Killer two seaters

[batesyboy]

Having watched a wow duel between a Rumpler two seater and a Camel at my first
attendance at a gaming club, I was quite shocked to see that the Rumpler had it all it`s own way !
With the combination of the flexible rear mount and the front gun, the Rumpler had over twice the oppurtunities to fire, and most of them without answer.
The A deck versus the B deck seemed to make little difference..
On both occasions the Camel was shredded!

Is this the usual outcome ? if so, the rules need urgent tweaking to reflect...
1) the initiative of being the attacker..I remember movement penalties being attached to two seaters.
Perhaps the two seater should always play the first manouver card,(of the set of three) allowing the fighter or scout to have the initiative.
2) the relative instability of a flexible mount as opposed to the solid platform of fixed guns.

I must say it was quite an eye opener !
Would there be merit in the `Camel` plugging away from distance, rather than mixing it at close quarters ?
I guess this subject has been brought up before...
Cheers
Batesyboy

[greenalfonzo]

I sometimes wonder is 2 seaters are too powerful in this game. I may be wrong, but it does seem that historically the rear gun had reduced effectiveness vs. the fixed forward mounts due to the reasons you cited.

Maybe having a shorter range on the rear gun would help, or make a rear-gun only damage deck that had more misses or something.

[IRM]

Think the guy with the Camel was doing it wrong

I've found that the altitude rules coupled with the blind spot for two-seaters makes them far less dangerous. We also use ammo rules, and with ours most Entente aircraft only get 3 shots from their rear Lewis guns before reloading and German aircraft get 6 from their belt-fed flexible guns (although total ammo carried is about the same).

[va beach ace]

hope do you do the reloading of the rear gunner?
bob

[mtyree1972]

I've found 2-seaters are very tough nuts without altitude rules in play. As mentioned, with altitude and the blind spot, they're tricky but managable. As to A vs. B damage, the damn thing with a B deck is something like a 10% increase in 1 or 0 damage, but close to double the odds for fire, smoke and engine damage. Combined with two guns to flush through the deck faster, that's a nasty little thing to crop up. Our group doesn't care for the altitude rules, (alot of them seem to think it slows the game down to much, meh), so the 2-seaters are pains when they pop up. I make it a point to try to punish them first, clear the field a bit and try to trade long range shots where A vs. B is a better bet for the A deck.

[Madboyo]

I tend to give the two seaters to the less experienced players as they are slightly overpowered in a one on one situation in the basic game.
Our group usually balances games by the number of machine guns per side.

[IRM]

hope do you do the reloading of the rear gunner?
bob

Our house rules treat it the same as jammed for the usual three card duration, fully loaded after that. We use dice to track ammo, with additional dice representing spare drums or belts as needed. So we remember it's reloading rather than jammed, we stack jammed markers on top of the ammo dice being loaded.

[Pseudotheist]

Just don't use two-seaters unless they're on a mission. Problem solved.

[IRM]

That's fine until you run into Brisfits on patrol

[Flying Officer Kyte]

That's fine until you run into Brisfits on patrol

Yes Iain. That reminds me I must get a couple more of those.
Rob.

[The Cowman]

in most of the games I have run or played in where a two seater was involved, I would say they pretty much held their own unless poorly flown. I can see how using the altitude rules would allow scouts to take better advantage of the "Blind Spots"... but have yet to try altitude with a two seater in play.

[Archidamus]

We do play with altitude, and we find that 2 seaters are tough but generally manageable. However, the Roland is a really tough nut because of the 360 rear gun at higher altitude - when its flown the pilot has a habit of dropping to lower altitude and potting away

[batesyboy]

I think that without altitude rules (which casual visitors to the game ignore)
The two seaters a far too strong !
I think the gun decks should be modified, penalising flexible guns in some way, this would
mean that altitude rules could be ignored for a fast `casual` game

[mtyree1972]

Well, that's a great thing with Wings of War, it's an easy system to house rule. I'm not sure how you might modify the gun decks, but would welcome your ideas.
FYI, here some numbers I've crunched for the games damage decks:
A deck B deck C deck D deck
damage % 68.57% 60.87% 46.67% 62.50%
special damage % 28.57% 28.26% 33.33% 62.50%
R jammed gun 5.71% 6.52% 0.00% 0.00%
G jammed gun 5.71% 6.52% 0.00% 0.00%
0 dmg/miss 31.43% 39.13% 53.33% 37.50%
1 dmg 20.00% 26.09% 6.67% 0.00%
2 dmg 17.14% 19.57% 6.67% 0.00%
3 dmg 14.29% 10.87% 0.00% 12.50%
4 dmg 8.57% 2.17% 6.67% 0.00%
5 dmg 5.71% 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
6 dmg 0.00% 0.00% 13.33% 12.50%
8 dmg 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00%
9 dmg 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 12.50%
rudder damage L 5.71% 4.35% 0.00 0.00%
rudder damage R 5.71% 4.35% 0.00 0.00%
pilot/obs wounded 5.71% 4.35% 6.67% 0.00%
engine damage 2.86% 4.35% 6.67% 0.00%
smoke 2.86% 4.35% 6.67% 0.00%
fire 2.86% 4.35% 6.67% 37.50%
explosion 2.86% 2.17% 6.67% 25.00%

simple calculation of % of deck that is represented of the card types, so, if you had a fresh deck and a single card draw, those would be the approximate odds of drawing a particular result. Of course, as the game goes on, odds would obviously change.

[mtyree1972]

hmm, that didnt work well. It's easier to read in a spreadsheet, sorry.

[macka321]

We use two seaters most games for missions.
We also limit the rear gunner to one card of damage even a close range.
This way we find that two seaters are more realistic as the gunner doesn't know the pilots intentions
and also needs to hang on through the twists and turns which also became more violent as the enemy gets closer.

[flyingryno]

Thanks I just put it to word. Now I don't have to do it.

[Linz]

I realize that the rear gun/guns on two seaters seem overly powerfull however they are not firing though a synchronizer that reduces fixed front firing guns by one third. They also have a man whose total attention is focused on firing that gun. My feeling is that single machine gun not synchronized should be an A damage just to account for the extra bullets.
The major problem appears to be the same as with bombers incorrect tactics being used. Get into their blind spot and blast away.
I don't believe it was easy to shoot down any aircraft perhaps the Hollywood films have given us a wrong picture of what it was like up there. The epic battle of Dallas and Culling involved 16 aircraft lasted 45 minutes and only 3 aircraft shot down.
I don't think changing the rules helps as they are at the moment if you use wrong tactics you get punished. That's where the skill of the pilot comes in.
Having said all this in a competition setting I do feel that like aircraft should fight like or that you get extra points for shooting down harder aircraft.
Linz

[Paisan]

Well, here's what I'd like to know -- historically, how well did the rear gun do? Were they known to be so effective that pilots had to make a point of attacking from below to survive? Or were they ineffective enough that a scout could pull up behind and trade shots? I should think the historical performance should be the starting point?. Sadly, I'm woefully ignorant on this issue.

[Doug]

I agree with Lindsay I don't belive in changing the rules. If one was to add to the game some of the earlier two seaters such as the BE2c it would be a different story.

[Linz]

Considering they had a procedure for attacking 2 seaters that involved flying the opposite way when the EA turned to get out of it's rear gun line of fire. The rear gun was a serious threat. Also the British recognized gunners as aces as well as their pilots this started with the Fe2b. The German tactic seems to be to take out the rear gunner first this continued into WW2. So it would be a foolish man to ignore the rear gunner or try trading shots with him. It was noted that one German 2 seater looked like an Albatros and some British got a rude awakening when they wern't careful enough.
Before Machine guns became standard fixtures to aircraft the observers took Rifles up and had some success with them as well as with pistols and anti personnel darts.
So there is a strong case for the effectiveness of gunners and observers being deadly.
Linz

[KiwiAce]

I played a game with my 12yr old son yesterday - I had two RE.8s on a photo recon mission, escorted by a Spad XIII. My son had a pair of Albatros's -- a D.III and a D.Va. Additionally he had two A and one B machine gun nests protecting the artillery battery that I was supposed to photograph.

First head on pass by the Albatros D.III set my Spad on fire, and thereafter all it managed to do was ineffectually strafe one of the machine gun posts before crashing. The two German aircraft, with a little support for the ground machine guns, took out both the RE.8s before they were even ready to head for home.

Certainly in this case the two seaters weren't that sharp! ;-(

Allan
--
Historical Aviation Film Unit -- www.aviationfilm.com

[KiwiAce]

We don't play with altitude rules at the moment - still working towards that. However, I'd fully expect that the altitude rules and the blind spot would have quite an impact on the effectiveness of the more powerful two-seaters. I think in a game without altitude, the two-seaters may in general be a little more powerful that in realty. However, as suggested above, I might try the one card only for rear gunner when playing without altitude and see how that works.

I have had the very rare privilege of being the gunner in a Bristol Fighter F2.b that was being attacked by three Fokker Dr.1s. I can tell you that even in their gaudy colours it can be pretty difficult to spot another aircraft coming up behind and below you (even if it's not in your blind spot), and that even with this one experience, it didn't take me long to recognise that coming at a two seater from below and in the blind spot would be the only smart way to attack such an aircraft. I suspect that the novice pilots that survived attacking a two-seater from above and behind, didn't do it many more times.

For some of the video from my flight, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=...33/uxae_1peWLU

Bear in mind that this was effectively an airshow display, so the germans would not have been flying quite as aggressively as they would have in real conditions.

Allan
--
Historical Aviation Film Unit -- www.aviationfilm.com

[Boney10]

For me I have found 2 seaters seem to be overly powerful until the blindspot rules are used, this tends to even out the odds a little in favour of the scout provided he can say in that spot.

[flyingryno]

Love the Films. Espically the PBY

[Linz]

Allan your film says it all really those Dr1's would have given you a right pasting as they came up from underneath, the blind spot seems larger than what Wow give it. Definitely the way to get them that's for sure.
I am sooooooooooo jealous what an awesome experience.
Even knowing the Fokkers where friendly it must have given you the chills when they came at you. Right scary stuff those rear gunners were brave men indeed.
Linz

[gully_raker]

Having watched a wow duel between a Rumpler two seater and a Camel at my first
attendance at a gaming club, I was quite shocked to see that the Rumpler had it all it`s own way !
With the combination of the flexible rear mount and the front gun, the Rumpler had over twice the oppurtunities to fire, and most of them without answer.
The A deck versus the B deck seemed to make little difference..
On both occasions the Camel was shredded!

Is this the usual outcome ? if so, the rules need urgent tweaking to reflect...
1) the initiative of being the attacker..I remember movement penalties being attached to two seaters.
Perhaps the two seater should always play the first manouver card,(of the set of three) allowing the fighter or scout to have the initiative.
2) the relative instability of a flexible mount as opposed to the solid platform of fixed guns.

I must say it was quite an eye opener !
Would there be merit in the `Camel` plugging away from distance, rather than mixing it at close quarters ?
I guess this subject has been brought up before...
Cheers
Batesyboy

G'day Lee! You should try out against a couple of Rolands who have even more Rear firing arc. Nasty little devils! Best to attack them from right in front & then get out really quickly!

[Albert Ross]

..... Our group doesn't care for the altitude rules, (alot of them seem to think it slows the game down to much, meh), so the 2-seaters are pains when they pop up. .

You can always do what we did and modify the altitude rules! We simply play a climb card followed by a straight (to level off) takes you up one level, a dive followed by a straight takes you down one level. No climb counters are involved. The Immelman/split S maneuver card is handled the same way. Problem solved!

Flak, trenches and MG's are a way to discourage these Rumpler jockeys from staying at low level, along with mission aims so they don't just tool around up there like prowling fighters. Historically, two seaters were a tough proposition and scout pilots hated them unless you could sneak up from below and behind - which left you vulnerable to a diving attack by the escorts.

One last thought, if you think a single Lewis gun or Spandau is too powerful, remember the carnage they caused on the ground.

[afilter]

Altitude,blind spot, and tailing will produce better historical results IMO. Otherwis 2 seaters can be ahistorical and need to be accounted for when determing sides.

[csadn]

Having watched a wow duel between a Rumpler two seater and a Camel at my first
attendance at a gaming club, I was quite shocked to see that the Rumpler had it all it`s own way !
With the combination of the flexible rear mount and the front gun, the Rumpler had over twice the oppurtunities to fire, and most of them without answer.

From the sound of that second sentence, the Camel was constantly overshooting the Rumpler, which is a rookie mistake -- an experienced player can figure out where his own acft., and his opponent's, are likely to end up in a given move. Dealing with the speed advantage of the single-seater is part of this (my preferred move is the "Cuban 8" -- straight-Immelmann-straight-Immelmann-straight, as allowed in the official errata/FAQ).

As to gunnery: The only way an A-deck is going to lose a gunnery duel with a B-deck is if the A is drawing 0s and 1s to the B's 3s and 4s; it's a pity you didn't keep track of who drew what, as I suspect it would be... illuminating.

In short: There's no need for special rules for a single-seater to defeat a two-seater; it just requires a degree of competence, and not getting shafted on the gunnery draws.

[afilter]

In short: There's no need for special rules for a single-seater to defeat a two-seater; it just requires a degree of competence, and not getting shafted on the gunnery draws.

This really is the key. In our last sortie my Goerning was behind two 2 searers taking 4 B cards a turn for a few turns a downed one. I drew 15 pts of damage early and then 5 zeros in a row allowing the DVII to withdraw and a wingman to finish off the other two seater.

[Oberst Hajj]

Yep, two-seaters with out altitude in play can be very nasty. You really have to learn how to fly against them. Talk of rule changes should go in the house Rules section in a separate thread however.

[batesyboy]

To remphasizie my findings
the two duels between the Camel and the Rumpler were fought out without altitude rules, by two neophyte players
undertaking their first two sorties.
Under these circumstances the game is massively biased towards the Rumpler, this is innacurate !
A Be2 fighting against a eindecker under the same circumstances would have the Be2 trouncing the eindecker !
It would be suicide for a sopwith pup or triplane taking on any two seater.
If you`re not using altitude rules (which slow down proceedings) the fire power needs to be adjusted.
If rear guns were as lethal as made out, why bother with single seaters at all ?

[Watchdog]

I dare say that a modern two-seater like the UFAG C.1 is an equivalent of two scouts like Camels or SPAD XIII's. An older two-seater like the R.E.8, which is less manouverable and has fewer hit points is an equivalent of two older scouts like Albatros D.III's.

A two-seater with a single escort should in my opinion face three scouts.

EDIT: The above is meant without altitude rules.

[mtyree1972]

Well, I do agree that 2 seaters are more powerful if you do not use some form of altitude rules and the optional 2 seater blind spot. when everyone is compressed into effectively the same plane, you remove the extra dimension that makes nimble aircraft like the scouts more effective. The 2 seaters are less hindered by slow speed and wide turns when they don't have to worry about someone parking underneath them. I don't see it as a reality problem, because realism=altitude. Unfortunately, if you want to model air combat with a high degree of realism, you have to account for that pesky third dimension.

[OrlokSubedei]

Guynemer should've known better than to dive down on a Rumpler C.IV So, yeah, two seaters are O.P.

[Paisan]

Well, I just got my Shapeways Bristol Fighter. It's beautiful! When it and my Riveresco one are painted up, I'll go hunting those puny scouts and show them wot-for!

[Doug]

Like Todd when we play with two seaters we give them a mission. W have 4 cards which are placed upside down and the two seater player/s pick one card and that is their mission, In our games the two seater will generally get to their mission but then the fun begins as at least 1 of the crew is engaged in their activities and cannot fire their gun. For example bombing, the pilot is engaged in dropping his bombs therefore cannot shoot, or photo recon the observer is busy useing the camera therefore cannot shoot. The two seater may not get shot down (but often does) but will probably take enough damage from other aircraft or flack to make the jouney home difficult. For example I used a BE2c ( unarmed) on a bombing mission, never made it to the target area, or I have yet to sucessfuly complete an artillery shoot. What in short I am saying is that two seaters when used should have a mission, and that evens things up.

[wargamer]

We use a slightly modified technique. Each player draws a card, giving them a mission... points are awarded according to the mission given, victory to the player/team most successful.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...do=file&id=815

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I just got notification of a post from Linz which isn't showing up on here. Has anyone else got the same problem?
Rob.

[Oberst Hajj]

Nope, just a notification that you posted about a notification to a post that is not here.

[flash]

I saw a programme (dogfights?) involving Eddie Rickenbacker taking on 2 Rumplers, complete with animation, that seemed to suggest that the Rumpler could pretty much hold its own in a one on one & were bloody dangerous as a pair. They gave him a hard time but Eddie bagged them both - but only after they had split up.
The parabellum MG in the back of those things had about the same rate of fire as a pair of Vickers & had 250 round belts so I'd think the B deck tones them down enough, so maybe it's availability to shoot. eg to restrict firing through ammo & reloading as IRM has done and/or to limit firing to straight cards ie the most stable gun platform? I'm sure we will each find our favoured solution.
In reality the real problem is how many times we have to go at the damn thing to kill it !!