"flying v fighting" Topic

this is a copy of a post i made in a WYS!! AAR thread. i realized i was getting away from talking of Mike's AAR and getting onto a more general subject, so figured it better to start a new topic…

the simulation of the physical function of aircombat (the fiddly-bit flight mechanics) is the poorest facet of most rulesets, therefore a game/scenario that highlights those details (concentrating on the mechanics of a furball) plays to its weakness and produces an unsatisfactory AAR. even if a mission-oriented scenario is laid out, the mechanics of most rules are aimed at flying/furball resolution, and can only be applied to a mission indirectly.

that's where Mike's game shines: the rules are made to resolve missions, rather than to micro-manage the piloting of aircraft: a player's head is raised above the fray, so to speak, by the rules themselves. put another way, WYS!! gives players relatively large blocks with which to contruct success, whereas flying-game-style rules give players a box of toothpicks with which to build their objective. apples to oranges, for sure: but it's nice to see a different kind of challenge for aircombat gamers that takes a step back from the simple (and highly unsuccessful) process of flight simulation.

it's time the aircombat genre takes the training wheels off, leaves the flying to the pilot in the little model, and allows players to face the tactical challenges of their miniature alter-egos rather than the rudimentary physical challenges of flight school.

no, i'm not shilling for Mike. the snow (and deer hunters!) are keeping me inside today, and i'm avoiding the need-to-be-soldered DH2 tailbooms on my workbench (for my upcoming Richthofen v Hawker scenario).

though Mike's game is WW1-era, i thought the general subject could apply to WW2 and modern stuff as well, so crossposted the thread.

it's time the aircombat genre takes the training wheels off, leaves the flying to the pilot in the little model, and allows players to face the tactical challenges of their miniature alter-egos rather than the rudimentary physical challenges of flight school.

That was the point of Flight Leader, which was criticised for its broad brush approach to flight mechanics. But the game was designed to teach fighter tactics, not how to fly ;)
It would also seem to be the point of Bag the Hun/Algy from TFL. The big picture is more important than the fiddly bits. I prefer that sort of game, others like the fiddly stuff. In my mind if you want to worry about the finer points of flying you should be playing a flight sim.

"…the point of Flight Leader…Bag the Hun/Algy…"

i'll freely confess to a far-from-expert status regarding available games. all statements should be weighed by their source, and my POV is quite limited (being stuck here in what i recall was referred to on another thread as "the hinterlands").

i come to these forums to learn what others think --i usually win most arguments i have with myself…

I think I was sort of agreeing with you :D

Mike's game = ?

How does it do the things you state, e.g. tactical considerations during combat?

Hi

As I don't play those games, i didn't know there was a disconnect. While our games using the "Mustangs and Messercshmitts" system is very detail/furball intensive. it is, in point of fact, a valid flight sim. But our GAMES are always the mission. Last tuesday, I was flying the DH4(puma) on a photo recon with a small escort versus bad guys trying to Kill me. getting the kill wasn't the object, protecting ME was. Imagine flying straight and level at cruise to get the photos while albatri and spads are whorling around you!

Rocky

"Mike's game = ?"

Watch your Six!! i'm not in a position to speak authoritatively (much less officially) on the game. that said, my impression is that the decision-level is on a higher/broader plain (or should it be plane…?) insofar as the players' efforts have the greatest (most useful) effect in overall objective. this is done via a direct allocation of a pilot's attention/resources --ie: the guy on the photo recon run needs to dedicate himself to that and not evading defenders. this is done directly by resource allocation and not just by-the-by as occurs when the physical movement/positioning of the model is used to reflect intent. relying on the physical movement/placement of the model may achieve the same end result, but that result is not directly affected by the actions of the player.

by removing the ability of players to control the movement of their forces with chess-like precision, the rules rely instead on the tactics (via the "orders" given) dictated for success in completing a mission. it's more like a sergeant directing the overall placement/tasks of his squad/team: the specific actions are beyond his control…especially when it hits the fan. a good plan/tactics are needed for success --a lucky die roll may pull you out of the fire, but counting on them to win the game is a big mistake!

as i said: apples to oranges. it's just a different path. using a highly-evolved system like Rocky's (that is familiar to players that can use it effectively) will produce good results as well. i just think that de-emphasizing flight-simulation (which can be fun: as a pilot i enjoy it a lot) is worth exploring --both to present a different level of challenge to aircombat devotees, as well as to create a path/bridge to the genre that is not as daunting/demanding to other gamers.

I agree with your analysis, and with your personal taste in airwar rules gweirda. I agree with Bardolph that your point has been recognized and addressed by several game designers.

Compare Air Force and Mustangs, both succesful designs by S. Craig Taylor, Mustangs designed somewhat more than a decade after Air Force. Both are boardgames, but both at heart are 'cardboard miniatures' systems, which have been readily adapted for play using 3-D miniatures.

Air Force is a rivet counter's game that explicitly represents small differences in performance betwen planes. Altitude is tracked in increments of 100 feet, and the player must execute every bank. Mustangs paints with a broader brush; the pilot is presumed to roll the airplane back upright after a turn and the player doesn't need to be a skillful flyer. In Air Force there are clear performance differences between a Bf-109E and a Spitfire I, not so much in Mustangs.

Although Mustangs loses detail relative to Air Force, I prefer Mustangs as a game and as an entertaining evocation (not a simulation) of air combat. The extreme detail present in Air Force encourages a hex-counting style of play that to me is very unlike the fast paced, instinctive nature of air combat, at least as I imagine it. Contrariwise, the simplicity of Mustangs' flight model allows me to focus on tactical decisions, rather than getting tangled up in the technical details of flying.

Those are my preferences, and those who differ are not wrong.

Air Force was my second air game, but probably my favorite (Richthofen's War being my first). Someone used the Air Force mechanics to create a WWI game. Can't think of the name of it offhand.

For strictly miniatures, I have the Blue Sky series, which I really like the movement elements of, but I find the combat in Check Your Six! to be much more realistic (if you will). The idea that some shots are going to pass through without hitting anything while others are catastrophic is a good simulation in my opinion. I guess other game systems simply call the pass through shots a miss, though.

I also have Canvas Eagles, to which CYS! is closely related. I like it also. That's the problem – too many games, too little time.

Rocky wrote:
"i didn't know there was a disconnect."

regarding the titular subjects, the issue i hope to discuss is how various rulesets display a player's objectives/intentions.

flight sims --those games that (no matter the complexity) concentrate on flight mechanics-- do so by the physical movement/positioning of the models themselves. what a player may or may not intend or have in mind tactically does not influence the nuts and bolts of the action's resolution. a player may move with the intent of lining up an enemy as a target or of evading the pursuit of another: the execution is the same, and the result is not affected at all by the thinking/intent of the pilot. success or failure is left to the final positioning of the models: thus the game is a flying game, with the fighting part sort of showing up to the party as a by-blow instead of as a direct result of a player's actions.

dunno…i know i'm not communicating this very well. a flight-sim may get to the end, but i'm looking at the possibility of doing as other gaming genres do: assume the little guys on the table know how to do what they're trained to do (at varying levels of proficiency, of course) and let the player take on the decisions of a commander instead of a boot-camp sergeant.

do any of the games mentioned (air force etc..) NOT rely on the positioning of the models/counters to determine the results? (ie: what determines if you can shoot or be shot?)

tactical challenges of their miniature alter-egos rather than the rudimentary physical challenges of flight school

Part of the tactical challenge is the limit of physics. You may know where you want the airplane to be at a moment in time but the performance of your aircraft is such that you can't do what you want to do.

If you remove any consideration of aircraft performance limitations, then they are all the same. Corsair and Zero pilots did what they did tactically because of the limitations of the aircraft.

"…where you want the airplane to be…"

i'm looking at eliminating (or at least reducing the effect of) that emphasis on the positioning of the aircraft: leave that to the little guy in the model (isn't he supposed to know how to fly?) and ask players, instead, to place their energies on a different decision-level.

"…you can't do what you want to do."

that's another issue (that i brought up in the previous "fog of movement" thread): using "perfect" physics to restrict performance is not, imo, enough of a limitation to place on players in being able to execute their plans. aircraft (and pilots) don't perform like chess pieces.

Part of some of the "3D players" criticism of Air War C:21 is that you can't get the essence of air combat without 3D manuvers.

I obviously disagree in a game that you need 3D to reflect relative relationships anymore then you need to take hammer to a miniature soldier hammered by solid shot in a Napoleonics game.

I see the attraction of 3D games in flight or space simulations but I prefer a fast game that rewards sound tactics even if it doesn't require the 3D approach. YMMV of course and I don't criticize those who find the (to me) long, slow, laborious, and/or highly detailed games thier cup of tea/coffee/postum/cocoa because they enjoy that. They seem to have a great deal of pleasure in thier gaming in that mode. I admit it doesn't hold any appeal to me.

I'm just the Duel of Eagles/Air War (C21 or 1918) school of aerial gaming type.

I played a game CY6! and one of the pacific version of (insert color) Sun/(insert color) Sky games but that's not a solid datum for evaluation of the game as a game for me. That said, they were interesting although it seemed slower then Air War series but not dragging other then my learning the game mechanics. May have been the good group of players in those games who were patient with me.

Although, in CY6!, my 2 Hurricanes versus 2 ME-109's was a, um, significant challenge…but the Spit guy (2 Spits) was busy with his own 2 ME-109's too…so maybe it was just me not being able to focus on the situation as much as the rules initially. Or perhaps it was me being just not as good a pilot/tactican as the main opponent. That's always a possibility…

Flying TBF 's (IIRC) with Wildcat cover versus ships and Zeroes was educational in the "sun/sky" rules game. The Zero player suffered from one untimely case of Golden BB IIRC which kept him busy fending off F4F's while trying to blast our attack aircraft. I don't remember the results except that I believe we did not sink any ships but I do remember walking away thinking "If I was really into WW2 instead of post WW2…" and feeling good about the game experience.

BTW, nice move to start a new thread instead of hijacking his AAr unintentionally.

Not sure if I fully understand where you were going with this gweirda but I think I see what you main point was. At least I think I do…

Gracias,

Glenn

Who was very concious of simulation versus games aspect back in his programing and S&T boardgame days…

Glenn wrote:
"I see the attraction of 3D games in flight or space simulations but I prefer a fast game that rewards sound tactics even if it doesn't require the 3D approach."

i agree that speed of play is key (in almost any genre), but will hold to my (completely personal) view that it needs to be both represented in the rules as well as on the tabletop. obviously, a game mechanic can be designed/used that inserts the effects of altitude into the play in some way other than using/showing altitude, but that seems to me like using some abstract concept to incorporate the effects of wind on sailing ship combat so that it needn't be shown/delt with directly in play. dunno…like you said: different strokes…it all works if you're having fun!

as far as how i can (maybe?) relate this to the thread: since i'm talking about de-emphasizing the flying aspect of aircombat rules, i can't think of any reason right offhand to think that altitude needs to be treated any more precisely (as far as the degree of input/control of the players) than horizontal movement/maneuvering.

hmm…i think i just argued with myself…

"Not sure if I fully understand where you were going with this…"

that makes two of us! ; )

LOL! It's good to have companions as you randomly wander down the meandering paths (Lost? What makes you think we're lost? We're right here…where ever that is…) to the Forbidden City that no adventurer has ever returned from…

Gracias,

Glenn

I think I see what you're getting at, just not sure how to apply it. Partly because my "airplane game brain" is currently occupied with WWI via Algy. I just don't think there was that much tactical planning during the average WWI dogfight. There was before the first pass, but after that I am under the impression fights broke up into a lot of little individual battles. Lack of radios would be part of the problem.

Now WWII and beyond, with radios I can see more group tactics. I guess my question would be once the shooting starts how much command is going on? I am still getting a mental image of lots of individual fights, though perhaps between pairs of wingmen.

i admit that "tactical" is a poor word for the type of decision-making i'm thinking of, which is related more to objectives than the mere manipulation of the aircraft's position (ie: what to do, not how to do it). i'm definately no wordsmith (that's probably why i was a model builder when i pretended to have a job…), so getting ideas across here is tough.

"…during the average WWI dogfight…a lot of little individual battles."

agreed. it is the pilot/player decisions to be made regarding those little fights that interest me. i'm looking to cut the ties to specific movement choices that produce results indirectly and replace (or at least augment) them with something more akin to orders that reflect the desires/objectives of the pilot/player, leaving the execution of the orders (and most/all the flying) to the little guy in the model. example: if in a furball, the decisions to be made are a)whether to remain in it, b)who (if anyone) to target, and c)how hard (as in level of stress/difficulty) to work to do what you want to do. no input is required/needed regarding the specific maneuvering to be done, since it's irrelevent to the important question that needs to be answered: can i shoot? (or, of course: can i be shot?) whether you did a wingover or a hi yo-yo or a whoop-dee-doodle doesn't really matter, does it? if you can blast the other fellow i doubt you'll care, and if he kills you it won't really make much difference will it?

i'm trying to view aircombat in the same way that other genres are. other games don't require the level of fiddly-bit obsession with movement that flying games do. the mechanics of flying dominates aircombat games, to the point where the majority (if not all) of a player's inputs deal with how the aircraft will move. why? such demands create a genre-specific learning burden (that i don't see in any other genre) that seems to have become the purpose/measure of games. and to a lesser extent, i seriously wonder/doubt that such a thinking process was/is in the forefront of pilots' minds during a fight (anymore than specific arm motions are conciously weighed/determined in the mind of a martial artist) and therefore don't see it (flying) as a worthy target of a game's efforts to simulate aircombat.

aack! rambling blather attack! sorry. i'll shut up now…

OK, I'm officially fascinated as I'm a big proponent of designing a game with the larger picture in mind (though terrible at such designs myself). Where does one get a copy of these rules (CY6)?
--
Tim

It sounds to me like what you are looking for are taken care of by the board games called Downtown(Vietnam) and The Burning Blue(Battle of Britain) by GMT. In each game you have scenarios or missions that you accomplish with a large number of assets, then you create a flight plan drawn on maps of the target area. Although aircraft dogfight, you aren't involved in the actual tactics, just the outcome as you are trying to manage strike packages of 50+ aircraft! On the upper end of the complexity scale, but very challenging and an unusual gaming experience. Highly recommended.

Tim -

name confusion: Mike's game is "Watch Your Six!!", and you can get it when he quits spending time selfishly on his own well-being and gets the sucker to the printer! ; )

my game…you can call it whatever you want…is just in the concept-testing phase, but i'd be happy to send you a copy --or you can see the latest blathering in the files section of the ww1aircombatgaming yahoogroup.

aegiscg47 -

what you describe would be good for two players. i'm aiming for something that lets up to a dozen players field up to a squadron on each side. probably impossible…but i'm aiming high.

i want to reiterate that i am not in any way advocating some sort of book-burning regarding flight-sim rules: as a pilot i enjoy them immensely (especially well-developed ones like Rocky's). i just think that there's a "big wide world" of gamedesign/play out there that is generally untapped by the aircombat genre.

dunno…it may very well be that i am positing an answer to a question that hasn't been / needn't be asked? i know! --i'll start another thread! ; )

I would say that aegiscg47 has it right, what you are looking for is one of Lee Brinicombe Woods excellent board games. These are assett control games which include raid planning and logistics. Any game which employs individual plane models is going to include some level of "piloting" the plane. That said my fellow Blues Bear "Scary" Phil Grey came up with a very simple set of rules called "Oh My God, MiGs" some years ago which simplified the flight and combat mechanics, making you in effect a flight commander rather than a pilot or section commander as most rules do. I will contact "Scary" Phil and see if he can find a copy for you.

Fatman

"Any game which employs individual plane models is going to include some level of "piloting" the plane."

agreed. i'm just looking to make it a little less --mainly from the standpoint of what the player/pilot input is in the game.

"…what you are looking for is one of Lee Brinicombe Woods excellent board games."

probably --but you'll forgive an old modelbuilder from trying to do it with his little toy planes…?

"…set of rules called "Oh My God, MiGs"…I will contact "Scary" Phil and see if he can find a copy for you."

thanks!

Hi

I am, sadly, not in the "fast game" mode. Grin.

Back in the day, my friend Lou Zocchi did a series of games that were more operational. "Luftwaffe", "Battle of Britian", "Flying Tigers" were three of them. For while, he discussed, cause I can do the math, doing little pocket games attached to this where, within the limits, do actual flight sims so that instead of resolving the fight with a die roll, actually step down and fly the planes.

We did manage to do "Mig Killers" as a monster flight sim. And the intent was to use that mechanism for the earlier periods (in the day, my "day job" was doing analysis, and the hobby was doing computer work looking at pre modern aircraft).

I expect that games like "luftwaffe" are too divorced from actually "flying" for your purpose. The first rule in my science background was before you design your experiement, go back and read the literature and find out what has already been done. I think looking at "luftwaffe" or "Flying Tigers" and then deciding which level of abstraction interests you would be on point.

One of the things we have always done is set up Luftawffe et al as a campaign system, then resolve the interceptions with Mustangs and Messerschmitts. Similarly, we took the campaign game in "Richtoften's war", but then used our own 3d game to resolve.

Just as a side note, Richtoften's war has a major error in it. When the designer was talking to the pilots at Old Rheinebeck, he misunderstood the info. He heard "all planes can turn inside a 50 meter circle" and assumed it to mean DIAMETER, when pilots mean radius! Thus, fixing that game involve using the 50m circles and changing the turns to hex facing! No one turns INSIDE the hex, which changes the game considerably!

Back to what we do. Even when not running campaigns, we emphasize the role playing aspects of the rules. That is successfully completing the mission pays the same points as a half kill. That mission might be your escorting the photo plane or similar. Not losing a bomber in a formation. Things like that.

Rocky

Hi

As an example, I know I go on and on too much, I have an Hansa Brandenburg C1 crew that has survived all through 1915 and 16, mostly running up experience points bombing and photographing things, and now gets a lot of benefits double aces do. Rewarding players for flying the mission does work.

Rocky

Rocky wrote
"I expect that games like "luftwaffe" are too divorced from actually "flying" for your purpose…find out what has already been done…then deciding which level of abstraction interests you would be on point."

i don't see it as requiring that huge a leap, ie: choosing to have the stick in your hand or resigning yourself to being totally divorced from the cockpit. all i'm looking at is stepping back a pace or two from the emphasis on fiddly-bit control that is inherent in most/all aircombat games that concentrate the bulk of their rules (and by extension: player inputs) on flying the plane. it just looks so silly to me to have this mundane technical exercise dominate the games, when few (if any?) other genres burden themselves with such a narrow view of their respective actions. how many rulesets make players drive the tanks or ride the horses? or perhaps a better comparison: control the movement/position of single figures in skirmish-level games to the extent of aircombat games?

use the detailed flight-sim mechanics of an aircombat game to run, instead, a hand-to-hand fight: how would that play out? i would imagine that --martial-arts aficionados aside-- most gamers would find the process tedious at best, and more importantly: a dull and pedantic exercise that is far from addressing/simulating the spirit/challenge of hand-to-hand fighting. for a one-on-one fight (like the ones modelled in, say, "EnGarde") the system would work --but how about for the sort of barroom brawl or street fight that is more akin to a dogfight?

jfl, the next time you lay out a BM/CE, CY6!, or WoW game set the airplane models aside for a minute and try the game using some handy foot figures --say medieval/fantasy types…though i think you could get by with some Wild West stuff too?-- and play a few turns plotting moves and resolving combat…any fun? maybe. but representing/modelling a skirmish engagement? dunno, but my hunch is "probably not…"

my point: what is it about involving aircraft is it that makes the technical representation of their behavior THE issue/focus of aircombat games? they're just tools. their possible uses and limitations should, of course, be written into the game mechanics (as they are in any other genre) and their unique characteristics should present challenges that make the genre different from land or sea commands --but the handling of the fiddly-bits to make them do what they're commanded to do needn't be the primary task of the players…should it?

dunno…i'm blathering again….sorry.

gweirda: how many rulesets make players drive the tanks or ride the horses? or perhaps a better comparison: control the movement/position of single figures in skirmish-level games to the extent of aircombat games?

In games where a player controls a single tank, or a single cavalryman, or even two or three of each, the player drives that tank or horse; directs it to move or halt, fires the main armament, makes the horse caracole. It's the nature of skirmish gaming.

gweirda: use the detailed flight-sim mechanics of an aircombat game to run, instead, a hand-to-hand fight: how would that play out?

To me it's a question of degree, perhaps of design elegance. Consider another pair of 'cardboard miniatures' rule systems, written by a single author over the span of a decade. Steve Jackson's GURPS features an extremely detailed simulation-style sub-system for man-to-man combat. I tried it, didn't like it, thought it got bogged down in the detail. I prefer the combat system from Jackson's earlier effort, Melee. It's also quite detailed, but less so than GURPS, definitely a less accurate simulation, but a better game. I've had a lot of fun running small parties of warriors through various ambush and arena scenarios under Melee.

zippyfusenet -

thanks for the response. i admit to the selfishness of my use of these forums: asking you guys is a lot cheaper for me than buying tons of games and/or travelling around the world playing lots of them to find out stuff, and my google-fu is poor. i really do appreciate the time/effort posters make in educating me (up here in the "hinterlands").

regarding the game mechanics involved in the movement of individual figures:
"To me it's a question of degree, perhaps of design elegance."

i agree. how would you rate/compare say, "Melee", with one of the common aircombat games?

Hi

You missed my point, G, it isn't my pleading for my way versus what you want to do. Actually, I have in the past seen effective games where the counter is a flight, or section or squadron and so on.

There are a lot of possibilities. I am just saying that FOR ME, whatever that level, i toss out most and end up just resolving the dogfight. Cause I find it fun.

I think things like "blue skys" are a couple steps up and satisfy SOME of your concerns.

R

Rocky-

i'm not trying to advocate one way over another either (damn words…models work so much better!). as i said earlier, i really like flight-sim games at times (vague memory of duking it out with Lou Zocchi…methinks it was Gencon '78?), i'm just looking to explore "letting go of the stick" a bit.

"I find it fun."

definately! i keep that sentiment pasted to my forehead…i may forget it occassionaly, but the itching usually reminds me eventually…

dup post deleted

Hi

We may have met, then. In that period Lou, who can be slick, was often talking me into going to cons and demonstrating "Basic Fighter Combat" for him. Helped put my wife through school.

We introduced Mustangs and Messerschmitts in 77 at Gencon. And I think it was 78 or 9 that Lou published "Mig Killers" at Gencon as well.

Rocky

gweirda: i agree. how would you rate/compare say, "Melee", with one of the common aircombat games?

Sorry I'm having trouble keeping up with the conversation. Not for lack of interest, but busy, busy, busy.

It's hard to compare…but Melee is about the complexity level of Check Your 6! or Blue Max.

To illustrate the similarities and differences between Melee and GURPS:

Both are individual combat systems for role playing games. The presumption is that one figure represents one player, and the player has a lot invested in that figure, which is his role-playing character, although a player can easily run a small group of figures in a non-campaign game. In both systems, each figure has attributes of strength (ST), dexterity (DX) and intelligence (INT), which are quantified by points committed to each category. Attributes limit what weapons a figure can use, how well and at what speed. Figures are equipped with different types of armor, shield, ready and reserve weapons.

In both systems, a figure will strike a blow at an opponent, will hit or miss per a dice roll against effective DX, will inflict damage per weapon used and effective ST. In both systems, a figure can carry a shield. In GURPS, the player must attempt to block an otherwise successful attack with his shield: skill check to block, if successful figure number of damage points blocked per shield type. In Melee, having a shield ready simply blocks a certain number of damage points from each successful attack.

The GURPS method is clearly more realistic, but takes longer to resolve. I envision close combat with impact weapons as fast, furious and quickly resolved. For me, the Melee method makes a better game.

"The GURPS method is clearly more realistic…"

…yet from your description is also clearly nowhere near as detail-oriented (regarding combat movement) as most aircombat games: if it were similar, players would be plotting footsteps and arm motions.

"I envision close combat with impact weapons as fast, furious and quickly resolved."

the latter quality (of quick resolution) aside, i feel the same way about aircombat, and that having players plot (or otherwise manage) the specific motions of their aircraft gets in the way of that mood.

flight sim --no matter how simple and/or elegant-- is just plain boring, at least when held up in comparison to the "fast, furious" nature of aircombat. my point/thrust with this thread is as the title states: where should players concentrate their energies --flying or fighting?

i really don't see why the first needs to (or should) hold the dominant position --especially since its dry, technical nature conflicts with any efforts to make a game fast-flowing and instill a mood of threat and danger.

gwierda.

From all that you say it looks like you'd really enjoy Bag the Hun from Too Fat Lardies – it's a WWII gane but there are WWI, Korean War and even Star Wars variants.

Suggest you buy it at once, they do pdfs.

Give me Boelcke's Dictum. Those are good enough principles for fighters. As for bombers, just get me to the Initial Point and let's make history.

Dicta.

link

Derek-
yup: Algy, i guess, is a must to see.

regarding the dicta:
i agree that they represent a good focus for pilots --note that nothing in them pertains to specific maneuvering, only objectives/intent. that's where i think player's thinking should be as well.

The movement trolley method does most of the "flying" work for you. Rocky's game is unique that way. I can understand how a fiddly board game or even a game using models as markers could pale and annoy if the rules were inserted to make up for the lack of physical detail that WORKS. When you use fully articulated movement trollies, that "fly" the model through the arc you establish, then the so-called fiddly bits are not necessary. The rules then revolve around the differences in aircraft specifications: air speed, turn radius, airframe strength, firepower, etc. These, being built into the control sheet, are just numbers that establish maximums and minimums. There is little need for abstraction to represent what is being simulated….

Rocky's game is, obviously, tops in the flight-sim category. it still, however elegantly, involves flying the aircraft: where it goes and faces sounds to be what players decide on, yes? that is (to use the titular terms) flying, not fighting.

i bought/checked out "Algy". it looks to be as fun as its fans suggest. however: though it carries with its system some very neat "stressors" to help set the proper mood, like CY6 or BM/CE or WoW, it too involves the player predominantly with positioning the aircraft models --one has to position and face the model in order to shoot. again: that makes the players concerned with flying, not fighting.

dunno…i don't mean to sound too much like the grumpy old fart that i am, and will reiterate that the fun of all these games is not in any way contested by me.

making aircombat games chiefly about flying is like making hand-to-hand melee games all about footwork and arm positions: no matter how elegant the system is, the fact that it is dealing with a relatively dull, tedious exercise makes the effort to capture the spirit/mood of the conflict more difficult --so why do it? other genres don't bother, and they seem to do just fine. i'm just looking to explore those same avenues/methods in relation to aircombat. dunno if it's a dead end, but i think it's at least worth a peek…

i'd like to thank all who've participated in the discussion -this type of communication is difficult (especially for a dull tool like myself) and i appreciate those who stick with it and tolerate my gaffs.

gweirda wrote:

i bought/checked out "Algy". it looks to be as fun as its fans suggest. however: though it carries with its system some very neat "stressors" to help set the proper mood, like CY6 or BM/CE or WoW, it too involves the player predominantly with positioning the aircraft models --one has to position and face the model in order to shoot. again: that makes the players concerned with flying, not fighting.

The flying decisions are there. But there's bigger questions as well, though these are more important in the "Bag the ….." games set after WWII, Bag the Hun, Bag the Mig and Bag the Jedi, where communication between planes was easier and formations become much more important.

Shall I take my flight into this fight at this moment? Or shall I keep maneuvering for a better position?

Shall I stay on this persons tail and perhaps get tailed myself, or shall I break off the combat?

Shall I keep operating this group of planes as a leader and wingman (men)? (gaining bonuses for the wingman's protection) or shall I let the wingman go off and fight on his own? (more planes available for firing at the enemy)

There is some concern with flying, but if you concentrate on flying rather than fighting you will usually lose the game.

To put it another way the really important decisions in a "Bag the ….. " game are not focussed on the mechanics of flying your planes.

This may not become apparent until you play a few games using a large number of planes.

making aircombat games chiefly about flying is like making hand-to-hand melee games all about footwork and arm positions:

I don't see this connection myself. You are really talking about totally different atmospheres in combat. The tank jocky is the closest to being the same: being surrounded by a machine that carries him into the combat. And you're right that most games don't deal with one tank being run by the player as if he is driving/maneuvering it. That's because most games are army level and deal with formations. In which case each tank then becomes more analogous to a knight in a battle: we maneuver all the figures of that unit in a body, we don't get into moving each figure/base element as an individual. When you bring the scale down to one-figure-equals-one-man, then it changes everything. At this point, you are going to decide how much detail (slowness) you want or don't want (speed of play).

Saying that air combat games that require "flying" the aircraft are not concentrating on tactics or combat, is rather like saying that the general shouldn't concern himself about the way his units are facing: that should only be true if facing in fact does not matter. But positioning the aircraft is absolutely key to winning the air battle. It gets down to the individual pilots doing that job better than their opponents. Initial positioning (including direction of flight) is not something you can abstract, imho, without losing all contact with air combat AS an individual experience. If you are intending to reflect flights and masses of aircraft engaging like a contest of units in the air, then of course, individual duels have no real place. But that is not simulating the First World War in the air.

Derek wrote:
"There is some concern with flying…the really important decisions in a "Bag the ….. " game are not focussed on the mechanics of flying your planes.

This may not become apparent until you play a few games using a large number of planes."

agreed. first look shows that the cards are obviously important, but you're correct: seeing it played out with the "wild card" of multi-player input is needed to make the system show its worth.

first read did show that i'm showing "too fat" flavor in my design attempt. i just went one step further (it would appear off the edge…) and dumped the majority of the flight mechanics. imagine "Algy…" scaled so that five of its hexes equals one of mine, substitute dice for the cards (for initiative), and they'd be --while not the same-- at least in the same family as far as mood set.

Doug wrote:
"Saying that air combat games that require "flying" the aircraft are not concentrating on tactics or combat…"

it's not the concentration of the game but what it forces players to concentrate on that interests me. answering the question "what do you want to do?" is what players (in any game/genre) are asked. aircombat games that deal with controlling the position/movement of the models have players answering that question indirectly by inferring it from the way they move the model. to use the hand-to-hand combat parallel: a player whose answer is "punch that guy in the jaw" has to show that by plotting/moving his arm in the correct motion/direction so that its final position results in a fist-to-face contact. that, imo, is such a dull, tedious, technical exercise that --no matter how elegantly done-- puts a big damper on the mood of a dogfight. more importantly: it burdens (and i would say: sidetracks) players with an unnecessary, middleman game mechanic in their efforts to communicate their intent.

another example: a squad leader (or even individual soldier) wishes to, say, put suppression fire into a building. flight-sim-style rules would ask the player to position/face the figures on the table in the (hopefully) correct manner and declare fire. if such fire lands on/near the building in the required manner, then the objective will have been met --but it seems like a (dull) set of hoops to jump through when having a game mechanic that resolves the order directly would be more efficient --both speed-of-play-wise as well as mood-enhancing-wise.

"…positioning the aircraft is absolutely key to winning the air battle. It gets down to the individual pilots doing that job better than their opponents. Initial positioning (including direction of flight) is not something you can abstract, imho, without losing all contact with air combat AS an individual experience."

i agree: positioning is key --but it's only the relative positions that matter: the specifics of how they get that way has no value whatsoever. none that i can see, anyway. whether one does a wingover or hi-yo-yo or whoopdeedoodle doesn't have anything to do with answering the important question: can i shoot? (or be shot…) it seems to me that it is that very sort of unnecessary detail that needs to be abstracted (as done in many/most other genres) in order to smooth the path that lies between a player's intent/desires and the results on the tabletop.

dunno…i feel words are failing me in this effort. does anyone think they understand what i'm trying to say?

ps- i really do like the "edit" button…but it makes me feel more guilty/stupid about spelling/grammar mistakes that i make and don't correct…

pps- reality calls. i won't be able to respond today (quit cheering so loudly…). hope the discussion porgresses.

to use the hand-to-hand combat parallel: a player whose answer is "punch that guy in the jaw" has to show that by plotting/moving his arm in the correct motion/direction so that its final position results in a fist-to-face contact. that, imo, is such a dull, tedious, technical exercise that --no matter how elegantly done-- puts a big damper on the mood of a dogfight.

i agree: positioning is key --but it's only the relative positions that matter: the specifics of how they get that way has no value whatsoever.

You know this already: that's the simplicity and beauty of the movement trollies. So there isn't any "plotting" going on, you just try to line up and move your plane/stand. Yes, some players suck at such time-motion challenges: so this method isn't for them, unless they actually enjoy the (usually long) learning curve. Rocky has told the story of a Denver "pilot" who perversely prided himself on being the player who did not survive: he kept track of his games-to-killed ratio and was hands-down the most "successful" at being shot down. He loved the game, though.

it seems to me that it is that very sort of unnecessary detail that needs to be abstracted…

Of course, in any "boardgame" design. But not in a flight simulation approach. If the movement equipment works, then all the minutia of HOW to fly is absorbed by using the equipment: there isn't anything abstract about that! Again, some people KNOW that they want to get a good shot into the enemy aircraft, but haven't any intrinsic sense of how to go about it. You can design a game to lump all players into an amorphous class that eliminates all time-motion skill or gift, but that would only satisfy the players who get frustrated when they go up against someone who can plan on where their intended target is going to be, and the frustrated player can't see it coming: they end up "flying" around being the target of players who can plan the movement and the timing, etc. These "ring-tailed killers" enjoy the flight simulation, because it makes natural sense to them. The players who can't get a feel for it usually lose interest very soon. So we are really talking about two kinds of players, ergo, two different kinds of games to appeal to them.

"…the simplicity and beauty of the movement trollies. So there isn't any "plotting" going on, you just try to line up and move your plane/stand."

i agree that Rocky's system is good. my point is that --no matter how good-- it still involves players with deciding how to move the model in order to communicate their intent. flying the aircraft is the point of the game. as a pilot, i enjoy that challenge --but as a gamer, i don't see the hurdle as being necessary to the genre, anymoreso than i would view skill in close-order-drill to be a requisite quality to hold/display in a ground game when one wishes to position one's troops for a charge into the enemy's flank.

"You can design a game to lump all players into an amorphous class that eliminates all time-motion skill or gift…"

yup --just like other genres lump them into a class that eliminates knowledge of order-writing or horse-riding or sword-wielding. hand-to-hand games don't require players to hold/display fencing and/or martial-arts skill. there are some that do, but those are for a small group of devotees.

fun for them --like i, as a pilot, enjoy flight-sim games-- but i'm looking at expanding the genre to include those in the "amorphous" class who would enjoy the challenges of aircombat without the need to learn/demonstrate the middle-man skill of flying --just like other genres do.

"…some people KNOW that they want to get a good shot into the enemy aircraft, but haven't any intrinsic sense of how to go about it."

just like people KNOW that they want to stick the other fellow with their sword, but haven't any intrinsic sense of how to go about it. most hand-to-hand combat games --especially ones that deal with engagements that go beyond one-on-one duels and cover the chaos of a street fight or barroom brawl-- allow that the little guy on the table knows how to thrust/parry already so that the players don't have to know how or get into that level/area of decision-making. the action/choices of those games are on the "smash him!" or "run away!" level -simplistic, for sure, but --aside from being more accessible-- more in keeping with the spirit/mood of the genre than the dry, technical process of arm positioning/footwork.

"So we are really talking about two kinds of players, ergo, two different kinds of games to appeal to them."

exactly: neither is good or bad, just different. there are lots of flight-sim games, and lots of general-engagement games (that have players as removed squadron-commanders), but few (any?) that allow players to remain in the cockpit and face fighter-pilot challenges without the burden of flight school. it's that niche that i am curious about…though i admit i have little evidence that it is anything more than a scratch in the wall that only i see (or have an interest in!).

dunno..regular dice-rolling lead-pushers (familiar/proficient in other genres) like my approach because it lets them try aircombat just like their rules (ancients…Nappy…WW2…whatever) allow me to try them out without facing a genre-specific learning curve for a middle-man skill (like order-writing or close-order-drill or tank-turret-traversing). this genre-introduction benefit aside, i also wonder/think about the type of challenge presented to players, and wish to explore stepping back a bit in aircombat: not out of the cockpit entirely, but to let go of the stick and get into the head of the pilot so that there is a more direct connection in the game mechanics themselves between what a player wants to do and how it gets accomplished.

ramble ramble ramble…

Hi

So, how about this. Standarize on each counter as a squadron of plane type X?

X has a base combat rating of, say 10 on a scale of 20, gets plus one because they are US navy and practice deflection shooting, the get another plus one for being "aviators" indicating better overall training, they get a plus 2 for spotting first, they get another plus 3 if not spotted by the opposition, they get another plus 2 for flying "finger four" rather than "vic". Draw up a standard SPI type CRT with a d6 range of effects.

Lets a squadron of Wildcats have a great chance against better zeros by being in the right place and time with the right training, and no good chance if they pick wrong. The zeros, always in vic, have fewer good choices. Dogfight is over in 2 minutes, usually losses perhaps one or two out of the squadron with extremes of zero or 6.

R