"AirWar C21: Zoom Climb and Roll Rate capabilities" Topic

I just got the rules and I was wondering how relative Zoom and Roll capabilities are (or could be) modelled.

I know the concept is that speed is being used as energy – and in many cases the two can be interchanged – but the zoom is a situation where the difference is meaningful, and in the same way, roll rate is different from turning ability.

To be honest I think that specifically modelling them is going into more detail than C21 does; roll rate is subsumed into overall agility rating, while zoom is arguably a factor of power rating, and anyway not something you can specifically model in a game where height is mainly abstracted. I'd skip 'em.

Yeah, just pick up Birds of Prey if you want to model this kind of stuff.

I do plan to get Birds of Prey, but there's a need for games at both levels.

But I don't think it's that hard to add something like this to C21 without making the game much more complex.

Roll rate affects how quickly you can get into and out of a turn. Just increase or reduce the distance moved (using L M H roll ratings) before you make your first turn or before you reverse turns. The only thing you'd have to track is bank – to show whether you are in a sustained turn or not. Of course, you'd also want to give high-roll-rate planes a better barrel roll.

For a zoom, I think you'd need to track altitude – but that's not a big deal. Fox2 Reheat and Mach Speed Hunters do it quite well. With just simple altitude tracking, you could add a lot to the game without giving up much for normal-sized engagements. (Optional advanced rules, of course.)

But without these, you just can't model some very important aircraft differences for the dogfight eras (before all aspect missiles).

Has anyone played Birds of Prey yet with a detailed review/battle report? I'm interested, but no offense meant to the Ad Astra guys, the complexity of their own systems leaves me totally cold, and if BOP is pretty much at that same level, I'd rather stick to something simpler. I've gone to their site, but the BOP info there is very sketchy. I'd like to see a lot more before making a decision.

If the Ad Astra guys read this, will you be at GenCon running demos?

I have the playtest version of Birds of Prey. If you can handle Air Superiority/Speed of Heat – this is the next generation in both realism and playability.

Roll rate will probably be difficult to get data for, excepting for out of date aircraft.

For the zoom-climb though, you could probably just use the aircraft's current speed, and then a reduction of that in increasing amounts, as inertial energy falls off in the climb.

The 3-D Flight Stands we sell will let you track 500 – 900 levels of altitude easily, using the antennae sections, in combination with twin altitude dials, so you can represent 50,000 – 90,000 feet of altitude in 100 foot increments on the tabletop.

I hope that helps.

Best regards,

Rob
Topgun Marketing LLC
topgunace111 AT yahoo DOT com

Vietnam is the era I'm interested in so there is some real-world battle data to go on.

What scale planes can you use with those stands?

Various scales, although they probably work best with 1/300th – 1/72nd, or so. I use mine with 1/300th and 1/144th scale aircraft the vast majority of the time.

I have used them with 1/600th too, although the heads are a bit large in comparison to the aircraft in that scale, and some customers have used them with 1/48th scale aircraft as well.

With our 4" base option, they are also sturdy enough to support the Corgi/Lledo 1/72nd scale diecast metal, 1/72nd scale planes, and their approximately 1/110th scale WWII planes.

Our Flight Stands permit virtually any attitude of flight to be represented, including even inverted maneuvers, so they make your air games look a lot more interesting on the tabletop than just having the planes flying straight and level over the battlefield.

If your interested in these sorts of issues have read through the backposts of the WGHistorical egroup. Lots and lots of issues were covered and I think you'll find that C21 puts all this into acceleration and agility as Dom said. The game won't change to account for these I'm sure.

Regards

Happy Wanderer

I did look – there isn't much.

And there's always room for optional rules.

The game seems to be aimed more for the missile crowd than the dogfighters.

It's an introductory game to seduce…attract non-aerial gamers and those who refuse (rightly so in my Two Domensional opinion ) to play "complex" games in a social setting.

It never was meant to model excrutiating detail that is simualtion like/lite but to have a fun and quick game that has planes models as counters. you do realize that all those miniatures are just pretty counters, right?

Gracias,

Glenn

But it's not just a beer and pretzels game – like some others. It actually does a very good job with many aspects.

One of the problems with air war games is that they try to come up with absolute ratings for aircraft flight characteristics – so that theoretically you could fly an F86 against an F22. What's the point of that?

What you need are realistic relative ratings that reward using historical tactics for historical opponents (like F86s and Mig 15s). C21 could come very close to that.

The options are to take C21 and add some advanced rules to it to make a playable, but more realistic game, or take Fox2Reheat or Mach Speed Hunters and add the maneuvers they are missing.

But I never get any responses when I post about them.

Granted, I haven't even seen the rulesets, but almost every jet made since 1970 can zoom climb *and accelerate*. An F15 is capable of breaking Mach in a vertical climb, and is used as the 'first stage' of the American ASAT missile, topping out at over 90k feet. It's going to be tough to handle that wide a range of aircraft in one ruleset.

"…The options are to take C21 and add some advanced rules to it to make a playable, but more realistic game, or take Fox2Reheat or Mach Speed Hunters and add the maneuvers they are missing…"

Just a guess, but maybe that's an indicator that your interestis a minority interest at best? Kind of like my interest in M-i-i-i-i-i-i-c-e in S-p-a-a-a-a-a-a-c-e figures.

I certainly have no interest in taking a fun game like Air War C21 and trying to 'feature creep' it into a "simulation lite" type game. I can't speak for Fox2 Reheat or Mach Speed Hunters type gamers/players…

Gracias,

Glenn

"…I have the playtest version of Birds of Prey. If you can handle Air Superiority/Speed of Heat – this is the next generation in both realism and playability…"

But the person attracted to Air War C21 either 1) Doesn't have an interest in (hyperbole follows) 3 second turns and intense/simulator realistic level of grit or owns those games and plays them already.

"…One of the problems with air war games is that they try to come up with absolute ratings for aircraft flight characteristics – so that theoretically you could fly an F86 against an F22. What's the point of that?"

Um, fun? Fantasy? Solo games?

You want period specific matchups? You can do it in Air War C21 – it's called scenario driven games/campaigns. Lots of those have been fone just here in Saint Louis.

Period faceoffs?

Air War C21 as above (AIW wars, Vietnam, Cold War done locally) with a little work.

The pending WW2 rules book.

The in testing/development Korean War rules book.

Air War 1918

Garcias,

Glenn

What you need are realistic relative ratings that reward using historical tactics for historical opponents (like F86s and Mig 15s). C21 could come very close to that.

The trouble with that is that it limits you to specified match-ups; an absolute ratings scale lets you mix and match as required – it's all very well saying "MiG-15 vs Sabre" is a sensible match-up, but what if you want MiG-21 vs Sabre (Indo-Pak 1967 and 1971….) or, heaven help us, Kfir C2 versus Cessna Dragonfly (Alto-Cenepa, for the record….) History has enough ridiculously implausible match-ups that an absolute ratings scale is the only practical way to cover them.

Dom.

PS – Yes, I exaggerated in my Alto-Cenepa example; the Dragonfly was used in a strike role – they had Sukhoi 22s with a pair of AA-2 Atolls for interceptor duties – a far better match-up against shiny new Mirages and Kfirs….

However Dom on at least one occasion the poor old A-37 found itself fighting for its life against Kfirs. When you are in a dogfight it don't matter wether you are classed as a fighter, you fight.

Fatman

Who has spent the past few days superglueing tiny plastic card canards to his thumbs while trying to convert Mirages to Kfirs. ;-P

I'm being lazy and just waiting until Paul gets around to them – it's not like I've nothing else to do….

Number6

I am afraid that I have to agree with most of the comments above. The design philosophy of AWC21 means that the designers do not want to add further chrome. The other to rule sets you mention, Fox Two Reheat and Mach Speed Hunters, are, as far as I am aware, no longer being developed by their publishers.

While you are right that adding in the details you request would not make the rules much more complex adding those, making the visual spotting rules more realistic (my personal obsession), factoring in communications (Kevin "Dinky" Shands) plus expanding the gun options ("Scary" Phil Greys) would. And those are just the ideas from a few gamers, one of which only plays the game occasionally.

All game designers have to draw the line between realism and ease of play somewhere and, I believe the guys at Wessex Games have done a good job. I would agree that the game works better the more recent the conflict modelled, I use it for games from the mid eighties on.

If you want to reflect relative Zoom and Roll capabilities just write a local amendment. If you do bang it on here and the Yahoo group so we can all have a look.

Oh and on the subject of drawing the line between realism and ease of play. I am working on a set of air combat rules specifically designed for sixties and seventies combats. After several play tests I have settled on a simpler if less realistic option for……..visual spotting.

Fatman

"I'm being lazy and just waiting until Paul gets around to them – it's not like I've nothing else to do…."

You could work on Peruvian and Ecuadorian decals if you have so much free time.

Ducks behind sandbags and waits for the bang.

Fatman

Who is still hoping that you might make it for Claymore Dom.

Can't get off work for it I'm afraid – I've had my allowance of summer Saturdays….

Dom, who never has enough free time….

The excuses this man will come up with to avoid drinking with Scotsmen. After all we only broke Scary Phils leg….

Fatman