Starting positions

[Le Piaf]

What are the starting positions of your planes at the beginning of your games ?

The basic rules in the rulebook of WoG say : 'the players place their airplanes on opposite sides of the gaming area, facing toward their opponent' which seems the most equitable positioning for both sides.

But is it the only one you use ? Sometimes/often/always, do you :
- deliberately choose another positioning ? Which one ? One team behind the other (or coming from one side), for example when fighters intercept bomber(s) ? ... ?
- randomly place the planes ? How ? I guess a system to randomly place an airplane in a given zone of the gaming area and decide on its direction of flying and altitude could be made up quite easily.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Very much depends on the scenario rules for that game Luc. The organizer will try to get a set up that fits in with his intentions for the forthcoming action.
If you read the AARs for the WW1 campaigns you will find many set ups to fit the scenario requirements.

https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/fo...r-the-Trenches

This Campaign by the Oberst from the files section may also be of interest.

https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...do=file&id=225

Rob.

[hokusai]

I use these starter sockets to roll for a random start position

[flash]

I tend to use scenario based deployments rather than the head to head charge suggested by the rules, or, random deployment driven by a D12.
There is a random placement diagram in the files that's been around since 2009.
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...do=file&id=197

[Honza]

Also check this
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...-2022-scenario

We use it fairly often.

[Le Piaf]

Thank you very much Rob, Fabizio, Dave and Jan for all these neat ideas and suggestions !!!! Will be really helpful. Will test them

[Windy Jack]

What are the starting positions of your planes at the beginning of your games ?

The basic rules in the rulebook of WoG say : 'the players place their airplanes on opposite sides of the gaming area, facing toward their opponent' which seems the most equitable positioning for both sides.

But is it the only one you use ? Sometimes/often/always, do you :
- deliberately choose another positioning ? Which one ? One team behind the other (or coming from one side), for example when fighters intercept bomber(s) ? ... ?
- randomly place the planes ? How ? I guess a system to randomly place an airplane in a given zone of the gaming area and decide on its direction of flying and altitude could be made up quite easily.

As Rob said, it depends on the scenario. In the AAR I posted today, the fighters start on the side about two thirds of the way along the table, while the bomber starts at the end. This is to simulate interception by the fighters.

An idea I came up with and we tried a couple of times - which only works for a dogfight - was to allow each player to choose where on the playing mat they wish to start by placing a maneouvre card face down. That maneouvre becomes their first manoeuvre. However, each player was also given a dice which they placed covered on the manoeuvre card. The number on the dice was the number of the manoeuvre on which their plane entered the game. For example, a 1 meant the player started on the first manoeuvre of the game, while a 6 meant the player started on the last manoeuvre of the second turn - the sixth manoeuvre of the game.
It added a bit of variety to a dogfight.

[Paukenschlager]

Just to add to what others said...
I also regulate my initial placing mainly based on scenarios and, if a game mat is in use, the topography of the place we are flying over so that it makes sense from an Historical/Tactical perspective.
Another factor I think is not to be underestimated is table dimensions.

While on small playing tables staying at two ends of the playing field is not a big deal, I find very underwhelming spending loads of time to just approach the enemy when playing on bigger areas, especially with slower planes.
I'd only make an exception to this if the scenario is rich in AA weapons or ground targets that make the approach phase of the game a bit of a steeple chase, so that I need to avoid running into a hail of machinegun fire rather than plainly level-flying my way to the enemy fighters.

Years back I played a game over my entire living room floor (I had just moved in) and it took 2 full turns before the actual maneuvrenig and shooting begun!

[Flying Helmut]

I like to use alternative entry points for opposing aircraft.

The head-on charge into your enemy's guns, hoping for a smaller damage card draw than his, eliminates all skill on both sides, and reduces the game (at least the first pass) to pure luck only.

In my Campaign rules, I'm trying to assign entry points for all opposing aircraft based on their "Route to Target" but it's proving too complex at the moment.

[Le Piaf]

+ 1. Very interesting from you all. Keep posting your ideas, experiments, preferences…

[predhead]

To be honest, this is an area our group (the Wright Flight) always seem to go generic...simply opposite edge of the table at peg four and then have at it. Very unrealistic. We need to incorporate more scenario driven ideas. I have one scenario in which I did come up with starting positions:

https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/en...pril-14th-1918

I would like to come up with a randomizer in which planes could come in from different edges, or a stick or two apart, with different altitudes.

[Windy Jack]

Another factor I think is not to be underestimated is table dimensions.

While on small playing tables staying at two ends of the playing field is not a big deal, I find very underwhelming spending loads of time to just approach the enemy when playing on bigger areas, especially with slower planes.

We used to play on three WoG mats as a matter of course. However, we have changed to most often using two mats, or a cloth, for the very reason that you mention. One and half to two turns just to get near the opponents is a waste of time and energy.

[Paukenschlager]

One and half to two turns just to get near the opponents is a waste of time and energy.

I started as well with bigger playing areas and been shrinking it since - some of the most satisfying games have been the ones played on a single mat with 4 planes: there the planning really gets critical as you need to combine in a tight space your plane's ability to climb and its manouvreability, so that you don't collide or get out of the table.
Bigger surfaces and heads-on approaches are better, in my opinion, to play stress-free when introducing a new player to the game.