How to deal with two-seaters?

[Oberst Hajj]

My local campaign has been going on for over 2 months and we have flown over 25 sorties. During all this time it has become apparent that two-seater planes under my campaign rules have a distinct advantage. There are several reasons for this

1. They have more then twice the shooting opportunities
2. They can earn Ace skills for a single plane faster
3. They carry more bombs then a fighter does
4. They can Recon targets more easily then fighters
5. They are more difficult to attack safely

Reason 5 could be reduced some by using altitude in the campaign. I've left altitude out since we can have up to 8 planes on a single table and it slows things down at those numbers. Altitude could also help out on reason 1 as well.

Reasons 3 & 4 are solely due to my campaign trying to add more realism to the game.

So, besides adding altitude to our games, does anyone have any thoughts on what I can do to bring them back more in line with fighters?

[costampede]

Well my opinion is, limit them to what scenarios they can be used in. I always thought two-seaters were used for recon and bombing not dog fights. Only allow them in those type of scenarios and make it to where only an Ace can switch for the mission to a two-seater, and then switch back to the fighter.

[Kiwi_Ace]

i have found them too overpowered as well. in a dogfight scenario they are pretty deadly. in a recon i make it my personal mission to pursue and kill their 2 seater first, pretty much ignoring all other planes until i have because they r such a big threat.

the advantages they have which you have mentioned already Keith have become slowly apparent over 15-20 missions where u get to see them about every 3rd-4th mission in my campaign.

i agree if we were using altitude their limited manouverability would render them more vulnerable, as they were in real life. im not wanting to introduce altitude but i agree something needs to be done to address play balance otherwise i am going to see alot of 2 seaters shooting down fighters!

here are some ideas off the top of my head...

1) reduce its attacking capabilities. making one of the gunners (front or back) less accurate
2) restrict its firing range
3) dont let both guns fire at the same time (unless an ace)
4) limit the rear guns firing arc (due to planes tail increase the rare blindspot)
5) give all attacking planes "quickshot I" versus 2 seaters

using one or perhaps two of these limitations but not all of them would be the best course of action imo.

[Madballs]

Having played in your game here's some quick thoughts off the top of my head...

1) The two weapons make up for the fact that I can't Immelmann. And it’s obvious that most people feel the two-seaters are more powerful (and more dangerous) because every time I set my D.H. 4 on the board the Central Powers players say "Kill the two-seater first". The only way I can think to "reasonably" limit the firepower is to introduce a rule for the pilot similar to the observer's Blind Spot - no firing at short range. The two-seaters are less maneuverable so I imagine a pilot would have to concentrate more on flying than shooting when the plane is near other planes.

2) The only "plane" based Ace skills are Bullet Checker and Technical Eye. The first is reasonably helpful but the latter not so much. Sure it’s nice to know how badly damaged someone really is but since we're not allowed to communicate with the other pilots to plan maneuvers it’s not that useful.

3) If the two-seaters have too many bombs just cut them back some. Reduce the current 9 to 6. That still gives them some extra oomph but not overkill.

4) If the two-seaters have it too easy to recon just tighten this up too. The limits on taking pictures at the time were technological as much as concentration. Instead of any maneuver at any range for the observer, make it any maneuver at short range. That way the fighters still have to stall and the two-seaters have to get in close enough for a couple of shots from the ground.

5) They are more difficult to attack in simple ways like charging right in. People don't seem to Immelmann enough in the campaign. Nor do they stall often enough to get in an extra shot. The fighters are highly maneuverable but most of the players don't seem to take advantage of that capability.

I don't want to see the altitude rules added to the current campaign because people are finally getting the hang of flying their planes. Adding altitude will just reset that knowledge base.

I disagree with swapping planes on a mission-by-mission basis. I'm not sure if it's historically accurate but it seems to me that once a pilot had a feel for their plane they wouldn't be too inclined to swap out for something new unless it was going to be a permanent change. Swapping feels like min-maxing or munchkining to me.

But if we're going to add in stuff to bring the two-seaters "in line" with the fighters I think we need to add the Pilot injured rule from the WoW Miniatures rules. So far, the two-seaters have been lucky and the injured observer has only come out a few times. However, when it does happen the two-seater suddenly becomes a very unwieldy fighter.

Cheers

[Oberst Hajj]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Adding in the blind spot and the Observer special damage (we've been playing with it, it's just not noted in the rules) has helped against the two-seaters a fair amount. We just don't see the special damage that often.

1) reduce its attacking capabilities. making one of the gunners (front or back) less accurate
2) restrict its firing range
3) dont let both guns fire at the same time (unless an ace)
4) limit the rear guns firing arc (due to planes tail increase the rare blindspot)
5) give all attacking planes "quickshot I" versus 2 seaters

Number 4 could be a valid way of helping the fighters out. I can see a "sensible" reasoning behind increasing the rear gunners blind spot to any shot at close range. The incoming fighter is just moving so fast that the rear gunner has to be very careful not to shoot his tail off when tracking a maneuverable fighter.

2) The only "plane" based Ace skills are Bullet Checker and Technical Eye. The first is reasonably helpful but the latter not so much. Sure it’s nice to know how badly damaged someone really is but since we're not allowed to communicate with the other pilots to plan maneuvers it’s not that useful.

There are only two "plane" Ace skills like you point out, but both the pilot and observer can get all of the shooting skills. A two-seater player has twice the chance to have an Ace and the only one with the ability to have two Aces on the table at the same time.

3) If the two-seaters have too many bombs just cut them back some. Reduce the current 9 to 6. That still gives them some extra oomph but not overkill.

4) If the two-seaters have it too easy to recon just tighten this up too. The limits on taking pictures at the time were technological as much as concentration. Instead of any maneuver at any range for the observer, make it any maneuver at short range. That way the fighters still have to stall and the two-seaters have to get in close enough for a couple of shots from the ground.

Yeah, these could be easy fixes. I think the observation one will get fixed in this manor. As for the bombs, we really need to play test that one some more. The only time we played it, the Germans got ate up and could not bomb very well (lack of experience I think).

5) They are more difficult to attack in simple ways like charging right in. People don't seem to Immelmann enough in the campaign. Nor do they stall often enough to get in an extra shot. The fighters are highly maneuverable but most of the players don't seem to take advantage of that capability.

I agree that most fighter pilots don't know how to attack a two-seater. On the other hand, its all well and good to say you need to get on their tail and stall for some extra shooting, and quite another to actually do it. The problem is, you exchange firing at least once on the way in (frontal attack), most likely you take another round of firing as you do your Immelmann, and if you are lucky, you have the speed to get back into short range two turns later so that you only take one more round of shooting. So, that's three rounds of shooting you take just to setup a shot from the rear where you can sit back there in the blind spot. You better hope the two-seater does not turn during your Immelmann since its rear gun will be firing on you the entire time.

This subject clearly needs more thought and insight.

[Oberst Hajj]

My local group talked about this some more before our games tonight. I think we came up with some more good ideas.

One that we play tested and everyone seemed to like was limiting the rear gunner to always counting at long range. So, the rear gunner never dealt out more then 1 damage card per round of shooting. This in conjunction with the normal blind spot made it possible to get in and get to grips with them with out being shot full of holes on the way in!

We also decided that both guns could not be used on the same plane in the same round. This really only applies to the Roland C.II and very rare cases, but it has happened a few times in our campaign.

[Charlie3]

I am surprised at your posts on this matter.

Our group started out all fighters, and then someone got a two-seater and everyone was afraid of it because of the two fire arcs. We don't use the blind spot rule,nor do we use altitude. They show up in our dawn patrols more often than I would like for historical reasons, however they have not become very prevalent because they go down just as often as the rest of our planes, and they cost more.

I just helped run about 15 games yesterday at a local comic book event as a promoter for our Gaming for a Cure group. We had several people test fly, then go to the booth of the guy who has a comic and game store, buy planes and come back to play some more. At least 3 bought two-seaters, (two Ufags at that!) and only one of them in 5 or 6 games was the last plane. Our average game was 6 planes each.

I agree that on the surface the plane should be able to attain Ace Status quicker due to the two seperate gunners, but the observer's kills only count towards his personal gunnery skills right? Why should his kills make the pilot a better flyer?

Last thing...I tought our players some basic GAME tactics not real world tactics.
1. Whenever possible more than one plane must attack a two seater from the same firing arc at the same time. The defender must choose which plane to shoot at and you get more than one shot.
2. If you are a single attacker stay at long range as much as possible when in one of their firing arcs. Yeah they only get 1 damage card but you live for the special damages. Especially observer, engine and explosion, gun jam is a real plus!!
3. +1 shots are a must since they are relentless. Once again you live for special damages. They are the real equalizers.
They use these contact rules to great success much to my horror as I have not survived a combat with a two seater yet! We also just did a scenario with Gothas..they went down.

[Charlie3]

I just re-read my post above. It sounded kind of preachy. Wasn't intended that way, just caught up in the "moment" Sorry.

[Oberst Hajj]

No worries at all Charlie. In our 40 or so campaign sorties, the two-seaters have gone down in flames about 1/3 the time.

Two weeks ago we did a bombing mission where the Germans had two Roland C.II's against a Spad XIII and a Camel. While I was able to bring down both C.II's in one of the sorties (really good flying on my part that game AND on of the rear gunners was taken out with special damage), both sorties were a total lose for the Allied side. We could just not stop them in time. Now, part of that might be how the game was setup too.

They have just been very dominate in our games. I've actually written them out of V1.6 of the KotA rules except on missions that require them. Not sure how I really feel about that though.

[WilliamBarkerVC]

I'm with Charlie. Some people prefer the two seaters, and use them well (I like mine, to be honest), but many of our group prefer the nimble scouts over them.

We've never had a problem with them, but we don't use the campaign rules as above.

[Oberst Hajj]

Out of our 30 players, there is only one fighter that is still on his initial pilot. We have 2 (was 3 until a week ago) two-seaters initial pilots left... but in fairness, one of them moved to a fighter in 1917 and is still alive (not flown many sorties after the switch though).

I'm still torn on the subject.

[WilliamBarkerVC]

Out of our 30 players, there is only one fighter that is still on his initial pilot. We have 2 (was 3 until a week ago) two-seaters initial pilots left... but in fairness, one of them moved to a fighter in 1917 and is still alive (not flown many sorties after the switch though).

I'm still torn on the subject.

But isn't that somewhat historical though, too? The survivability of real WW1 pilots was in the weeks or maybe a month on average.

"Respawns" are something we tried to figure out, with a dice roll with:

1 - the shot down result is the death of the pilot
2 - the pilot is wounded, and out for d6 missions
3, 4 - the pilot is wounded, and out for d3 missions
5 - the pilot is wounded, and out for 1 mission
6 - the pilot crash lands and is fine

Any second wounding resulting in a gone for good result as the pilot was invalided out of the service, or placed on training duties.

Worked better than seeing your favourite pilot bite it all the time.

[Oberst Hajj]

The death rate is probably pretty close in our campaign to real life. The fact at two-seaters run head long into dogfights and come out on top more often then not is not so realistic.

For one off games or special missions, re-spawning is all good. In a campaign setting, I do not like it so much. That being said, I do have one mission in KotA that allows one side to re-spawn as the action takes place very close to their aerodrome.

If my simplified altitude rules work out well enough, there maybe no issues with two-seaters any more.

[Charlie3]

The death rate is probably pretty close in our campaign to real life. The fact at two-seaters run head long into dogfights and come out on top more often then not is not so realistic.

For one off games or special missions, re-spawning is all good. In a campaign setting, I do not like it so much. That being said, I do have one mission in KotA that allows one side to re-spawn as the action takes place very close to their aerodrome.

If my simplified altitude rules work out well enough, there maybe no issues with two-seaters any more.

You may be right about the death rate from two seaters. I will admit that they may not be vulnerable enough since they get shot down easily in the historical records. One of our players pointed out to me that due to the fact that a scout can jink about quite a bit while attacking it becomes a difficult target to hit, where as the two-seater can only wallow about in the air which makes it a great target. Instead of fiddling with the gunnery rules and damage cards what if we just reduce the amount of damage the two-seaters can take? Make them more fragile to make up the difference? I would say start out reducing them by about 1/4 and adjust from there. You can justify it by starting the scenario out with damage received on the way to their intended mission target, or damage received while on the mission when they are returning to base.

SIMPLIFIED ALTITUDE??? all I can say is let me see let me see!!!!!!

[Charlie3]

Two weeks ago we did a bombing mission where the Germans had two Roland C.II's against a Spad XIII and a Camel. While I was able to bring down both C.II's in one of the sorties (really good flying on my part that game AND on of the rear gunners was taken out with special damage), both sorties were a total lose for the Allied side. We could just not stop them in time. Now, part of that might be how the game was setup too.

When we first started using two-seaters in scenarios I had a difficult time equalizing the game so that the two-seaters don't have the advantage in the mission completion part. Usuallly we were downing the plane(s) but only after they had bombed their target. (observations require them to get away)
Here are the two things that we now do.

First we use the random placement diagram that I have posted elsewhere to place the planes in the game. If you allow the two-seaters any manuevering room at the beginning of the game you will have a tough time catching them in time.

The second thing we do is randomly place three possible target markers in the combat area. This represents the planes getting a map co-ordinace to fly to and a discription of the area but not a pinpoint location. Two of these possible targets are bogus and one is real. In order to reveal the correct target a plane must fly over the marker to reaveal it. when it finds the correct target it must return to bomb it or take pictures. This gives the defenders a fighting chance to stop the mission from succeeding.

I have also discovered that making sure to add ground defences that would have been there in real life is a must. Just don't go overboard and make it too difficult, cause then it just is'nt fun.

[Oberst Hajj]

You may be right about the death rate from two seaters. I will admit that they may not be vulnerable enough since they get shot down easily in the historical records. One of our players pointed out to me that due to the fact that a scout can jink about quite a bit while attacking it becomes a difficult target to hit, where as the two-seater can only wallow about in the air which makes it a great target. Instead of fiddling with the gunnery rules and damage cards what if we just reduce the amount of damage the two-seaters can take? Make them more fragile to make up the difference? I would say start out reducing them by about 1/4 and adjust from there. You can justify it by starting the scenario out with damage received on the way to their intended mission target, or damage received while on the mission when they are returning to base.

SIMPLIFIED ALTITUDE??? all I can say is let me see let me see!!!!!!

Yeah, the game does not translate that they ran as soon as enemy fighters showed up very well. I really hate messing with fundamental rules within the game. Since I wanted to just make them more vulnerable to being shot down, reducing the rear gun to always counting at long range has made it were fighters can some what safely get in on them from the rear and really hurt them.

I have to work on my altitude rules a bit more and play a few games with them. After that they will get another round of tweaks and then I'll post them up here for others to play test with.

First we use the random placement diagram that I have posted elsewhere to place the planes in the game. If you allow the two-seaters any manuevering room at the beginning of the game you will have a tough time catching them in time.

The second thing we do is randomly place three possible target markers in the combat area. This represents the planes getting a map co-ordinace to fly to and a discription of the area but not a pinpoint location. Two of these possible targets are bogus and one is real. In order to reveal the correct target a plane must fly over the marker to reaveal it. when it finds the correct target it must return to bomb it or take pictures. This gives the defenders a fighting chance to stop the mission from succeeding.

I have also discovered that making sure to add ground defences that would have been there in real life is a must. Just don't go overboard and make it too difficult, cause then it just is'nt fun.

Your setup diagram has been floating around in the back of my mind ever since you posted it. For one off games, it is perfect for solving some of the issues. In my campaign, I prefer to keep randomness out of it if at all possible. So, I may have to look into adding plane placement to the setup rules for some or all of the missions.

We currently put down two-three random targets (placed face down before anyone see them). These targets are chosen only from the graound target cards that have some type of gun on them. So, their target gets to shoot at them, but that's pretty much it in the way of ground fire (we don't use trench fire) unless the defending side gets lucky and also draws a random gun grand card per the mission set. I do like how you place 2 bogus targets and only one real objective though. Our observation rules are a little different though. A two-seater only has to fly by the target at long range in order to observe it. I've made the change to them having to do a stall at long range to help balance that out though. Fighters have to do a stall at close range.

[Charlie3]

Your setup diagram has been floating around in the back of my mind ever since you posted it. For one off games, it is perfect for solving some of the issues. In my campaign, I prefer to keep randomness out of it if at all possible. So, I may have to look into adding plane placement to the setup rules for some or all of the missions.

We use it most of the time because it gives us the feel of HEY THERE THEY ARE! for the attackers, and WHERE THE BLEEP DID THEY COME FROM! for the defenders. My group does not do the on going campaign like yours, so our games are all more like your one offs.
I have found the diagaram useful for keeping all aircraft within a decent starting range so you don't waist 3 turns just trying to get in "range". We play on a 2 1/2 x 6 foot table but most always start in the middle so the actual size of the table does'nt matter much.

[Oberst Hajj]

We used your diagram in our games last night... modified a little bit to make it work better with my deployment zones for the mission. It worked pretty well and everyone seemed to like it. In the past everyone just kind of setup where ever they wanted to in the deployment zones.

Last night at work I was able to work on modifying one my mission maps to include a random setup like your diagram does. Thanks for the great idea, I think it will work out well in KotA!

[sides]

one thing most people forget is the blind spot rule,
if at close range and in the two seaters rear arc, he cannot shoot you - its the blind spot.

Altitude helps as the blind spot is anything in the six at a lower level.

I agree about the damage points, they were no more strongly built than a single seater, in fact more vunerable as they had bigger fuel tanks.

the main problem is the rules do not allow for the lack of cordination between pilot and gunner. for this I would restrict all rear gunners shots to close range only.

twin seaters generally survived if they stayed in a close formation, singles died, just look at the red barons total over 50% of kill were two seaters.
(I may be wrong here but it was a high %)

having said that they were regarded as very dangerous by fighter pilots.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hello all,

I haven't posted on the forums before but was intrigued by this discussion so thought I would contribute some of my experience.

Just for background to that experience I have been moderating a 1917-1918 Wings of War campaign in Brisbane Australia since March this year. We have more than 70 players on the books running 200+ aircrew. We have flown 230 missions, amounting to almost 1,000 individual sorties.

Throughout the campaign our group has not found two seaters overpowered. We have 20 ace aircrew at the moment, 18 of which are scout pilots and three are two seater pilots (2) or observers (1). There are several reasons for this state of affairs.

1. We use altitude rules, and have done since day 1, allowing a scout pilot to avoid the nasty sting in the tail.
2. We use the ground fire rule when flying over enemy lines, which discourages the two seater from simply diving to tree top height.
3. We remember to use the blind spot rule.
4. As has been discussed in other posts our players concentrate their fire, when possible attacking a single seater with two or more scouts.
5. Attack them when the observers are otherwise engaged completing the reconnaissance/artillery observation/bombing mission so they cannot use their MG to return fire.

The Roland C.II and the RE8 tend to be 'easy meat'. Due to its high speed when compared to the Albatros D.III the DH4 has proven a little more difficult to take down, as is the Breguet 14A2/B2. Some of the players (myself included) have also purchased Skytrex models of the Bristol F.2b (B manouvre deck, B/A guns, 15 points) and the Halberstadt CL.II (J manouvre deck, A/B guns, 15 points) to include better 2 seaters and improve survivability.

In our campaign we have endeavoured where possible to stick to the core rules, which as they stand do not necessarily favour the 2 seater over the scout. They are dangerous adversaries to be sure, this is also historically accurate, but when the right tactics are used they can be brought down without undue risk.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

twin seaters generally survived if they stayed in a close formation, singles died, just look at the red barons total over 50% of kill were two seaters.
(I may be wrong here but it was a high %)

having said that they were regarded as very dangerous by fighter pilots.

Hi Peter,

I was reading 'Under the Guns of the Red Baron' last night and noted many of his 2 seater kills were against BE2's. They are the type where the pilot sat in the rear seat and the observer sat in the front. They have a severely limited field of fire (cruciform in shape) with associated blind spots. Von Richthofen would stalk his opponent and often attack as the crew were involved in the act of reconnaissance or artillery direction, unaware they were being engaged until bullets tore through airframe and aircrew.

One thing that WoW doesn't even try to do is simulate spotting rules, but I am sure if I search through the forum this would have already been discussed somewhere.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Oberst Hajj]

Hello all,

Just for background to that experience I have been moderating a 1917-1918 Wings of War campaign in Brisbane Australia since March this year. We have more than 70 players on the books running 200+ aircrew. We have flown 230 missions, amounting to almost 1,000 individual sorties.

That's a very large group and a lot of sorties flown! Very impressive. How are you keeping track of all those aircrew?

1. We use altitude rules, and have done since day 1, allowing a scout pilot to avoid the nasty sting in the tail.
2. We use the ground fire rule when flying over enemy lines, which discourages the two seater from simply diving to tree top height.

It does seem my local group is really the only ones having issues with the two-seaters. I think adding altitude will solve our issues. We have never used the altitude rules in the campaign as it just seemed to slow things down to much. I think my new simplified altitude rules will keep things moving alone and give us the much needed options as well. We also don't use ground fire, but you brought up a good point about keeping them off the deck. Are you only using ground fire when they cross the trenches or a ground target? If not, how are you handling it?

And welcome to the site!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

That's a very large group and a lot of sorties flown! Very impressive. How are you keeping track of all those aircrew?

It does seem my local group is really the only ones having issues with the two-seaters. I think adding altitude will solve our issues. We have never used the altitude rules in the campaign as it just seemed to slow things down to much. I think my new simplified altitude rules will keep things moving alone and give us the much needed options as well. We also don't use ground fire, but you brought up a good point about keeping them off the deck. Are you only using ground fire when they cross the trenches or a ground target? If not, how are you handling it?

And welcome to the site!

We are using a slightly modified version of Tony Crewdson's campaign ruleset, with missions and pilot careers tracked on a Campaign Results spreadsheet. Players submit their mission results to the campaign moderator (me) and I update the spreadsheet. Promotions, decorations and ace skills are awarded on the basis of missions flown, aerial victories, and for two seater crews successful recon/arty direction/bombing missions. We use a yahoo group to manage the campaign - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/briswingsofwar

We have no problem using the altitude rules because since even our rookie pilots have never played without them they don't notice the added level of complexity.

Ground fire does indeed make life interesting. I cut zig-zag strips of felt and run them across the battlemap to represent trench systems, and objective cards can also make ground fire attacks. More than one pilot has been so focused on chasing an opponent they have forgotten about the enemy trenches and copped an A damage card or two for their troubles.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Oberst Hajj]

Sounds interesting. I just requested to join your YG to find out more.

[sides]

Altitude makes a difference.
If you do not want to use altitude why not reduce rear guns to close range shots only.
A hand held machine gun in a twisting turn aircraft is goint to be a bit inaccurate.

peter

[Belis4rius]

Back to the issue in hand, two seaters being too powerful.

I would suggest that for a good rear gunner to hold off or bring down the scouts attacking his plane that the pilot would have to concentrate on getting him into a good position for his shots. This would mean therefore that he wouldn't be doing much more than taking a pot shot at anyone who flew right past his guns.

There were some two seaters which could handle themselves fairly well against scouts so if the opposite of the above happens and it is the pilot who is the primary gunner then the guy in the back probably wouldn't be in much of a position to hit a barn door.

I would lean therefore towards only one of them being able to shoot during each manouvre. Yes both could theoretically fire but only one would be doing it with any chance of accuracy and this would more than likely be the rear gunner.

[Charlie3]

...for a good rear gunner to hold off or bring down the scouts attacking his plane that the pilot would have to concentrate on getting him into a good position for his shots. This would mean therefore that he wouldn't be doing much more than taking a pot shot at anyone who flew right past his guns...(If)...it is the pilot who is the primary gunner then the guy in the back probably wouldn't be in much of a position to hit a barn door.

I would lean therefore towards only one of them being able to shoot during each manouvre. Yes both could theoretically fire but only one would be doing it with any chance of accuracy and this would more than likely be the rear gunner.

Intresting idea, especially since it makes sense. I never thought about the two seaters not being stable firing platforms like say a B-17 from WWII. Just one gunner per maneuver might be a good idea.

I just finished doing a review of the actual optional rules printed in Drachens and the downloadable Mini's rules from Fantasy Flights Games. They state in translated English that targets at SHORT range when the shot passes through the rear face of the card or base of the firing plane CAN NOT be shot at. That means they can only fire at long range to the rear. In the 2D version of the game (no altitude) targets in the fire arc to the sides of a two seater would be subject to normal short and long range shots.

In the 3D version of the game (altitudes) targets at short range to the rear and at the same alt. or 1 lower CAN NOT be shot at. Targets to the rear and at 1 alt. higher can only be shot at if they are at close range but it is a 1damage card shot. Targets to the sides at the same alt. are subject to the normal shots for short and long range. Targets to the sides at 1 alt. higher or lower can only be shot at if they are at short range but they are only 1 damage card shots.

These rules severely limit the two seaters ability to do damage to scouts, and in either case you just want to avoid attacking from the sides or front!!

[Oberst Hajj]

In the 3D version of the game (altitudes) targets at short range to the rear and at the same alt. or 1 lower CAN NOT be shot at. Targets to the rear and at 1 alt. higher can only be shot at if they are at close range but it is a 1damage card shot. Targets to the sides at the same alt. are subject to the normal shots for short and long range. Targets to the sides at 1 alt. higher or lower can only be shot at if they are at short range but they are only 1 damage card shots.

These rules severely limit the two seaters ability to do damage to scouts, and in either case you just want to avoid attacking from the sides or front!!

I posted nearly that exact post in the altitude thread... did not even think about cross posting it here!

[Charlie3]

I posted nearly that exact post in the altitude thread... did not even think about cross posting it here!

Ooops! sorry I must have missed that one:

[KirkH]

I'd think the best way to limit the effectiveness of backseaters would be to introduce deflection into the equation somehow. When a pilot aims his aircraft at a target he's in a much better firing position than an observer who has no control over where his aircraft is going. He also is looking backwards and at a target that is usually not flying in the same direction as his own plane. In other words, a shot on the "B" deck for an observer should be generally less effective than a shot on the "B" deck for a deck mounted gun.

[Jmac]

I don't know it's been said before (it's late and I stopped reading halfway down ... I know, I know, bad internet etiquette, I blame the pregnant wife waiting for me to come to bed!) but I have one suggestion to reduce the power of two seaters.

Pilots of two seaters can not be an Aces or have ace skills. If a pilot gets enough kills to start qualifying for ace skills make him switch to a single seat fighter. It has a good bit of historical accuracy. Many of the Aces we've heard of started in two seaters and after a couple of kills their skill was recognized and they were transfered to singleseaters. Even enlisted gunners, if they were good, were sent to flight school.

[Oberst Hajj]

Pilots of two seaters can not be an Aces or have ace skills. If a pilot gets enough kills to start qualifying for ace skills make him switch to a single seat fighter. It has a good bit of historical accuracy. Many of the Aces we've heard of started in two seaters and after a couple of kills their skill was recognized and they were transfered to singleseaters. Even enlisted gunners, if they were good, were sent to flight school.

Not a bad idea and it does have historical backing. I really think just adding the altitude has worked out our issues.

[Charlie3]

Yesterday I got toghether with 3 other players to hash out some issues with our League.
The Deadly Doubles was one of our topics. We did find that simply using the blind spot rule that is in the rules already helped quite a bit, and we have decided to use the idea posted here of only letting 1 set of guns fire per maneuver card. Although this won't compleatly fix the issues, it will aviod complicated changes in how things are done, and retain the flavor of the game. It is possible that we will require altitude rules in use for any scenario involving two seaters, giant bombers, or balloons anyway which will also allow the fighters to limit the shooting solutions of the observers.

[Kiwi_Ace]

After being involved with 15+ 2-seater missions its very clear to me that without using the altitue rules the 2-seater aircraft are too good.

I have a player in my campaign who often uses them in dogfight scenario's and does very well with kills. when playing against him i dogedly persue him until he is shot down because i know hes a real threat to the success of my team.

I am going to make these changes in my campaign to address play balance.
1) rare gunner blind spot
2) single shot per manaouvre (either front or rare gunner not both)

its has been suggested that the rare gunner can inflict only single damage cards even at close range which i might use as well. (not sure yet need to trial 1-2 above first).

another option im considering is allowing attacking planes to totally evade the rare gunner when they use the red dive arrow card. this simulates the attacking plane ducking below the rare gunner and effectively creating another blindspot. just a thought.

something else that is related to this topic is that pilot points or ace points should be kept track of seperately. in my campaign we actually let an ace pilot swich into the observer seat anytime they r grounded. on reflection this might be contributing to play imbalance

[Desaix]

another option im considering is allowing attacking planes to totally evade the rare gunner when they use the red dive arrow card. this simulates the attacking plane ducking below the rare gunner and effectively creating another blindspot. just a thought.

I had the exact same idea... I am still thinking about the details of it and will test it soon...

[Oberst Hajj]

something else that is related to this topic is that pilot points or ace points should be kept track of seperately. in my campaign we actually let an ace pilot swich into the observer seat anytime they r grounded. on reflection this might be contributing to play imbalance

Yes, you have to track them separately and the player can not jump back and forth.

[KsLazarus]

Thanks for the good discussion... I am taking away a few things from this thread as I work with my group to build a campaign:
1) The cascading effect of rule modifications is far reaching...
* Exclusion of altitude removes a significant vulnerablility of the 2-seater.
* While I have noticed about a 40% increase in time for a sortie when altitude
rules are in effect, it may be well worth the time in order to more effectively
integrate the 2-seaters.
2) I am drawn to do more historical research.
3) There is good information available to help us make our Pilot/Campaign point decisions.

Cheers!

[Oberst Hajj]

Hi Dave, check out the Knights of the Air campaign rules I've written up and posted to the site (File link at the top of the page). I also have a set of simplified altitude rules that does slow that game down much at all.

[KsLazarus]

Great document. Many thanks!

[Charlie3]

I had a thought today at work...What if there was a chart or set of cards that anyone flying a two seater would have to use to deturmine what their mission is. I know that if you are using Knights of the Air, you always have a mission for each game, but our group flys random scenarios every time. During the war the two seaters were only sent up for special reasons. These mission cards would likely limit the use of the two seaters because the mission would have to be completed for the side with one in the combat area to win the scenario. Any thoughts?

[SHVAK]

C3 has a good point. Even recce 2-seaters would have a mission, even if only to gather battleground intelligence.

The 2-seater problem is really going to get ugly when the Bristol F2B (Brisfit) is released (end of this year?). It is a 2-seat bomber and a fighter - and many were used in the fighter role.

How do you disadvantage a 2-seat fighter, without over penalizing it?

[Schwerpunkt]

What if you pull a 'mission' chit at the beginning and then whoever is undertaking has to choose assets to meet that requirement?

For example, if you pull a recon/bomber mission only then can you select one or more of the appropriate two-seaters filled out with any escorts they have space for.

If it is just a 'patrol' chit the restriction is limited to single seaters. I know this does limit use of those two-seaters which were also used in pursuit/fighter roles.

Would need to have sufficient chits with a weighting so that it is less likely both sides will draw bombing/recon mission.

Just thinking out loud.

[KirkH]

Just have chits with the opposing missions on either side. For example, one side would say "photo recon" and the other side "patrol". Then when the chit is picked, flip it and have one side or the other call it. If they call it right they get that mission, if not, they get the other.

As for the lethality of the two seaters, I still think if there was some sort of penalty for the flexible guns things would be better. A flexible gun should not have the same damage chances as a fixed, deck mounted gun. Maybe for every "B" shot the target could pick two "B" damage cards and accept only the least damaging of the two. For a close shot he'd pick three cards and accept the two least damaging. Just a thought. It may not work but I'm just brainstorming.

[Belis4rius]

Now into our third week of campaigning my son and I were involved in a German artillery spotting mission, he had allocated two two-seaters and one scout, I had three scouts.

He immediately engaged me in a dogfight, completely ignoring his mission task, he was hoping to shoot me out of the sky and then complete his mission free from interference. I would have done the same thing, but obviously something was wrong.

We discussed it and came to the conclusions that historically almost always only one two-seater is allocated to the artillery or photo recon, with or without escort. In wargames this is not always the case. Also the spotter would have to be in position at a certain time for the guns to open up, he would not have the luxury of being able to take time out for an offensive patrol first.

So we are going to go with only one gun firing at a time, not a big difference but one we believe in and giving certain missions a time frame in which they will have to be undertaken. Perhaps it may come to restricting some to only one aircraft come what may. Any ideas?

[Maxdeth]

J
As for the lethality of the two seaters, I still think if there was some sort of penalty for the flexible guns things would be better. A flexible gun should not have the same damage chances as a fixed, deck mounted gun. Maybe for every "B" shot the target could pick two "B" damage cards and accept only the least damaging of the two. For a close shot he'd pick three cards and accept the two least damaging. Just a thought. It may not work but I'm just brainstorming.

I agree. Two seaters historically were not as big a menace to scout pilots as they are in Wings of War and I feel this seriously detracts from the game. There needs to be a rule to fix this and I dont agree that making artificial changes to the two-seater hit points or modifying the missions is a logical approach.

Historically, fixed forward firing guns gave an agile scout an advantage in firepower over a flexible mount.

Simply put, an aircraft firing from a tailing position would be able to straddle a target with more bullets and those bullets would be raking the target lengthways. Head-on shots had high closing speeds and any other angle would be deflection shooting in which many contemporary pilots agreed would need "lucky shooting" to down an opponent. Fixed forward guns allowed the aircraft to become an extension of the pilot coordinating his flight and firing skills. This is why having the guns fire through the spinning propeller was so important because it allowed the pilot to get an exact bead on the target by "looking straight down the guns". Pilots having to reach up to fire the guns sitting well above the propeller and passengers with flexible guns reduced this coordination and effective shooting. Consequently, it become a "turkey shoot" on scouts and two-seaters and many were downed when Fokker perfected a sychronised fixed forward gun on the E.III. (refer to "the Fokker scourge").

Many two-seaters had fixed forward guns too but they never achieved the success of agile scouts. The Roland C.II and its ilk were to unmaneuverable to "line-up" scouts as targets and had to rely on their flexible mounts as best defence. The FB.2 was a different story and was more successful because it flew like an agile fighter. The flexible mount was a bonus.

Our group uses a simple house rule that I feel increases the realism in our games...
Aircraft that possess an Immelmann card and fire at a target from a tailing position can double the number of cards for damage.


Sure, it increases the chance of a jam and makes the game slightly faster due to deadlier shooting but I think these drawbacks are not that bad when you consider the simplicity of this optional rule. It encourages players more to dogfight and get in slot tailing positions (which is what historical pilots did!). Only a highly manueverable aircraft would possess an Immelmann so the Roland C.II doesnt get the advantage.

Any opinions on this house rule?

[Oberst Hajj]

So, a scout at close range and tailing would inflict 4 cards of damage?

[Desaix]

Historically, fixed forward firing guns gave an agile scout an advantage in firepower over a flexible mount.

It is the other way around flexible mount is way superior to a fixed gun in terms capacity to keep firing at a target...

Our group uses a simple house rule that I feel increases the realism in our games...
Aircraft that possess an Immelmann card and fire at a target from a tailing position can double the number of cards for damage.

Any opinions on this house rule?

I agree that pursuit/tailing need to be fixed to be stronger and more realist...
But I don't see that the capacity of a plane to do an Immelman has something to do with this...

I totally agree in the goal that the two seaters need to be fixed but not much with the rules you propose hehe...

[KirkH]

It is the other way around flexible mount is way superior to a fixed gun in terms capacity to keep firing at a target...

I don't know about that. If the gun platform is steady then maybe that's true, but if the pilot is bobbing and weaving all over the sky, the observer not only has to react to what his target is doing but his own pilot as well.

[Maxdeth]

But I don't see that the capacity of a plane to do an Immelman has something to do with this...

Yes, it doesnt. But with the current aircraft depicted in Wings of War all those with superior manueverability possess an Immelmann card. Rather than create difficult-to-remember rules to define some manuever cards that can and some that can't, its easier to use the Immelmann card as a demarcation line that cleanly identifies those that get the benefit of extra damage.

Oswald Boelcke termed these as "better aircraft" than contemporary two-seaters and it was common practice in staffels to promote good pilots into these better planes. From war accounts of late 1915 and 1916 it was taken for granted amongst the german pilots that two-seaters were inferior in combat (except for maybe the RFC Fe.2) despite their flexible guns. The clear exception to this philosophy was changed by the Bristol BR/F2 arriving in 1917 which was a two-seater that had the manueverability of an Albatros DIII. The Bristol F2 scored more kills firing its fixed-forward guns frontally than with its flexible mount. I wonder if it will have an Immelmann card when it gets released for Wings of War?

[Maxdeth]

So, a scout at close range and tailing would inflict 4 cards of damage?

Yes.

We like it and it gives a good game. Players like flying scouts and are intent to get behind opponents to get that nasty shooting bonus. Obviously, it is more advantageous to fly a highly manueverable plane using this rule than in the normal rules. Two-seaters are still dangerous but dont dominate the furball.