Game vs Simulation

[vacca rabite]

Hey folks, I have a question for all of you that use a lot of house rules...

WoW makes no bones about being a game and not a simulation. It was designed to be fast and fairly vicious, but at the same time not have real world fatal hits cause certain in game destruction (like fire, control damage, and the other "healing" special damage.)

Lots of the rules that I have seen seem to try and take the game and make it more of a simulation. So I was curious how many of you have tried WWI simulations? There are some pretty in depth rule sets out there.

I'm not saying one way is right and one way is wrong. I don't use house rules (makes it easier to play with many different groups - even though I usually only play with the same people ), but there are certainly things that I would have done differently with WoW if I were king. I'm curious about what the house rules folks think.

Zach

[CappyTom]

I play with a lot of different people. And most of the time we start out with the basic game and then add advance rules. I have only used house rules a couple of times. These were all in a scenario and the "house rules" where spelled out for all to see.

I really like the fire and smoke house rules talked about here and try to use them when ever I get the chance. But I also enjoy playing the advance game too.

So for me I like them both.
Tom

[Baldrick62]

I've found that with anything depicting the air environment, and particularly without the 'aid' of a computer, any game that tries to be a simulation rapidly becomes so complex as to be the domain of rules lawyers and impossible to play with any sort of enjoyment. Yaquinto's 'Wings' was a classic for this imho. So, you need to compromise and strike a balance between 'realism' and playability.

At the end of the day, it's what suits you and the group you play with that counts. And if you can enjoy the odd liquid refreshment or three during the game rather than having to be so focussed on the minutiae of the rules, all the better!

[sparty]

Ultimately it's the owner's bits and they can play how they will I suppose.

I think people are aware of more simulation type games out there, but adding a little dash here and there of chrome into WoW can keep the ease and speed of play while giving those looking for a little more depth what they crave. I certainly don't think anyone here would argue that the game needs to get more simulation-like. After all, the broad audience, ability to still remember all the rules while in the 3rd hour of drinking, and quick play times are the most attractive rule features!

[grumpybear]

You drink and fly naughty naughty.

[Charlie3]

The Traverse City Leauge actually only uses 2 house rules that effect the game itself. Once a plane starts smoking or catches fire it basically continues to do so until it crashes or leaves the combat area. We just felt from the beginning that the fire and smoke going out by itself was unreasonably "gameish"

Except for the Ace Skills that we use for league play, nearly all the other house rules in our league rule book are before or after battle related. We have tweeked a few things to make them easier or harder but I don't think we have adjusted anything that really changes the rules much at all.

The game lends itself so well to "adjustments" (which most gamers just can't resist doing) that it is easy to add layers of rules to make it into more of a simulation. As stated by Baldrick62 when you add too much game play really boggs down, so after awhile most people get rid of all the extras and go back to the original rules. I have played countless games for almost 2 years now and have only used the altitude rules 3 times! The people that play in our league just say it isn't nessasary.

I think players should just decide what they like and have at it! Have fun

[CappyTom]

You drink and fly naughty naughty.

I thought most of us did. When we can.

[MayorJim]

You drink and fly naughty naughty.

Um...actually we fly and drink rather than drink and fly ...all said, we play pretty much straight, vanilla with the rules. It's really more a "social" thing...also, rarely use altitude too. Keep it simple, have fun, enjoy the minis...we're not into minutae (sic) but into a fun GAME that simulates, roughly, WWI air combat...I did like the no firing allowed while smoking or flaming though...might try that one out...also, the MG jambed immediately on a multi- card draw, if the 1st draw was the dreaded cross-hairs (no second draw then)...

[grumpybear]

I try hard but after 3 or 4 rum and coke cant fly straight. We just play the game making as few mods as possible.

[David H]

I play with a reasonably consistent group and we all have a few drinks while we play.

We usually don't use altitude rules, but we do have a couple of house rules, none of which effect immediate game play. As we tend to play a single "campaign" style game in an afternoon we mark turns to keep track of off board movement. That is how long it takes to run away and then come back after landing and changing planes, how long it takes to scramble, when replacement pilots become available and what happens to the crew of planes that go down. Typically scramble to plane at edge of game zone 12 turns...

[Flying Officer Kyte]

How about a handicap system of WoW. For every plane you shoot down you must consume a drink. After a few rounds of play it should even up the odds a bit. Also should find it far more simulating.
Rob.

[vacca rabite]

Interesting idea, except for those of us that have to try and drive 60 or so miles to get home after the game. :-)

Zach

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Interesting idea, except for those of us that have to try and drive 60 or so miles to get home after the game. :-)

Zach

Well yes. That is a bit of a downer. We tend to play a series of games over a long weekend.
Rob.

[Pooh]

Our group enjoyed the rules as written (we have always used alititude rules) but were experiencing an inordinate amount of collisions. We wanted a clean method of reducing the number of collisions. also the rules show differences between planes for climb and manouver but not diving. We also wanted to add that to the game. We borrowed some homerules from another member of this group and tweeked them a bit and came up with home altitude rules that play about as fast as the official rules. Plus we don't have near the number of collision to adjudicate.
The one thing we don't have is zoom climb but we can live without that. Its still a clean, fast, beer & pretzel set of rules that's fun and easy to play. As someone posted above, the rules lend themselves to easy modifications so we have.

Pooh

[IRM]

We only really use house rules for campaign games and stick with the vanilla rules for anything outside of that. The only one we always use is that collisions may only occur when a plane's base overlaps another's centre peg. If the front of one aircraft overlaps the rear of another by a small amount (up to 1cm) we've taken to just stopping it short, allowing it to shoot.

[steel_ratt]

House rules don't necessarily have to result in more 'simulation' and less 'game'. I sometimes play with house rules that minimize fire and engine damage effects simply to even up the balance of play and make games friendlier and more competitively fair. (When you are flying plane vs plane and someone takes engine damage on the first hit, it is hardly a fair contest from that point on!) We often end up in discussions about reality vs 'fair play'. It is an interesting balance to try to maintain, and one that can change from game to game.

[Ginarley]

Another thing I really like about WoW is that a scenario can be completely unfair and the game can still be fun - it doesn't seem to draw out the long "that wasn't fair, your plane was better than mine" complaints other games do. I think this is partly due to the realistic nature of this (the Germans didn't phone up the French and tell them three Albatros DVas were heading over, send up three planes that are the same so we can have a fair fight) and partly due to how similar the planes really are (the worst plane in the game can shoot down the best, albeit with some luck or particularly clever flying). In that sense I feel the simulation aspects that are there really enhance the game aspect of WoW.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Another thing I really like about WoW is that a scenario can be completely unfair and the game can still be fun - it doesn't seem to draw out the long "that wasn't fair, your plane was better than mine" complaints other games do. I think this is partly due to the realistic nature of this (the Germans didn't phone up the French and tell them three Albatros DVas were heading over, send up three planes that are the same so we can have a fair fight) and partly due to how similar the planes really are (the worst plane in the game can shoot down the best, albeit with some luck or particularly clever flying). In that sense I feel the simulation aspects that are there really enhance the game aspect of WoW.

I endorse your sentiments entirely Ian. Amongst a host of other reasons, this was one of the main draws of the game. After 40 years of watching gamers argue for hours about the finer points of innumerable little details in the rules, it is like a breath of fresh air to be able to just play without undue debate.
Rob.

[CappyTom]

I endorse your sentiments entirely Ian. Amongst a host of other reasons, this was one of the main draws of the game. After 40 years of watching gamers argue for hours about the finer points of innumerable little details in the rules, it is like a breath of fresh air to be able to just play without undue debate.
Rob.

Oh Rob, you will come to miss those long debates and then what???

Tom

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Oh Rob, you will come to miss those long debates and then what???

Tom

Not in the least Tom, and at least the debates on here are informed, civilized, and you can take the advice or not as it suits you. Vive Le W.o.W. Aerodrome.
Kyte.

[Niclas]

I endorse your sentiments entirely Ian. Amongst a host of other reasons, this was one of the main draws of the game. After 40 years of watching gamers argue for hours about the finer points of innumerable little details in the rules, it is like a breath of fresh air to be able to just play without undue debate.
Rob.

I've been fortunate in having pals to play board games with who, like me, consider games as mostly a social event - with the goal of winning as a distant second (if that). Much less debating and more focus on fun that way.

[Pooh]

I've always thought that the best sets of rules were ones in which there were few rules but they let you do a lot. This game being a prime example. Another was the wooden ships and iron men rules for Napoleonic sailing ships (reincarnated as Close Action). Every time I see a rule set that is longer than a novel, my 1st thought is to run away.

Pooh

[wargamer]

My rule of thumb is that if the rules are thicker than the counters and maps, avoid it. Such items have proven to be a rules lawyers heaven in the past and should be considered so in the future. i.e. Star Fleet Battles. Second item is to avoid such players. That tends to improve your own disposition better than several pints of anything reasonable.

[Wolf]

My take on it is the more rules the slower the play and gamers lose interest.

[Ginarley]

The other feature that is important is that cards/models/chits/boards should contain enough information on them that looking up stuff in the rules isn't needed very often once you know how to play. Some games I have played are fairly simple to play but would be analogous to playing WoW where the fire/manoeuvre/hit points were in tables in a book requiring endless looking up.

WoW is great because you could probably figure out how to play it reasonably well without even reading the rulebook.

[MayorJim]

My rule of thumb is that if the rules are thicker than the counters and maps, avoid it. .... Second item is to avoid such players. That tends to improve your own disposition better than several pints of anything reasonable.

LOL...Amen...when the rules are competing with "War and Peace" in length, then it's time to look for something else. I might add that when the counter density/pieces needed to play can't fit into a standard coffee mug...I tend to move on as well...

[Justin3.14]

I like to compare this game to Air War/Air Superiority and i find the simplicity of this game elegant. It achieves the same thing, a fun game that allows for the unique characteristics of each aircraft.
Another comparrison is Wooden Ships and Iron Men to Pirates. Pirates had a page of rules and each ship had a characteristic, and I'd say that it was just as good as WSIM in simulating comat, and better in that it was so pick up and play

[Albert Ross]

Echoing the sentiments of others her, keep it simple! I play other wargames at a club twice a month and with a three hour maximum time slot, if the rules can't fit on a double side A4 sheet of paper, they ain't much use! Our own, customized rules work out just fine for most periods, including complex WWII armor/infantry clashes.

Playing WoW we found that altitude rules as per the box complicated and a drag on game time, so tried the simplified ones posted here (no climb counters). We found however that using scouts only, there was no point in using altitude at all - there being no advantage in height, and no point in trying to 'escape' as we're not in a campaign. We will use them when we get the 2 seaters up though.

Our one House Rule is for collisions: pilots of aircraft approaching at the same height will automatically take evasive action; unless they both 'dodge' the same way, they will miss each other. We simulate this by cutting the A damage deck and comparing numbers. The pilot drawing the higher number is deemed to have flown over the lower one (no shooting). If both draw the same number then it's a collision and the official WoW box rule applies.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

That is strange Stuart. I never found altitude made any difference at all even before the Col came up with his super altitude/climb dials.
Rob.

[Kaiser]

If higher altitude wouldn't cut down the range for shooting then altitude would have a bigger impact on games.

So i suggest: If shooting at a targed one level of altitude below you then it counts as if the targed aircraft is on the same level of altitude except that shots at short range the target still recevies only one damage card.
It is still impossible to shoot at targets two levels below you.

Shooting at targets one level above you remains unchanged (half range, only one damage card).

[CappyTom]

If higher altitude wouldn't cut down the range for shooting then altitude would have a bigger impact on games.

So i suggest: If shooting at a targed one level of altitude below you then it counts as if the targed aircraft is on the same level of altitude except that shots at short range the target still recevies only one damage card.
It is still impossible to shoot at targets two levels below you.

Shooting at targets one level above you remains unchanged (half range, only one damage card).

Are you saying that if you are at a higher level and are shooting at a target at lower level you shoot normal. Long range one damage and short range two damage cards. Also if you are at a lower level shooting at a target above you its using the normal rules, only short range shot and take one damage card as if your at long range. That would give the pilot an advantage with altitude.

Tom

[Albert Ross]

Makes sense to me....

[Bartman]

Are you saying that if you are at a higher level and are shooting at a target at lower level you shoot normal. Long range one damage and short range two damage cards

If I'm reading Daniel right that is correct, except that at short range in that case you only do one card of damage not two.

[CappyTom]

If I'm reading Daniel right that is correct, except that at short range in that case you only do one card of damage not two.

That's how the rules are now.

Tom

[Bartman]

Yes, except that at long range you cannot shoot at all if you are an altitude level above.

I think what he's saying is that he plays that if you are one level above an aircraft you can shoot for one card of damage at both long and short range.

Again, if I am reading him correctly.

[CappyTom]

Yes, except that at long range you cannot shoot at all if you are an altitude level above.

I think what he's saying is that he plays that if you are one level above an aircraft you can shoot for one card of damage at both long and short range.

Again, if I am reading him correctly.

Got-cha that's good too.

[Hunter]

Yes, except that at long range you cannot shoot at all if you are an altitude level above.

I think what he's saying is that he plays that if you are one level above an aircraft you can shoot for one card of damage at both long and short range.

Again, if I am reading him correctly.

I like 'your' clarification here Bartman. This lets pilots at a higher altitude have an advantage as it was/is in the real world! I'm going to think about this idea of Kaiser.

[Kaiser]

Are you saying that if you are at a higher level and are shooting at a target at lower level you shoot normal. Long range one damage and short range two damage cards. Also if you are at a lower level shooting at a target above you its using the normal rules, only short range shot and take one damage card as if your at long range. That would give the pilot an advantage with altitude.

Tom

Not quite.

If you shoot at a targed at a lower level = you shoot as normal but even at short range you deal out only one damage cart.
If you shoot at a target at higher level = you shoot only at short range but deal out only one damage cart.

With your example the aircraft at a lower altitude would have the advantage above a higher flying aircraft. This is unrealistic as you should have the advantage if flying high.

[CappyTom]

Not quite.

If you shoot at a targed at a lower level = you shoot as normal but even at short range you deal out only one damage cart.
If you shoot at a target at higher level = you shoot only at short range but deal out only one damage cart.

With your example the aircraft at a lower altitude would have the advantage above a higher flying aircraft. This is unrealistic as you should have the advantage if flying high.

I see what your saying. I was saying at the higher altitude the pilot shoots as if at the same altitude, 1 damage card at long range and 2 damage cards at short range. And the lower altitude would just shoot 1 damage card at short range.

Tom

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I see what your saying. I was saying at the higher altitude the pilot shoots as if at the same altitude, 1 damage card at long range and 2 damage cards at short range. And the lower altitude would just shoot 1 damage card at short range.

Tom

Not so good for me flying as Albert Ball though Tom. In a Nieuport with only a wing mounted gun and a perchant for giving fire from underneath, I am at a vast disadvantage as it is. I would like to be able to do a short dive similar to having a climb counter but in reverse. Could be an Ace quality.
Rob.

[Kaiser]

I don't think that shooting from above should be as good as shooting from the same level of altitude.
If i would adopt your proposal i would say that every time you shoot at a targed below you loose one Climb counter (same as with a Split-S) as you have to pull down the nose of your aircraft in order to hit something below you.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I don't think that shooting from above should be as good as shooting from the same level of altitude.
If i would adopt your proposal i would say that every time you shoot at a targed below you loose one Climb counter (same as with a Split-S) as you have to pull down the nose of your aircraft in order to hit something below you.

You have a very interesting point here Daniel. I expect it will draw some comments.
Rob.

[Albert Ross]

Height is a definite advantage: your opponent presents a bigger target and it is easier to guage his speed and direction than if he is on the same level as you. More attacks were made from above or below than at the same altitude

[CappyTom]

Another idea could be on the flight deck card there is a place for 1+ hits. If your shooting from above your opponent than any hits he or she gets goes in the 1+ pile. Just keeping it simple.

Tom

[Ginarley]

I just had an amusing thought:

1. Each altitude peg supposedly represents approx 500m
2. The range ruler suggests that planes have a scale range of about 30m

Question: should planes be able to shoot at planes at different altitude levels at all?

[Albert Ross]

The pegs represent a flight level or 'block' of space in which the aircraft is traveling; within that space the aircraft can pitch and yaw without significantly changing altitude, in the same way that the guns have and 'arc' (actually a cone) of fire even though the gun barrels are fixed directly ahead. It's presumed that the pilot can make minor deviations from the direct line of flight to bring his guns to bear without a shift in course or altitude. Note that some allied aircraft have a wing mounted MG that can fire upwards......

The ruler range represents only the distance that a pilot would close to before opening fire (so as not to waste ammunition), not the distance bullets will travel which could easily be the length of the room