Ares Games
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Unified fighters' forward firing arcs - a problem

  1. #1

    Default Unified fighters' forward firing arcs - a problem

    Forward firing arcs generally reflect the possibility to adjust forward aiming. That is OK.
    But - such possibilities were not even when you compare single engine versatile fighters and less versatile heavy, two engine fighters.
    The problem is the heavies bring heavy armament in their noses, thus a flying in front of such a WGS beast in a game is a real issue for a single engine plane.
    This is the reason the forward firing arcs of the heavies should be much more narrow than they are printed now. It would reflect the less versatility of the heavies (they could not adjust their firing position so easily) and would make the game conditions more historically accurate.

    Your thoughts?
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  2. #2

    Default

    A lot of heavies had a nose gunner with a moveable mount.
    I assume you're talking of the less manoeuvrable light bombers, with fixed forward guns?

    It's an interesting idea. I would go with an arc linked to what turns the plane can do, as that's linked to the wing load & manoeuvrability.
    The normal is 60°

    Maximum Turn Fire Arc
    30° 45°
    45° 60°
    60° 65°
    90° 70°

    ... or something like that.

  3. #3

    Default

    Aircraft can fly sideways pretty doggone well. If you look up crosswind landing on Youtube you can see examples of it even with big jets.

    The D.R.I was particularly notorious for being able to fly "sideways" in order to put gunfire on its opponent. "Sideways" is an exaggeration for sure, but we're talking well off of pointing in the direction of travel. This isn't in a vehicle who's bearing is changing, this is kicking the rudder over to point in a different direction than the one you're traveling in. Direction of flight is well off the centerline of the airplane.

    "'To my amazement he kicked on full rudder, without bank, pulled his nose up slightly, gave me a burst while he was skidding sideways and then kicked on opposite rudder before the results of this amazing stunt appeared to have any effect on the controllability of his machine." That's a quote from Bowman, speaking of Werner Voss' flying capabilities in a D.R.I.

    There's no compelling reason a bomber can't do the same, but of course it's all a matter of each individual airplane's design. And bigger ships will do it slower than smaller. But a quick trip through YouTube will show you exceptionally large aircraft holding significant sideways flight for extended stretches in order to keep themselves on their approach in a crosswind.

    S.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagrilarus View Post
    Aircraft can fly sideways pretty doggone well. If you look up crosswind landing on Youtube you can see examples of it even with big jets.

    The D.R.I was particularly notorious for being able to fly "sideways" in order to put gunfire on its opponent. "Sideways" is an exaggeration for sure, but we're talking well off of pointing in the direction of travel. This isn't in a vehicle who's bearing is changing, this is kicking the rudder over to point in a different direction than the one you're traveling in. Direction of flight is well off the centerline of the airplane.

    "'To my amazement he kicked on full rudder, without bank, pulled his nose up slightly, gave me a burst while he was skidding sideways and then kicked on opposite rudder before the results of this amazing stunt appeared to have any effect on the controllability of his machine." That's a quote from Bowman, speaking of Werner Voss' flying capabilities in a D.R.I.

    There's no compelling reason a bomber can't do the same, but of course it's all a matter of each individual airplane's design. And bigger ships will do it slower than smaller. But a quick trip through YouTube will show you exceptionally large aircraft holding significant sideways flight for extended stretches in order to keep themselves on their approach in a crosswind.

    S.
    Sure. But following and aiming at a fast flying single engine fighter is another story .
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  5. #5

    Default

    I see where you are coming from Andy - not that familiar with WGS but wouldn't these heavier types already be handicapped by less mobile manoeuvre decks & bigger bases than their more agile adversaries ? It seems a little unfair to restrict them further for what is essentially a catch all of the kick of the rudder bar, the cone of fire of the guns & the deflection needed.
    If they get on you then they deserve a crack at you; if you stray across their nose you deserve what you get !

    "He is wise who watches"

  6. #6

    Default

    Designer note: the standard fighters' cone is somehow "broad", and not just a "fire in front" cone, because planes are not allowed to turn any inclination as in reality. WW1 fighters, for example, can only turn 60° or more.
    Blue Max allow you to fire only in the row of hexes in front of you. if a plane is two hexes away from another, but they are not in the same row of hexes, they can not fiore each other no matter which orientation they have even if they are quite at short range from each other. There is a huge "blind spot" between a row of hexes and another. If a plane is 2 hexes away in a different row, you can have it too at your left if you are heading North and too to your right if you head NWW. This is absurd IMHO, and the standard forward cone for fighters is aimed to avod that. In Wings of War/Glory, it is never possible that you miss a target just because it is in a blind spot between the orientation you have going straight and the one you have using one of your turns. The cone aproximates all the orientations you could get if you could be allowed not just to go straight or turn 60°, but also to turn any other inclination in-between as you could in reality.
    Of course, front flexible guns may have broader arcs.
    Something that X-Wing does not seems to have understood. They just copied the idea of having a cone from the center of the base to the front corner of it. Even if with the squared bases and the minimum turn of 45° degrees instead than 60° (they took maneuvres from WW2 Wings of War) they did not really need such a broader cone.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightbomber View Post
    Sure. But following and aiming at a fast flying single engine fighter is another story .
    Yeah, but that's why there's 0s in the damage decks. All of this is about enjoying gameplay of course, hardly a Sim. But the quote I cited above is from a WWI pilot speaking about another WWI pilot. It seems to me that if he mentioned it (particularly the way phrased it) there must be some level of realistic threat.

    Or are you speaking strictly to bombers? Truth be told, there isn't a particularly good excuse for being in their front firing arc in the game in the first place unless you are in one great big furball of planes. The bombers don't exactly sneak up on anyone.

    Truth be told, X-Wing craft should be able point in any direction they please. Unless you want to say that they're reflecting the movement in the movies, which was dead wrong, and use that as a shield from the criticism.

    Love your choice of plane avatar Andrea. It's a classic.
    Last edited by Sagrilarus; 02-10-2016 at 12:01.

  8. #8

    Default

    Star Wars dogfights are directly derived from WW2 footage of plane dogfights. The Death Star attack is directly derived from The Dambusters/Squadron 633 scenes. Even the Stormtrooper are actually Wehrmacht soldiers (see the helmet shape and the back hump where German soldiers had the gas mask case). This is why you find the starsahip movements in the movie "dead wrong" - they are actually masked WW2 planes. So no surprise that the game depicting them has been directly derived from a WW2 simulation. To the point to keep the Immelmann turn among the maneuvres - calling it "Koirogan turn" is a pretty awkward attempt to mask its presence (in the Star Wars universe, the Koirogan turn is an evasive maneuvre with a random change of direction - not an attack maneuvre with a 180° change of direction).
    But OK, better if I stop here.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Star Wars dogfights are directly derived from WW2 footage of plane dogfights. The Death Star attack is directly derived from The Dambusters/Squadron 633 scenes. Even the Stormtrooper are actually Wehrmacht soldiers (see the helmet shape and the back hump where German soldiers had the gas mask case). This is why you find the starsahip movements in the movie "dead wrong" - they are actually masked WW2 planes. So no surprise that the game depicting them has been directly derived from a WW2 simulation. To the point to keep the Immelmann turn among the maneuvres - calling it "Koirogan turn" is a pretty awkward attempt to mask its presence (in the Star Wars universe, the Koirogan turn is an evasive maneuvre with a random change of direction - not an attack maneuvre with a 180° change of direction).
    But OK, better if I stop here.
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Star Wars dogfights are directly derived from WW2 footage of plane dogfights. The Death Star attack is directly derived from The Dambusters/Squadron 633 scenes. Even the Stormtrooper are actually Wehrmacht soldiers (see the helmet shape and the back hump where German soldiers had the gas mask case). This is why you find the starsahip movements in the movie "dead wrong" - they are actually masked WW2 planes. So no surprise that the game depicting them has been directly derived from a WW2 simulation. To the point to keep the Immelmann turn among the maneuvres - calling it "Koirogan turn" is a pretty awkward attempt to mask its presence (in the Star Wars universe, the Koirogan turn is an evasive maneuvre with a random change of direction - not an attack maneuvre with a 180° change of direction).
    But OK, better if I stop here.
    (Refilling Angiolillo's glass with whiskey) . . . and what do you think about that Andrea?

  11. #11

    Default

    I think that Lucas has a genuine passion for WW2 and he did nice hommages to it in his movies.
    X-Wing's disturbing story has already been commented enough in the past.
    Let's just enjoy these scenes, that are pretty fun. Most of you will already know them, but for those who missed them...

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails dambDeathStar.jpg  

  12. #12

  13. #13

  14. #14

    Default

    As a footnote:



    For more comments, well... I know that we will meet with some of you in Prague this Spring. A good city where to fill glasses, and empty them with friends.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Star Wars dogfights are directly derived from WW2 footage of plane dogfights......
    Actually based on dogfight scenes from "The Battle of Britain" movie and other cinema epics. There is a popular tale of when George Lucas was showing his new film to friends at his ranch, the special effects hadn't been completed and so in order to have a "complete" movie to show them he had the BoB footage that inspired him spliced in to show the effect. Apparently his mates thought it was all a big joke until the reasoning was explained. So think X Wing = Spitfire and TIE = 109 and you are pretty much there.

  16. #16

    Default

    When _Crimson Skies_ was a Going Concern, the combination of Plotted Movement and Straight-Line-Only Fire led to games taking *hours* to complete, because it was bloody-near-impossible to target a foe. The SMOCS were working on the notion of "for every hex offset from straight, 1-pt. penalty to-hit".

    Not sure how one would implement this for _WoG_ -- "take a non-steep turn card, and place it in front of the firer; if the target falls between Straight Ahead and the direction the turn's arrow is pointing, the target may be fired upon"?

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Star Wars dogfights are directly derived from WW2 footage of plane dogfights. The Death Star attack is directly derived from The Dambusters/Squadron 633 scenes. Even the Stormtrooper are actually Wehrmacht soldiers (see the helmet shape and the back hump where German soldiers had the gas mask case). This is why you find the starsahip movements in the movie "dead wrong" - they are actually masked WW2 planes. So no surprise that the game depicting them has been directly derived from a WW2 simulation. To the point to keep the Immelmann turn among the maneuvres - calling it "Koirogan turn" is a pretty awkward attempt to mask its presence (in the Star Wars universe, the Koirogan turn is an evasive maneuvre with a random change of direction - not an attack maneuvre with a 180° change of direction).
    But OK, better if I stop here.
    and thats fine for star wars since it was designed as a space fanatsy but star trek attack wing should have more realistic firing arcs to reflect maneuvering outside of a gravity well. but thats ok thats why i like wings much better than either xwing or staw.

  18. #18

    Default

    In my opinion, forcing to fire in a line of hexes in front of a plane and allowing 6 facing to a plane with broad "blind spots" between one row and the other is strongly irrealistic. As you note, matching it with simultaneous plotting is deadly.

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Not sure how one would implement this for _WoG_ -- "take a non-steep turn card, and place it in front of the firer; if the target falls between Straight Ahead and the direction the turn's arrow is pointing, the target may be fired upon"?
    Thanks to the broad forward cone, instead than a "just forward of the card" rule, you do not need to implement anything.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Thanks to the broad forward cone, instead than a "just forward of the card" rule, you do not need to implement anything.
    My suggestion was assuming the cone was done away with.

  20. #20

    Setarius's Avatar May you forever fly in blue skies
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dale
    Location
    Kentucky
    Sorties Flown
    1,685
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default

    These go back to the old saying, Nothing is never new in Hollywood, it is just given a fresh coat of paint and used over and over and over again. Lol

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Setarius View Post
    These go back to the old saying, Nothing is never new in Hollywood, it is just given a fresh coat of paint and used over and over and over again. Lol
    True.

    But Andy's OP isn't far off base. The heavy fighters in WGS (Bf.110s and Beaufighters, so far) perform far more admirably in "dogfights" in-game than they did in actuality. A narrower cone of fire would not, in my opinion, be all that out of line. I've found that their advantage in firepower (cannons are just sick, but we've been over this a thousand times) far outweighs any limitations in maneuverability they may have.

  22. #22

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    So I have been a long time proponent of not aiming at the base but at the peg (or center of card) for this reason. Most of all, to me, it better matches the ground scale of the game, but in the case of the Heavy Fighter vs Light Fighter you have less instances of the Light Fighter "accidentally" flying in front of the Heavy Fighter (or basically when the ruler manages to touch a random corner of the base in an almost impossible shot). Close range, where the Heavies armament usually dominates, has to be planned and worked for on a much harder level than if aiming for the base. Try it, I dare you. After a few games of Heavy vs Light using the peg as the target, you will no longer be complaining about the Heavy being overpowered.

    *Edit* Complaining may be too strong of a word, I can easily see how many people could feel that the forward arcs of the heavies are very punishing.
    Last edited by Lord_Ninja; 02-11-2016 at 23:26.

  23. #23

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    You have a point Lucas. I played it that way when I started playing WoG. It is much more demanding. You don't score half the hits you would if you aimed peg to base. And it is pro agility. But there is a downside to that to. Flexiable guns gets a bit overpowered I think. Hitting targets while not getting anything in return. (Ex. A flyby from behind) If you treat a card as a timeframe as well as a direction peg to base makes sence.
    Last edited by LOOP; 02-12-2016 at 03:45.

  24. #24

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    If I am not misconstruing your words, you mean that the fire arcs on a plane (for instance the B-17) are sometimes an inch away from the peg allowing the turret to hit but not an attacking plane (For instance a Fw-190 being in a B-17's turret but failing to reach the center peg in return)? We (my fellow local players) count any and all firing arcs as extra "center pegs". It's a very liberal interpretation of a "center peg" but it basically allows "If you can hit me than I can hit you" distance measurement.

  25. #25

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    That is a very clever way around that problem
    But you still have the problem if you only have one dot to measure to. The wider arc of a reargunner hit peg to peg but the fighter miss. I must confess that I have only played WGF and it might differ from WGS. But smaller aircraft with reargunner work in a similar way as WGF or am I wrong

  26. #26

    Default

    That's a good thought, Lucas. I'll give it a go.

  27. #27

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    Also limiting everyone's Immelmanns helps since now the Heavy fighter can't just do a 180 in three turns

  28. #28

    Default

    I tried a different solution, having the target speed influencing the damage (this attempt was made aiming to the peg and not just the base btw)

    It works like this:
    when shooting a target flying at slow speed normal rules apply (full damage from short range - reduced damage from long range)
    when shooting a target flying at fast speed you'll only do full damage if you get at short range AND are attacking the target rear ark (drawn 2 lines from center peg to the base rear corners)

    Bombers with bomb loads can only plan slow speed moves (they will temporarily go fast when diving ofc).

    I've found that this way heavy fighters front arc is less intimidating since they have to capitalize on a mistake of yours to really bring their firepower to bear (and if you slow down in front of a heavy fighter... that's darwinian selection at work)

    This has brought interesting changes to the way players fly, speed becomes a precious asset you dont want to give up unless really necessary (brings fighter pilots saying "speed is life" into the game)

    as a side effects, players are way more cautious using immelmans and split S as the necessity to go slow through part of the sequence makes you more vulnerable (thus limiting the "joust" fenomenon)

    My two cents,

    Cheers, Claudio
    Last edited by Kleebatch; 02-23-2016 at 02:24.

  29. #29

    Default

    If we're talking about heavies with fixed guns: since they were mostly used for strafing, I would only allow them to shoot straight up the 12 O'clock line.
    For heavy fighters, a restricted firing arc does seem to be warranted.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kleebatch View Post
    I tried a different solution, having the target speed influencing the damage (this attempt was made aiming to the peg and not just the base btw)

    It works like this:
    when shooting a target flying at slow speed normal rules apply (full damage from short range - reduced damage from long range)
    when shooting a target flying at fast speed you'll only do full damage if you get at short range AND are attacking the target rear ark (drawn 2 lines from center peg to the base rear corners)

    Bombers with bomb loads can only plan slow speed moves (they will temporarily go fast when diving ofc).

    I've found that this way heavy fighters front arc is less intimidating since they have to capitalize on a mistake of yours to really bring their firepower to bear (and if you slow down in front of a heavy fighter... that's darwinian selection at work)

    This has brought interesting changes to the way players fly, speed becomes a precious asset you dont want to give up unless really necessary (brings fighter pilots saying "speed is life" into the game)

    as a side effects, players are way more cautious using immelmans and split S as the necessity to go slow through part of the sequence makes you more vulnerable (thus limiting the "joust" fenomenon)

    My two cents,

    Cheers, Claudio
    An interesting means of adding deflection shooting to the game; this bears thinking about.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  31. #31

    Default

    I guess limiting fire arcs would be good solution - it's easy to apply to the stands and can make a difference.
    Claudio's ideas are very good, but... In my personal experience it's always better to keep the rules simple, then other way.

    Someone mentioned 0s. Those nasty little things are there, but they are there equally for all arcs, so they don't give an edge in their own right.

    So, Foz's idea about connecting maximum turn with firing arc is quite obtainable, maybe just numbers should be revised a bit.

  32. #32

    Default

    One problem WGS has is the Immelman, especially for heavy fighters. To turn 180 degrees horizontally takes a maximum of 3 cards in WGF (for all planes that can Immelman have 60' turns) A heavy fighter with 45' turns in WGS takes 4, and with 30' turns, 6. But only 3 if done vertically.

  33. #33

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    One problem WGS has is the Immelman, especially for heavy fighters. To turn 180 degrees horizontally takes a maximum of 3 cards in WGF (for all planes that can Immelman have 60' turns) A heavy fighter with 45' turns in WGS takes 4, and with 30' turns, 6. But only 3 if done vertically.
    We always play with a three Immelman limit. Any Immelmans past the three limit are allowed but you take an A Chit in damage for airframe stress. Maybe heavy fighters should take a B Chit for being "heavy". Twin engines plus G forces does not equate anything good for the airframe.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    One problem WGS has is the Immelman, especially for heavy fighters. To turn 180 degrees horizontally takes a maximum of 3 cards in WGF (for all planes that can Immelman have 60' turns) A heavy fighter with 45' turns in WGS takes 4, and with 30' turns, 6. But only 3 if done vertically.
    How is this a problem? While playing Fighting Wings (a really decent flight simulator disguised as a game), it is much easier to change facing with a vertical turn or roll, rather than staying with flat turns.
    Karl'
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus



Similar Missions

  1. HE-111 Firing Arcs
    By Setarius in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-31-2018, 08:52
  2. Caudron G4 Firing Arcs
    By flashard in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-29-2016, 20:42
  3. Carrier firing arcs?
    By Savoir Faire in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-22-2014, 15:07
  4. Caudron G4 firing arcs
    By johnbiggles in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 05:35
  5. Halberstadt CL.II Firing Arcs
    By fast.git in forum WGF: Historical Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-31-2014, 09:37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •