Precisely this.Originally Posted by predhead
Not just SPADs; whatever plane you are flying, play to your strengths, and don't allow the enemy to exploit his advantages.
Don't fight your enemy's battle - fight yours!
Precisely this.
Not just SPADs; whatever plane you are flying, play to your strengths, and don't allow the enemy to exploit his advantages.
Don't fight your enemy's battle - fight yours!
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Surely that's no different from all other planes and their decks?
I'd like EVERY plane I fly to be able to fly slower to gain sharper turns!!!
But you can't change any one deck, because of the inevitable knock-on effect on every other deck in the game.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Ah, yes...
But you can't apply data at any altitude level to any other levels.
Conventionally aspirated in-line engines perform much better than rotaries at higher altitudes, but worse at lower levels.
The Pfalz D.III is acknowledged as FASTER than the Sopwith Camel at "combat altitudes", but the superior speed of the Camel at sea level fed into its getting a better speed deck than the Pfalz in the Wings game.
The over-compressed BMW engine in the Fokker D.VIIF outperformed the SPAD XIII significantly at high altitudes; but German pilots were forbidden from engaging the over-compression at low levels because of potential to burn off oil and damage the engine in thicker air!
A simple game like Wings has to smooth over multiple performance differences at different altitudes in order to have just a single deck for each model.
I hate the way the Pfalz D.III/D,IIIa has been treated by Wings, but I don't seek to change the card deck - I just try to fly it better than my opponents.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Indeed ! And I didn't realized it until now.
I've never found any with particular praise for it, either!
Of course he did - the later Nieuports were regarded as unstable and fragile, and the robust SPAD was just about the only alternative made available to the US air service.Rickenbacker, for example, praises the Spad as he recounted his combat experiences, and those of other pilots.
Not easy to do - his autobiography is widely regarded as exceptionally egotistical and self-promoting; even the title is misleading.....if a reader is to trust what Rickenbacker writes.
"Fighting the Flying Circus", when it is highly likely that Rickenbacker never actually faced Jagdgeshwader I (they were never deployed opposite each other). His assertion in the book that every brightly-coloured plane he faced (and inevitably defeated!) was one of "Richthofen's Boys" is far-fetched to say the least.
There's no doubt at all that he was a highly skilled pilot, and a good shot - but he was also a skilled story teller/embellisher as well.
I don't know of any which lauded it, either.Apart from this, I don't recall any German pilot memoir that is critical if the Spad's ability to dogfight.
The Germans captured several SPADs, and flew a few of them in combat, but quickly discarded them (in contrast to the Nieuport 11, 16 and 17 scouts they captured in 1916/1917, and used to destruction).
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
At which altitudes is the Spad XIII known irl to be the worst turner of the WWI planes ?
Isn't the arrow of the turn of deck A the longest and the least tight mainly because the arrow of its straight maneuver card is the longest?
WoG is a great game with great rules. Can't we discuss them to understand them, etc. ?
Thx for the 'get good' tip
I don't know of any which lauded it, either.
The Germans captured several SPADs, and flew a few of them in combat, but quickly discarded them (in contrast to the Nieuport 11, 16 and 17 scouts they captured in 1916/1917, and used to destruction).
In his memoirs Jagdflieger im Feuer (Fliers under Fire), German pilot Kurt Jentsch describes his testing of a captured Spad in 1918 at a time when he flew Albatros. He doesn’t specify the model of Spad though (VII or XIII). However, the two models aren't so different that his assessment would be that different. Here is the translation from Jasta Boelcke: The History of Jasta 2, 1916–1918 by Norman Franks :
The Spad XIII, a bad plane ? Come on...The Spad sat in the air wonderfully and responded to the slightest touch of the controls. In addition, the engine ran without knocking because of its fine ‘V’ form. This is why these craft sit quietly in the air, there is not any swinging back and forth as with our aircraft, which is caused by the type of construction of the stationary German motors. Material does not play a role with the allied enemy states, as the entire world is open to them for obtaining raw and industrial material. With such a foundation, one can bring out the very best performance in aircraft construction.
In wing performance, the Spad towers over our aircrafts. The loops and banks (or is it 'barrel rolls'?) flown by me confirmed my assumptions in the end. A light went on in my head, why the first attack by a Spad is always so dangerous: they can hardly miss with the smooth conditions of the aircraft and the marvelous field of fire. Our combat pilots at the controls of their Spads would virtually mean the end of the enemy air forces.
Landing was, beyond my expectations, good. As a result of the landing skid which stands vertically, I had to make a landing by wheel. The Spad requires a comparatively long taxi; however the Chambry airfield offered no difficulties in this regard.
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-01-2023 at 10:43.
The sideslips are longer, too!
Several decks exhibit this phenomenon, but the 'A' deck is the most marked.
When I fly a SPAD X.III (rare!) I use sideslips to approach a target, or to run from a pursuer, because I gain extra distance at no cost.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Interesting quote - many thanks for posting it!
I'm not surprised that the SPAD won the comparison with the 1918 Albatros; the Germans were fed up with it, and constantly agitated for replacements - ANY replacement!
I'd quite given up on Norman Franks - my Jasta 2 Research Project proved his books riddled with factual errors, far more than any other author I used.
I never said it was!The Spad XIII, a bad plane ? Come on...
I just don't believe it was so much better than portrayed in the Wings game that changes should be made to game components such as manoeuvre decks.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
I notice you didn't answer the only question that matters here : At which altitudes is the Spad XIII known irl to be the worst turner of the WWI planes ? Data ?Interesting quote - many thanks for posting it!
I'm not surprised that the SPAD won the comparison with the 1918 Albatros; the Germans were fed up with it, and constantly agitated for replacements - ANY replacement!
I'd quite given up on Norman Franks - my Jasta 2 Research Project proved his books riddled with factual errors, far more than any other author I used.
I never said it was!
I just don't believe it was so much better than portrayed in the Wings game that changes should be made to game components such as manoeuvre decks.
Anything else is blabla.
That sounds like the rotary engine Sopwith Camel (which is reflected in the maneuver deck) and not the V8 equipped SPAD XIII.
Sorry, didn't see that question
I can't answer it, anyway - I don't have any data on turning circles of any aircraft, of any era.
In all of the wide world of Wargames and military simulation games, nothing is more contentious than aircraft performance data.
Every source claiming a top speed, or a maximum altitude, or a climb rate, can always be countered by another such source.
No source ever agrees with anyone else.
Even the minutiae of armour thickness and angulation, and anti-tank round penetration, is not as highly disputed as aircraft performance!
At least armour/ammunition conflict can be accurately measured, since it is on the ground....
Aircraft performance can't be accurately measured because it is up in the air, and is subject to air temperature, pressure and movement (wind).
Coming back to your question about SPAD turning circle, I'm personally not aware of any source claiming it to be the worst; but if there is such a source, I can pretty much guarantee that there will also be, somewhere, another source which disputes it!
Basic physics dictates that an object travelling faster than any other will have a worse ability to change course; but basic physics doesn't apply in Wings
Take the Albatros D.II vs Sopwith Triplane match-up
The Albatros has a more powerful engine (more horsepower), less drag owing to fewer wings, and fewer rigging cables, has much greater streamlining of the nose and fuselage, and yet has a SLOWER deck!
By the laws of physics, impossible....
But aircraft performance data bears this out.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
But we did not try to turn very often, so the tighter turn did not really contribute to the SPADs ability to hit and run.
Last edited by predhead; 04-01-2023 at 14:46.
And tried to copy them (the Nieuports) in the Euler D.I and Siemens-Schuckert D.I!
Luc - This is probably not the place for you as the members here are friendly and such crappy statements about other members have no place.
Last edited by Flying Officer Kyte; 04-02-2023 at 00:24.
Oh dear.
Well, I guess that's just Freedom of Speech, and freedom to misinterpret and exaggerate statements if they happen to disagree with your own.
I respect your opinions Luc - shame you can't reciprocate.
Never mind, I'll just talk to the others.
Last edited by Flying Helmut; 04-04-2023 at 05:36.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
Yep!
They also copied the SPAD wing, including it in the design of the Pfalz D.XII, which had an even better dive performance than the Pfalz D.III.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
I didn't know this interesting fact about the Pfalz D-XII. In his memoir, Rudolf Stark wrote his staffel was equipped with a Pfalz-D-XII or two; it was a heavy handling aircraft, he said, which the pilots at first refused. The Fokker D-VII was in short supply, so the staffel had no choice but to use the Pfalz.
"No one wanted to fly those Pfalzs except under compulsion, and those who had to made as much fuss as they could about practising on them. Later their pilots got on very well with them. They flew quite decently and could always keep pace with the Fokkers; in fact they dived even faster. But they were heavy for turns and fighting purposes, in which respect they were not to be compared with the Fokkers. The Fokker was a bloodstock animal that answered to the slightest movement of the hand and could almost guess the rider’s will in advance. The Pfalz was a clumsy cart-horse that went heavy in the reins and obeyed nothing but the most brutal force. Those who flew the Pfalzs did so because there were no other machines for them. But they always gazed enviously at the Fokkers and prayed for the quick chance of an exchange.". --R. Stark
Last edited by Larry R.; 04-01-2023 at 15:50.
Ha!
You got to the quote before me - well done!
It was reported that some pilots deliberately crashed their Pfalz XIIs on landing, in the hope of getting a Fokker D.VII as a replacement; a small number of the over compressed BMW 185hp engines were allocated to Pfalz XIIs, and I've read somewhere that these planes in particular were pranged, so that the exceptional engine could be salvaged and fitted to a Mercedes-engined Fokker D.VII to upgrade it to a D.VIIF
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
I've read that, Larry. Makes it sound as if the Pfalz XII, like so many other planes, wasn't SO bad once the pilots gained experience.
Nope, it was definitely reference to a SPAD - the French didn't fly Camels and it struck me as an unusual reference I'd not heard before.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Captured aircrafts are bae <3
Wish we had more of them
My take on this ‘discussion’...
1. It’s a GAME !
2. The Spad is VERY fast.
3. It can’t turn to save it’s life
4. Have I said it was fast?
I like the Spad, you just need to think differently when flying it (by ‘flying it’ I mean moving a little plastic model around a pretty map). If you ever need to run away then the Spad XIII is the best escape vehicle.
Never Knowingly Undergunned !!
The larger turning radius of the Spad, due to it’s speed, isn’t a measure of being less maneuverable, considering all planes with only 60 degree turns are all similarly maneuverable in this game- it IS the same degree of turn, after all. What makes it either good or bad is in HOW you use that larger radius turn; if you try to get into a turning fight with a slower, tighter turn radius aircraft…well, it’s not playing to the strengths of the airframe and likely won’t work out well. If however, you use the larger radius turn in conjunction with the rest of the greater distance moves of the Spad to control the timing and length of engagement, as intended, the larger radius turn is a strength
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Yup, got that spot on!Fixed that for you.
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
My man Josef Jacobs stuck with his Dr.I.
Another example - we played the "Bird of Prey" scenario with a Rumpler (the prey), a Snipe and a SPAD XIII (the hunters). I was flying the Rumpler and I got hit by the SPAD several times without being able to return fire. Interestingly the SPAD pilot could hit me, overlap for one phase and then be out of range of my rear gunner on the next phase. The Snipe took 10 damage from me, the SPAD only 3... In a situation like this, the game models the SPAD XIII quite well, when it is handled properly.
We should have a running away scenario and fine the best plane for ‘legging it’
Never Knowingly Undergunned !!
The more planes on the mat, the more valuable speed is. You can double team and avoid getting double teamed. And, if you have a point advantage, you can fly off the mat FTW.
1v1—basically just helps you shake your opponent off your tail—while they’re throwing lead at you.
To try to answer the initial question of this thread : 'Was the SPAD S.XIII really as bad...'
… I guess the Spad has to be tested with all the official options that can make it shine :
1) Using the Advanced rules that introduce altitude :
IRL the Spad shined in vertical combat (that is using altitude) while more maneuverable aircrafts were better at ‘horizontal’ combat (that is using tighter turns). In game, the Spad has a climb rate of 2, enabling it to quickly climb and dive.
2) Using the advanced rule Firing at overdiving targets at your advantage :
To protect your Spad, make it overdive (stall, dive, straight), so that, if hit, the owner may choose to ignore a single damage card per turn, after seeing it. Another card must be taken in exchange. (WW1 Rules and Accessories Pack, Rulebook, p. 16)
3) Using the optional Ace rule Height control to make your Spad immediately regain altitude :
When executing a dive or overdive, this pilot may take (or keep) as many climb counters as he wants, up to the maximum climb of his airplane minus one. (WW1 Rules and Accessories Pack, Rulebook, p. 21)
For example, your Spad is at the altitude of 4, your target is at the altitude of 2. You dive, so that you can choose between an altitude of 3 and 0 climb counter and an altitude of 3 and 1 climb counter. Let’s imagine you choose an altitude of 3 plus 1 climb counter. You fire at your target (that gets 1 damage card), then with one single climb maneuver card, you can go back at the safe altitude of 4.
4) Using the optional rule Firing from above to make your Spad firing more effective :
Fire from above provides a +1 aim bonus (WW1 Rules and Accessories Pack, Rulebook, p. 19).
This rule interests the pilot of a Spad as it can be combined with a dive or an overdive : ’This rule applies to an airplane firing in the front arc after it executes any dive, and after the straight maneuver of an overdive.’
The recent French translation of the WoG Battle of Britan rules clarifies : ‘At the end of the maneuver, the target should be located at the same altitude or at no more than one level of altitude below or above the attacker’.
Using the previous example of a Spad firing at an altitude of 3 plus 1 climb counter while its target flies at the altitude of 2, if the target draws one single A damage with 3 damage points, it’ll suffer 3 + 1 damage points.
5) Using the high speed of Spad to catch up a target or disengage
6) Anything else ? (such as refusing turn fights at level flight)
Does it shine with all these rules ?
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-17-2023 at 05:25.
We already use many of the suggestions in our games (+1 for shooting from above, altitude, firing at overdive targets). As long as players try to dogfight with a SPAD XIII they will be frustrated by the plane. So, using many of the rules in place, and then your option #6, I think the SPAD is okay. I really would like to use the concept of climbing turns and dives...that I feel like is the hole in the rules.
The difficulties with focusing on diving and overdiving when flying the Spad (as any planes) are that it requires :
- lots of space between the Spad and the target
- anticipating the route of the target
- a target unaware of the Spad or focused on another task
If the target can more or less cling to the Spad, the Spad won’t be able to turn and dive, let alone overdive. If the target can face the Spad, the Spad lose (most of) its advantage.
So maybe Spads (unlike dogfighters) are not made for duels.
Or maybe I should get gud.
Climbing turns and dives ? Climbing (or diving) and turning with one single card instead of two, that's it ? A house rule ?
Depends what your opposition is - Fokker D.VII, Fokker E.V/D.VIII, Fokker DR.1, Siemens Schuckert D.III, amongst other types all have the same climb rate as the SPAD.
You might reject a damage card taken in an overdive but may draw one that's as bad or worse.
If you're taking Height Control ace skill (I think that's lame as any pilot should be able to do this not just an ace), does your opponent get an ace skill of choice too?
If you overdive from Alt 4 you finish at Alt 2, you lose 1 alt & tokens in the dive and 1 alt on the straight, so you'd want to start at Alt 5 in the example given to finish at Alt 3.1
Judicial use of sideslips & stalls as well as reversals can all help the cause.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I've just found out the 'High Speed Dives' Ace rule for the Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa :
I guess that, for those interested in buffing the Spad XIII, this rule could also apply to this plane, being possibly able to dive at 350-400+ km/h. Haven't tried it yet. Don't know its effectiveness and fun.It can plan an extra stall directly after another stall or a dive, even if they are two steep manoeuvres in a row. (...) In any case if altitude rules are in use when the second stall is executed the airplane loses an altitude level
Agreed, when released in 2019 it was suggested the 'High Speed Dives' optional rule could be applied to any recognised strong diving machines. It was quite a neat way of adding the capability to various manoeuvre decks without the need for adding a new extra dive card as found in the X deck of the Phoenix D.I.
For non ace pilots it's not without risk, though. For those not familiar here's the optional rule which can also be found here in the FAQ/POI sticky thread.
High Speed Dives:
If this optional rule is in use a [Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa] can plan an extra stall directly after another stall or a dive, even if they are two steep manoeuvres in a row.
If the pilot has no ace skills he must draw an A damage card. If there is any special damage symbol the airplane spins out of control and is eliminated.
If there is no special damage symbol ignore the card and shuffle back into it's deck.
If the pilot is an ace, no A card is drawn and the manoeuvre is safe.
In any case if altitude rules are in use when the second stall is executed the airplane loses an altitude level
(s.4a WGF123A - Pfalz D.III Voss)
Last edited by flash; 04-20-2023 at 04:35.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Comparison between High Speed dives and Vanilla dive/overdive :
Diving 1 altitude level
- High speed dive (1 level)
- Vanilla dive
Diving 2 altitude levels
- Vanilla overdive
- High speed dive (2 levels)
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-20-2023 at 07:55.
^ If I finally get it correctly, the High speed dives with their two cards (dive + stall or stall + stall) enable to fill in the gap between :
- the dive : 1 card (ie. 1 phase)
- the overdive : 3 cards (ie. 3 phases)
and, as a matter of fact, the 'stall + stall' is slower than the vanilla one-card dive : the slope is more gentle and lasts twice as long, both losing 1 altitude level.
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-20-2023 at 08:35.
I believe the idea was to make it a steeper dive, Luc. The first stall is setting up for the steep dive, much like the stall before the Split-S & over dive, it's not a part of the dive itself.
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
I get it that if one looks at the maneuvers from the red line, hiding the first stall on the left, the high speed dive with '2' stalls looks shorter than the Vanilla dive :
However, whether the first stall must be considered in theory as part of a given core maneuver or as a preparation of it, it is however a mandatory card that takes space between your plane and the target, makes the plane (re)act more slowly (the stall takes one additional maneuver phase) and must be taken into account when planning. The stall contributes to make the Spad XIII move 33 cm forward when overdiving, for example.
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-20-2023 at 23:34. Reason: correcting picture
Ares could provide a printable version of a short dive card as a supplement for any recognised strong diving planes (as it publishes updated rules or FAQ) or we could use one of our stall or climb cards in excess with a coloured sticker dot on its front. At least, the 'High speed dive, 1 level' would be actually shorter than the Vanilla dive.
With a short dive card, the Spad would take more advantage of the vertical plane (altitude) which seems historical :
(I didn't know of the X deck. Don't have it)
Last edited by Le Piaf; 04-21-2023 at 00:58.
My apologies, Gentlemen. May I introduce myself as a heathen and heretic? I'm not into competitive tournament style play of any miniatures game, in which the rules and play must be per some pure official standard, such as with DBA & DBM (ancients and medievals). Many of the miniatures games that I've played in over the last 30 years or so have used rules modified by the players. Also, various rules systems have had multiple editions, which included some changes over time. And even some cardboard wargames, which I've played for 50 years, although typically more rigid in the rules, have involved some "house rules" or player made variants. The point is that I don't hold use of any of the original Wings of War maneuver decks sacrosanct, for me personally. I understand that many of you gentlemen do, and will keep using the original A deck from WoW.
Note that I've been away from the game for a decade. I played a fair bit during the first decade of Wings of War. I did fly the SPAD XIII using the tactics described earlier in this thread. It was possible to get lucky. It was a mildly interesting challenge. But it wasn't fun having so few options. I'd want to fly a Camel or SE 5a or Fokker Dr.I or Fokker D.VII instead.
I'm not seeing the quotes in this thread that I saw over on BoardGameGeek about the maneuverability of the SPAD XIII. I'm not very well read on these topics, but this quote on the wiki about the SPAD XIII really grabbed my attention:
In his memoir Sagittarius Rising, Cecil Lewis described an aerial competition between himself and a SPAD flown by Guynemer, while Lewis was flying an SE5, "Their speeds were almost identical, but the high-compression Spad climbed quicker. After the race was over, Guynemeyer and I held a demonstration combat over the aerodrome. Again I was badly worsted. Guynemeyer was all over me. In his hands the Spad was a marvel of flexibility. In the first minute I should have been shot down a dozen times".[31]In his memoir Sagittarius Rising, Cecil Lewis described an aerial competition between himself and a SPAD flown by Guynemer, while Lewis was flying an SE5, "Their speeds were almost identical, but the high-compression Spad climbed quicker. After the race was over, Guynemeyer and I held a demonstration combat over the aerodrome. Again I was badly worsted. Guynemeyer was all over me. In his hands the Spad was a marvel of flexibility. In the first minute I should have been shot down a dozen times".[31]
Now, I know it's not a good idea to base serious alteration of any game on one anecdote. But it seems there were other anecdotes regarding the SPAD XIII being able to turn with a Sopwith Camel (crazy, eh?), and regarding a German pilot being very impressed with the SPAD XIII and stating that his country could have ruled the skies with that machine. I realize that Guynemeyer was a top ace, but I don't see how he could make a machine magically do what it physically couldn't do. And I was told of a recent publication on computer models of WWI aircraft that showed the SPAD XIII being much more maneuverable than was previously thought.
What is my heresy? I'm going to experiment with using the N deck with the SPAD XIII in Wings of Glory. Will do this in private, of course, because I know that the Spanish Inquisition will be notified.
Warren, nice information. If you read the Osprey SPAD XIII versus the Fokker DVII book, the SPAD was faster and could out dive the Fokker. Also, Ww1 Aircraft Performance: DESIGN, AERODYNAMICS AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE. I would recommend this book. An aerospace engineer actually compared several of the late war planes. The SPAD turned just as good, if not better than the SE5a.
With that info, we do this for our SPAD XIII. We add the Left and Right Steep 90 degree turn from the N deck to the SPAD deck. We also add the X deck dive card. With those additions, the SPAD is a much better plan to play.
Ah yes, the Spanish Inquisition
Ooooo. Like this. Dan, how come you never mentioned this on Thursday night?
Too late Warren..
"He says he's going to mess with the A deck..."
Sapiens qui vigilat... "He is wise who watches"
Just like yourself Warren I have never accepted rules as gospel, and Andrea says we may alter them anytime it suits us as long as the other players in your game agree.
So pah to the Inquisition. We have the blessing of the Bishop.
Rob.
"Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."
We have also allowed the SPAD XIII to use the mild right and left turns as a dive as well!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks