Idea for tailing rules for WW2
I ran a one-card plotting scenario at Daycon a couple of weeks ago, and among the rules I used was tailing. This worked very well, as tailing situations happened quite a few times, with the pursuer staying on the target aircraft, which of course did all it could to evade, and other players tried to jump on the tailing aircraft to break his tailing.
This convinced me that tailing rules absolutely need to be used if we want to make games historical in nature (within the limits of the game system). At the same time, it seems to be universally agreed upon that the tailing rules as written in the rule book don’t really work.
Taking a page from my one-card plotting experiment, here are my thoughts on making tailing rules work in the WW2 game.
First, modify the existing rules to determine tailing as follows.
Current rule states that in order for tailing to be possible, the three conditions below must be met:
1) The ruler reaches both stands.
2) The ruler passes through the front edge of the tailing airplane’s base and through the rear edge of the tailed airplane’s base.
3) The ruler does not cross any other airplane base.
The 2nd point of the current rule only states that “the ruler passes through the front edge of the tailing airplane’s base and through the rear edge of the tailed airplane’s base.” This means that in the photo below airplane #1 is technically tailing airplane #2 even though it is at nearly a right angle to plane #2:
My proposed change is to keep points 1 and 3 above as is, and change point as below so that the rule reads:
1) The ruler reaches both stands.
2) The ruler passes FROM THE POST through the front edge of the tailing airplane’s base and through the rear edge TO THE POST of the tailed airplane’s base.
3) The ruler does not cross any other airplane base.
This means that to be tailing an opponent the tailing airplane would have to be in a true-to-life taking position as below:
Second, modify card selection and play as follows:
In the situation in the photo above, at the end of movement airplane #1 is in a tailing position with airplane #2. The sequence of play from here using the photo above as an example is as follows:
1) Resolve fire normally.
2) Before the play of the next card airplane #1 must declare whether he will tail airplane #2. This is important, as will be seen below.
3) If airplane #1 choose to declare he is tailing, airplane #2 must show his next plotted card secretly to airplane #1 (but not the speed marker).
4) Airplane #1 may then change his card plot. He chooses his next card, and also the card after that per normal rules so that he will have two cards plotted, and places a speed marker on each, again per the normal rules.
5) Both airplanes execute their chosen cards.
6) Resolve fire. If airplane #1 is still in tailing position of airplane #2, this process is repeated from step 1 above.
7) If the tail is broken, airplane #1 is committed to the play of the next card and speed marker as chosen and selects his second pard per the normal rules.
Additional rule: If a plane that has declared it is tailing another plane, the tailing plane may ONLY fire at the tailed airplane.
My reasoning here is that in real life the pilot in plane #1 would be fixated on airplane #2 to the point that at the speeds represented he would not be able to react quickly enough to fire at a second target. In game terms I see it as a trade-off – being able to change movement to allow tailing at the cost of not being able to fire at any other target.
EXAMPLE: in the photo below, after resolving fire airplane #1 is tailing airplane #2, with airplane #3 coming toward airplane #1 at about 1 o’clock. Airplane #1 can choose to declare he is tailing airplane #2, but if he does, he may not fire at airplane #3 on the next firing phase. If airplane #1 declares he is tailing airplane #2, he is not obligated to fire at airplane #2, but after movement he cannot fire at any other airplane:
Aircraft #1 declares he is tailing Airplane #2, but for movement he decides rather than continue to pursue he will break away in an attempt to evade aircraft #3. In doing so he ends up with a viable shot at airplane #4, but cannot fire in this phase because he had declared he was tailing airplane #2. The second card he plotted previously becomes his next card, and he now plots further moves normally:
Note also in this example that although airplane #3 now has a shot at airplane #1, he is not tailing because the ruler will not go from his peg through the front of his base and through the rear of the base to the post of airplane #1.
If optional acceleration rules are used the tailing airplane must conform to those in his card selection. If altitude rules are used an airplane may tail an opponent if the tailing airplane is at the same level or up to one level (total 3 climb token difference) higher.
I think in order to at least somewhat replicate historical air combat that tailing rules need to be used, and I think these rules would work, but I will defer to more experienced players on here who may see a flaw in what I’m proposing. I don’t think this would add more than a minimal amount of complexity or delays in game flow, as in the scenario I ran at DayCon we used more complex rules than this with no impact on game flow.
Everyone’s comments, thoughts, ideas, threats, etc. are welcome.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hokusai
Bookmarks