again on later move.

    Now all this was fine and it worked very well. What I objected to - at that time - was writing down the next move in advance and having to guess where the enemy would be. In real war one can steer towards a constantly moving target. The guessing game element in the rules also somewhat mitigated against the tighter turning aircraft as they often could not use a tight turn to throw off a fast but wider turning attacker. Instead he simply guessed where you would be and flew straight there.

    After a couple of years I developed a set of rule adaptions which allowed each pilot to 'fly' his or her aeroplane on to a target and also penalised aircraft which were at lower altitude and benefitted aircraft which were higher. In other words - real height advantage, another thing which I think is missed in Wings of Glory as we play it today. We also ended up with some very hairy multiple tail chases!

    THE HAROLD WOOD SYSTEM:

    Take two packs of normal playing cards with differing backs. Choose different backs as this makes it simpler to separate them again if you ever want to play Poker, Whist or five-card Brag.

    From pack one take all the cards from 1 to 6, that's 24 in all, plus the two Jokers. Discard the rest.
    From pack two take all the cards from 1 to 4, that's 16 in all. Discard the rest.

    Shuffle all cards into one big pack which clearly favours 1 to 4 but which has outliers of 5, 6 plus the two Jokers.

    During play deal one playing card card to every aircraft in play each move. That is each THREE card move. The cardboard dashboard is no longer used except to place played cards face-up upon and thus keep track of what you have just done. Add the current height level peg of your aeroplane to the playing card it was just dealt. The aeroplane with the lowest overall score has to move first. It plays one movement card from the aircraft deck of the player's choice, then the next highest aeroplane moves one movement card and so on. When all aircraft on the table have moved one card the firing is completed, as normal. Keeping the playing cards in place, the second movement card is played by all aircraft in the same numerical sequence (lowest to highest) and firing is completed again. Finally the third movement card is played and so on.

    At the end of 'three movement cards' all the playing cards are collected up, put on a discard pile and a second move takes place using new cards dealt one to each aircraft in play. One playing card to each aircraft in play and then three movement cards in turn to complete the second move. Simply repeat this process. When the playing cards run out shuffle the discard pile.

    Modifiers: yes there ARE modifiers
    +1 to any aircraft which is within the tail arc and gun range of another aircraft and has declared it is trying to tail. The target must be within the potential tailer's front gun arc and range. Rear guns do not count.

    +1 to aces who have 5 kills or more

    - 1 to rookie pilots on their first mission or game

    If the Joker card is drawn then that aircraft automatically moves last INCLUDING moving after all those aircraft which are currently much higher than him/her. In other words the Joker aeroplane has either been hiding under a cloud or, more probably, no-one can currently see him or her. They are simply looking somewhere else or this juicy target is lost beneath their lower wing.

    In the event of two aeroplanes achieving the same adjusted score, any aeroplane with a red card moves AFTER a black card. If they still draw on the adjusted numbers and colours the two pilots must choose and play their movement card simultaneously, keeping their choices hidden until they are revealed and played.

    Example:
    An RE8 and an Albatros DV are alone on the table. The RE8 is at level 3, the Albo is at level 5. The RE8 draws '3' while the Albo draws '5'. Adjusted for height this is 6 and 10 so the RE8 must move first and the Albo moves second for the three movement cards following, attacking the RE8. During this the Albo dived to 4 and is in the RE8's tail arc.
    Move 2. Both aircraft draw 1. The RE8 is now on '4' but the Albo is '5' - height 4 plus tailing 1. The RE8 must move first again.
    Move 3. The damaged RE8 draws 5 which means its adjusted score is '8' but the Albo draws '1'. Plus height 4 and +1 for tailing, the Albo must move first. The RE8 may attempt to evade either by diving or playing a stall turn card on moves 1 and 3 to make the Albo overshoot it.

    Of course if this was a Fokker Dri and a Spad XIII then the whole move 3 would see the Spad in trouble as the Dr1 could quickly snap to its right and attempt to attack the passing Spad. Clearly this will favour manoeuvrable aircraft which may lose out otherwise. It certainly favours height advantage,

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 08-07-2018 at 13:46. Reason: correction

  2. #2

    Default

    Love using the kits like that. I never would have thought of using model kits like that. Tabletop gamers are such a fun bunch.

    Interesting idea, if a little fiddly. I'm not too much of a fan of drawing yet more cards if it can be avoided (also table real-estate becomes a problem...). The Tailing rules in WoG sort of address this, but I agree that it's a bit too random. If I'm in a single-seater and end up tailing a 2-seater on card 1, and planned a turn and an opposite turn for my next two cards, it's almost guaranteed that I'm going to turn away from him on card 3, which simply would not happen unless intentional.

    I wonder if a more simple approach might be (assuming tailing on card 1), re-arrange the remaining two cards as per the rules, then if still tailing on card 2, pick any non-steep card from your deck for card 3 regardless of what you played. This would make it very difficult to shake someone who set up a good tail.

    For altitude advantage I always felt the most eloquent way to deal with it is a plane gets to immediately play an additional card after an overdive, so they play 4 cards in a turn instead of 3.

    You can really gimp 2-seaters by using blindspot rules. Very cool if playing with altitude where it means you really want to attack them from below.

  3. #3

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalnaren View Post
    Love using the kits like that. I never would have thought of using model kits like that. Tabletop gamers are such a fun bunch.

    Interesting idea, if a little fiddly. I'm not too much of a fan of drawing yet more cards if it can be avoided (also table real-estate becomes a problem...). The Tailing rules in WoG sort of address this, but I agree that it's a bit too random. If I'm in a single-seater and end up tailing a 2-seater on card 1, and planned a turn and an opposite turn for my next two cards, it's almost guaranteed that I'm going to turn away from him on card 3, which simply would not happen unless intentional.

    I wonder if a more simple approach might be (assuming tailing on card 1), re-arrange the remaining two cards as per the rules, then if still tailing on card 2, pick any non-steep card from your deck for card 3 regardless of what you played. This would make it very difficult to shake someone who set up a good tail.

    For altitude advantage I always felt the most eloquent way to deal with it is a plane gets to immediately play an additional card after an overdive, so they play 4 cards in a turn instead of 3.

    You can really gimp 2-seaters by using blindspot rules. Very cool if playing with altitude where it means you really want to attack them from below.
    I am not sure where the 'fiddly' bit comes in as I have test played it so far using a standard playing card and it plays quick and efficient. I am considering cutting the standard cards in half with a guillotine to use just half the card area or else exchanging the playing card for a numbered chip or die which shows its current calculated 'initiative number'.

  4. #4

    Default

    I've had similar feelings but my solution was my "one card" variant.Players select a single card rather than 3, when a card is played it is left on the aircraft mat and a new card is selected for the next phase. When this card is played it is also left on the mat and a new card selected. When that 3rd card is played it is placed on the mat and the first card is removed and placed back in the aircraft deck. Thus there are three cards out of selection through the game, its easy to keep abs on damage effects that last a number of phases, or turns as in the RAW, and effects such as jammed rudders can be implemented immediately. We've played this quite a few times now and it really does feel like a dogfight - especially when you include a strict time limit on card selection. It has the added bonus of not needing the tailing rules.

  5. #5

    Default

    Sounds like a nice solution to create a hybrid game Barry though what DM said occurred to me as I was reading it - if you play the one card game you can get a similar result, though you react to a movement in your next phase rather than the same one it's still quick simultaneous play.
    I place the used manoeuvre cards onto the cockpit so as to track game turns, jamage & damage etc. It produces a lively, more reactive game.

    Rather than cutting your playing cards in half - keep an eye out for those mini card decks, they're about the same size as the decks we use. I have a pack in my go box.

    Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"

  6. #6

    Default

    Your games in Romford, Barry, sound similar to one I played in just before Christmas last year using some rules called 'Dogfight over Flanders'. We were give 1/72 scale models attached to large crocodile clips, which we moved up and down medals rods marked into segments to indicate altitude. Movement was by large template pieces. Different planes had different radius turns. It took up the entire hall. I cannot remember how movement order was determined. I do not think that we used playing cards, though.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Sounds like a nice solution to create a hybrid game Barry though what DM said occurred to me as I was reading it - if you play the one card game you can get a similar result, though you react to a movement in your next phase rather than the same one it's still quick simultaneous play.
    I place the used manoeuvre cards onto the cockpit so as to track game turns, jamage & damage etc. It produces a lively, more reactive game.
    I am going to give this a go and see how it works out Dave.
    I like the idea.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  8. #8

    Default

    Barry, you wrote that in Wings of Glory the number of damage points was the aircraft's weight in pounds divided by 100. That may be true for the lighter aircraft but not for the heavier ones. For example an Albatros D.III weighed about 2000 pounds, yet it only has 14 damage points, a SPAD XIII weighed 1888 pounds but only has 16 damage points, so there must be other factors to take into account beyond the weight.

  9. #9

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Barry, you wrote that in Wings of Glory the number of damage points was the aircraft's weight in pounds divided by 100. That may be true for the lighter aircraft but not for the heavier ones. For example an Albatros D.III weighed about 2000 pounds, yet it only has 14 damage points, a SPAD XIII weighed 1888 pounds but only has 16 damage points, so there must be other factors to take into account beyond the weight.
    Yes they do seem to wander off with the heaver aircraft.

  10. #10

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I am going to give this a go and see how it works out Dave.
    I like the idea.
    Rob.
    Player feed-back is welcomed on this idea.

    Barry

  11. #11

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Your games in Romford, Barry, sound similar to one I played in just before Christmas last year using some rules called 'Dogfight over Flanders'. We were give 1/72 scale models attached to large crocodile clips, which we moved up and down medals rods marked into segments to indicate altitude. Movement was by large template pieces. Different planes had different radius turns. It took up the entire hall. I cannot remember how movement order was determined. I do not think that we used playing cards, though.
    We did one version with 1/72 models, another club did a similar one. There was some friendly dispute between clubs over who was first with the idea.

    We later scaled up to WW2 using three-foot dowels measured in inches and even went to 1/32 on six-foot dowels. We used the latter size at exhibition games at the Rochford Present Arms (Southend) wargame shows. I am still (yippee!) the top scoring undefeated North Korean ace (6 F-81 Sabres and 1 F-80 Shooting Star) and I was the top scoring Hurricane ace (7 kills again) in Battle of Britain games until I unfortunately half-looped upwards to get behind an oncoming Bf 110. He had cut his speed without my knowledge and I, instead, pulled up right in front of the Bf110 and its battery of six guns. My aircraft exploded in flames and I was unable to get my cockpit canopy open when I tried to bail out. I had three chances on a diminishing scale and I failed everyone!

    Barry

  12. #12

    Default

    Liking the sound of this.

    I've already committed games to my next show but will try it out at Fall In in November. For there I can submit a 'modified' Wings game so not to spring it on unsuspecting players.

  13. #13

    Default

    I have lot's of fond memories of "planes on a stick", AKA Mustangs and Messerschmitts. The game was published in the 80s, and had a WW1/SCW variant that I found not as good.
    I wouldn't mind testing the HW method; the 1 card method lacks a initiative determination, but would go faster and with less "props".
    I don't like the automatic increase to initiative that altitude gives you, esp. if you are several levels higher (not that you can effect things quickly up there).
    Ideally initiative gives the advantage to those with a better ability to react to the opponents moves, either being behind (tailing rule) or being more skilled.
    With HW, you can easily have a situation where the higher plane is in front of the lower one, and gets to move second, even if the lower one has the reactive advantage.
    Being higher in air combat was important for energy and speed advantage, not necessarily to be able to react better to an opponents actions.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  14. #14

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    The general point the Harold Wood method addresses is: "He who is highest controls the battle", a point recognised by the Dicta Boelke and later by Mick Mannock whose approach was summed up by one author as: "Never from below, seldom from the same level, always from above."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke

    Height is convertible into speed, Higher speed (at least in pre-jet combat) could often only be achieved quickly from above. Simply hitting the throttle in level flight could see a long lag from cruise before max speed was achieved.

    The card system we created at Harold Wood essentially looks at the advantages created by height and position as well as issues of individual pilot's abilities to see and understand what was happening around them.

    Since adapting HW to this game I have also tinkered with a +1 for tailing at close range but a +2 at long range (i.e. above half the range stick). This is because - at longer range - the tailing pilot has a greater time to react to subtle movements while, at shorter range, any feint moves by the target could be successful in throwing off the attacker.

    If any player thinks that adding one point PER HEIGHT LEVEL is too much than a simple +1 for 'above' and +2 for being more than 2 above might suffice.

    Again, testing and player feed back is invited.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I have lot's of fond memories of "planes on a stick", AKA Mustangs and Messerschmitts. The game was published in the 80s, and had a WW1/SCW variant that I found not as good.
    I wouldn't mind testing the HW method; the 1 card method lacks a initiative determination, but would go faster and with less "props".
    I don't like the automatic increase to initiative that altitude gives you, esp. if you are several levels higher (not that you can effect things quickly up there).
    Ideally initiative gives the advantage to those with a better ability to react to the opponents moves, either being behind (tailing rule) or being more skilled.
    With HW, you can easily have a situation where the higher plane is in front of the lower one, and gets to move second, even if the lower one has the reactive advantage.
    Being higher in air combat was important for energy and speed advantage, not necessarily to be able to react better to an opponents actions.
    Karl
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 08-21-2018 at 08:03. Reason: clarifications

  15. #15

    Default

    We played a game last night at the Cowards wargames club using 1/72 scale models on metal stands and rules w called 'Break, Break, Break' written by one of the club members. The aircraft were Oxford diecast models. Each round the team to move first was determined by dice roll, chosen by the team with the higher score. The number of movement phases each plane had was determined by its 'energy', which went up or down according to manoeuvres performed. Faster planes had a higher maximum energy. Allowing your plane to exceed its maximum energy or letting your energy fall to zero had dire consequences. The energy at the end of one round was carried forward into the next round. Movement was governed by a cardboard template, the same one for all planes. Moves were selected on a joystick card on the base of the stand. The dice on the card showed the energy available the number of moves left that round and modifications to the energy because of manoeuvres.

    Stukas
    Name:  DSC02022.jpg
Views: 271
Size:  136.2 KB
    Me 109E's
    Name:  DSC02023.jpg
Views: 265
Size:  120.8 KB
    The target an M-Class destroyer.
    Name:  DSC02026.jpg
Views: 253
Size:  139.1 KB
    Using a movement template. Turns can be up to 30 degrees per movement followed by a straight, although you can perform a Turn-Straight-Turn as a move for an energy penalty. All moves involve straight movement the length of the template, except for vertical climbs or dives. Turning climbs and dives are possible.
    Name:  DSC02029.jpg
Views: 262
Size:  101.8 KB

    Name:  DSC02041.jpg
Views: 269
Size:  113.7 KB

    Fixed guns shoot straight forward within the confines of lines parallel to the base. Damage is by contested dice rolls. Getting into a firing position was difficult as was doing damage. In two whole games we have not had a plane shot down, although some have been damaged.

    The energy system and the joystick cards are interesting features but I missed some planes having tighter turns than others, stalls and the firing arcs, which make it easier to hit the target. Also I am not supple these days and I do not like crawling on the floor, although clearly the game could be scaled down to play on a tabletop.
    Last edited by Naharaht; 09-07-2018 at 21:21.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    ...I am not supple these days and I do not like crawling on the floor...
    Very interesting David, though I have to agree this is what puts me off too !
    Perhaps they can number the machines and put the pilot boards on a control table and affix the measures & accoutrements to sticks so you can use them standing up !
    They also need to fix the shooting by the sound of it. Maybe they should ditch the opposed roll...?

    Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"

  17. #17

    Default

    Well, that is a bit better than M&M, with the wheeled dollies, you need a tight napped carpet for the wheels to roll.
    Sure looks like you can rig the measures with a stick......hmmm ideas
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  18. #18

    Default

    I interesting and well thought out the way of changing the order of play.

    Thanks of sharing

  19. #19

    Default

    Really interesting, David.

    I think I am with you and Dave on all points - especially the crawling around bit ...

  20. #20

    Default

    I did not mention yesterday that gameplay is much slower than Wings of Glory. Firing can take place after each movement.

  21. #21

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    snipped for brevity
    Good to see old habits die hard. This is how the old Harold Wood club played many of our later games. For 633 Squadron and The Bridges of Toko-Ri we had the club floor gridded in numbered squares with a page of 'random numbers' from a maths book used to determine where the flak was bursting this turn. The aircraft were 1/72 scale on three-foot poles marked off in inches. Both games became popular annual fixtures.

  22. #22

    Horse4261's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Troy
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Sorties Flown
    135
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default

    Interesting idea but way to complex for my tastes. Much prefer the system from the Check Your 6! game.

    Aircrew Skills: The Aircrew Skill affects Checks, Weapons Fire, Weapon Jams and other aspects in the game.

    There are four types of associated skill modifiers:

    Ace: +3 Skill Checks (Elite and Combat proven aircrews)

    Veteran: +2 Skill checks (Very experienced and highly trained aircrews)

    Skilled: +1 Skill checks (Aircrews with professional training but little combat experience)

    Green: +0 Skill checks (Aircrews with average to minimal training and limited combat experience)



    Aircrew Checks: A check is required to avoid becoming Out of Control (two steep maneuvers in a row), for Over Dive recovery, for Engine and Control damages, to avoid collisions, to survive crash and forced landings and other events.

    To perform an Aircrew Check, roll 2d6 (or card draws) - on a modified total of 8 or higher the check is passed. Add the Aircrew Skill to checks and potential other modifiers. Aircrews in damaged aircraft always subtracts -1 from all Checks.



    Move Order Groups

    1st: Out of Control aircraft, then All Bombers and finally Green Aircrews

    2nd: Skilled Aircrews

    3rd: Veteran Aircrews

    4th: Ace aircrews

    Aircraft of at least ONE altitude levels higher have a Move Order advantage. These aircraft may use Pilot Reactions to alter their movement order and execute their maneuvers as if they were ONE group higher in the Move Order if their Aircrew Rating is higher than the lower altitude target's Aircrew Rating.



    Pilot Reactions

    Skilled, Veteran and Ace aircrews may change their plotted maneuvers.

    Changing Heading: Skilled Aircrews may replace ONE turn maneuver card left or right. Veteran and Ace Aircrews may change TWO turn maneuver cards left or right.

    Special Maneuvers: Pilot Reactions may NOT be used to change into or out of Special Multi-card maneuvers.

    Altitude Changes: Veteran and Ace Aircrews may change their Altitude to Climb or Dive if they have plotted a level maneuver. They may NOT change heading if changing Altitude.



Similar Missions

  1. Playing Wings of War/Glory the Harold Wood Wargamers way
    By 'Warspite' in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2016, 00:51
  2. Role Playing in Wings of Glory
    By Naharaht in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-18-2016, 10:01
  3. Playing Wings of Glory (a review/commentary of sorts)
    By Flashman in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-2013, 20:53
  4. My wife and I playing Wings of Glory (ROUND 2)
    By billingspike in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-19-2012, 02:41
  5. My wife and I playing Wings of Glory Rd. 1
    By billingspike in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 18:19

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
  •