Fuel - lets get some rules down!

[Oberst Hajj]

Okay, lots of us use some type of fuel rules or at least have some ideas on how to include it in the game. What I would like to try and do is come up with a set of "standardized" rules for fuel.

I think the best way to implement fuel in game terms is to limit the number of turns a plane can stay engaged. As pointed out in another thread, Caves Eagles has already put a lot of research into the amount of fuel many of the planes from WWI carried in terms of combat ability. I've started my planning based off of these figures. I've then converted them into a more appropriate number system for Wings of War by dividing them by 5 (rounded up). This gives us the following results:



I think the WoW Fuel Ratings actually translate nicely into number of turns a plane can stay engaged before running out of fuel.

Let us use the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII as our example planes. These two planes have an eight turn engagement limit. They would need to exit the table edge (preferably via their own side) by the end of the 8th game turn's end of movement phase.

Missions could effect these ratings as well. If the mission called for attacking an enemy aerodrome, we could say that it costs 2 fuel points to get there. In a mission like this, the Fokkers would only have 6 turns of combat time.

If any plane did not make it off the table edge by the end of it's last turn of fuel, it would crash land (or glide) where it was. This could factor into victory points or have effects in and on going campaign depending on where the plane comes to land (behind enemy lines).

This system would need some play testing and even just some research on how long your games really last (turn wise) would help determine if the rating numbers are close to where they need to be.

Any thoughts?

[Guntruck]

These might be realistic ratings, but first thoughts are that they may leave too short a time to get a combat result (based on the time my group spends fannying aroung trying to get into a favourable position at any rate). It also depends on the size of table and type of mission; For example an RE8 on a photo recce may spend most of its 10 turns flogging up the table to the target.

As I said, these are first thoughts, so I'll try these out next time we play. At the worst, it might concentrate a few minds and stop them dancing all round the table before attacking.

[Oberst Hajj]

I had thought about it causing issues with not enough time, but when I think back on my groups games, I don't think many of them went longer then 8-12 full turns. Then again, we tend to get stuck in right away.

[flash]

Steves right - there are alot of variables that could mess with this - how far away is the front, how long have you been on mission, what's the wind direction etc etc.
I get it that there's an urge for realism (prevalent throughout the forum) but I don't see the point of it when it curtails a game. The last thing I'd want is too latch on to the tail of something only to be told 'you have to break off now or you won't get home' ..........
I'll glide back and land in a field then !!
I think it's easier just to set a generic turn limit or even a time limit (if your crew don't fanny about !) to cover the fuel aspect in which to get the job done. Normally the game has been resolved by the end of either !
But hey, whatever floats your boat ! If you're gonna do the fuel angle I'd say use the full allowance as combat time.
Regards Dave

[Oberst Hajj]

I would not go so far as to worry about time spent patrolling or wind direction. I think most of us play with the start of the game being the point when the action starts. Whatever was required to get us to that point is just fluff and does not need to be played out.

Most missions would have full fuel for combat time, my thoughts about using fuel to get to the fight was mainly for campaigns like Knights of the Air where the missions are scripted and the numbers are set for distances.

[Burt]

I quite like the idea of a fuel limit, not too sure about the sudden death when running out of fuel, I would be tempted to say carry on flying but lose one altitude level a turn with no fancy manouvering whilst trying to exit the home table edge.
Having a game next week will see how it works out.
Don

[Oberst Hajj]

I kind of like the idea of slowly losing altitude. What maneuvers would you limit? No steeps of course and I'd say no Split S or Immelmann. Should they be required to do stalls as well?

[Burt]

I kind of like the idea of slowly losing altitude. What maneuvers would you limit? No steeps of course and I'd say no Split S or Immelmann. Should they be required to do stalls as well?

I agree with the manoeuvre restrictions maybe rather than a stall just make it compulsory to play a dive card as one of your 3 cards each turn.
I think a stall applies more to powered flight rather than a fast descent

[Guntruck]

Not sure I'm convinced by the 'lose one altitude level per turn' idea. Losing altitude and fighting on means you could go on so long you have to land on the table because you run out of sky and/or go-juice (unrealistic), or you break off and go home but may not necessarily have enough fuel to make it back.

Pilots didn't tend to fight on until the fan stopped because they had run out fuel, but were sensible enough to leave the party while they still had a fuel reserve to get home, sufficient if nursed but possibly not enough if indulging in fuel-hungry manoeuvres. In the context of having a fuel rating the principle is that after X number of turns you have just enough left to bug out and get home with an adequate reserve.

My suggestion would be that you have a fuel rating as originally suggested. You can then either get to the table edge on the last turn of fuel and be assumed to have got home, or you can have a maximum of another 5 turns to get to the table edge, but then throw a dice to see if you get home - for one turn over the rating, throw better than a 1, for two turns over throw better than a 2, etc. A failed throw means you crash-land and the opposition gets credit for your demise.

Don't even want to think about adding wind direction/strength complications to all this

[flash]

Don't even want to think about adding wind direction/strength complications to all this [/QUOTE]

You're right and I'm not suggesting you do - I'd be horrified if you did - but you can put money on it that someone somewhere has or will for the sake of realism. Afterall, it would be historically accurate !

[Horse4261]

This is the House Rule that we have been using for CE here.

New Fuel Consumption

When beginning a new game, aircraft that have not spotted the enemy may cruise in a straight and level flight at Speed 1 without consuming fuel. Once the enemy has been spotted normal rules on fuel consumption apply (Pg07 Main Rules – 3.30 Fuel Expenditure Phase). When any aircraft has consumed its fuel capacity it must disengage combat and attempt to exit toward its own lines, flying no faster then Speed 1. Any additional damage which causes a loss of fuel will force the aircraft into a glide. The pilot may only maneuver in a defensive manner and may not attack unless an opponent is in the pilot’s arc of fire for the aircraft. Observers may attack normally.

The Rules for spotting aircraft are thus.

Spotting Distances

Attempting to spot an enemy aircraft each turn is a roll of 2d6; 10+, modified by aircrew skill. (+2 for each 60 degree heading change of an enemy aircraft to account for sunlight reflecting from wing surfaces)
Conditions (Max / Auto)
Clear: (20 / 10) Hexes
Cloudy/Haze: (15 / 07) Hexes
Rain/Fog: (10 / 05) Hexes
Snow/Night: (06 / 03) Hexes


Granted these are written for Canvas Eagles (1/72 scale with 5 inch hexes on the playing field) but something like this can be adapted for WoW easily I would think.