"flying v fighting" Topic

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…

I can't see how you can create a feeling of being "in the cockpit" without going through the same decisions a pilot would have to make to position himself.

As for our game approach requiring "flight school": not that I ever noticed. The game does not address controls or operation of the aircraft at all: it simply allows the pilot to do all that stuff while the player positions the aircraft via the game equipment.

It seems from your "rambles" that you want your cake and eat it too: you want to achieve a feeling of being IN the aircraft, but remove the essential quality of "playing" in four dimensions required of any successful fighter pilot.

"I can't see how you can create a feeling of being "in the cockpit" without going through the same decisions a pilot would have to make to position himself."

i don't know quite how either --but it's done in other games, isn't it? there are skill-specific games in a few other genres, but the majority give the skills to the little guys on the table. archers know how to draw their bows, swordsmen know how to thrust and parry, commanders know how to give orders: few games ask players to get the results they want by doing these things.

in aircombat, the aircraft is just the tool of the soldier whose challenges are being modelled. a game's system can have players demonstrate the specific skill at using that tool, of course, and a well-done one (like Rocky's) can be successful. but it isn't the only road, and one that few other genres go down --and few gamers complain of abstraction when they are not forced to control their tools (via the issuing of orders or physical positioning) in the same manner as their alter-ego soldiers.

Hi

G…but each level up abstracts out something. Stepping away from airwar. In a French and Indian war skirmish game, you can be at the individual role playing level and have the player decide his load move, on 5 second turns just like a flight sim.

next step up is a skirmish game where the player runs a squad or troop. at that level, you lose the individual differences, no one is a faster runner or loader, but the group might be better at stealth AS A GROUP. next up, platoon, and you start losing more details.

Essentially, we have reached the system I outlined above. The player dispatches a squadron of wildcats to cruise over part of the slot at a given altitude that he calculates will give them an advantage, and uses the wildcat group lead by joe foss giving bonuses on spotting and agressiveness.

But at that level, you abstract the dog fight to a level of calling the wildcats a "6" and the zekes a 8, and then if the guess on the position was right, the 6 becomes a 7, foss spots first and they are 9s and so on.

And a crt .

If they are too high or in the wrong place, they are useless never having engaged. Ditto if too low, but the zekes might see them anyway and attack. At that point, the zekes with altitude become 9, with Nishizawa a 10 because they spotted. A crt, up 4, zekes kill a lot.

Rocky

i agree that levels/steps of abstraction are as varied as they are liked/unliked. i try to keep in mind G.Carlin's line about auto speeds on the freeway to maintain a sense of subjectivity/relativism.

my questioning has to do with that first level, and how aircombat is one of the few (if not the only) genre to be so detailed in the physical skill knowledge/demonstration by its players. your example of a FIW soldier is a good one in that it shows how other genres abstract/simplify single-figure control in how they focus on intent/objective as opposed to movement/action in allowing players to control/direct their troops. if the guy with the musket was in an aircombat game, he could not use his 5-seconds to load, but would instead have to stand his weapon butt on the ground, prepare the charge/ball, grasp/remove/position the ramrod, and ram it home. all of these actions would have to be accomplished via some sort of game mechanic that translates the physical arm/hand motions into successfully loading the piece. aiming/firing would be accomplished by raising the piece to his shoulder, pointing it in a certain direction (not just "at that guy"), and discharging the weapon. realistic? of course. but, imo, asking the wrong questions of the players.

hand-to-hand combat probably provides a better comparison, but i really don't see any difference between the soldier with his musket and the pilot with his aircraft.

again: i love doing flightsim on occasion (even if i get spanked!), and i'm not in any way trying to create a good-bad facet to the discussion. i'm only looking to expand the POV of aircombat games in the area of the questions asked of players and how the answers relate to the decision-making challenges that are presented. i realize my wordsmith skills are poor, and hope some of this is getting across…or maybe half of it?

I've come late to this discussion but there is a game out there that (almost) takes positional considerations out of the hands of the players and concentrates on limited manoeuvre and combat.

Yep – time to mention (groan) 'Instant Thunder' again!

the "Instant…" games are certainly a step away from the usual positional-based systems (though, as you said: almost) insofar as the flying is abstracted a great deal (though still with the names --like split-s and such-- still being used for some reason…). the physical placement of the miniatures still determines firing opportunities, and so still becomes the tool by which player/pilot intent is (indirectly) applied.

the theme i'm exploring is allowing players to express/control their tactical intentions in a manner other than the by-the-by method of positioning/pointing the airplane that most (all?) other systems use --and that is rarely (if ever?) found in other genres (to no detriment of their popularity).

the "flying v fighting" title of the thread highlights this distinction: aircombat games concentrate on the physical/mechanical manipulation of the weapon in a manner not found in other genres -and it is this emphasis on flying that (i think: unnecessarily) forces players to communicate their tactical ideas/intentions through the mundane control of the weapon-at-hand.

the trouble i see with this fixation on flying is that flight-sim aspects are, generally, the poorest facet of a set of rules: trying to put the stick in the player's hand will usually fail (as most every sim-attempt does) and leads to a diversion of attention in rating/judging games by how well they simulate flying --a rating system that is found in no other genre-- and seems to send designers' efforts into the sim-producing area.

success in simulation design, however, does not in my mind mean success in game design --at least i think a more direct path is available that allows for the assumption (as found in most every other genre) that the little fellows on the tabletop know how to do their particular bit of business and that it is the players' role to tell them WHAT to do, not HOW to do it.

dunno…if i knew the answer i'd let you know. what i've put to paper so far is available upon request, if anyone is interested.

The problem with "higher"level games is that they are an abstraction from "pilot level simulations". Depending on how the factors are abstracted you can get very different results. For instance, if you abstract the firepower of a Spitfire and an Me-109, at the highest level of "weight fired per second" then they are basically the same. However, the reality is that the firepower of the Me-109 was much heavier and more effective at short ranges than the the Spitfire, but was also heavily dependent on the pilots ability to deal with deflection, due to the much lower rate of fire of the 20mm cannon as well as trajectory differences.

Abstracted out, a flight of 3 Spitfires should out gun and kill a pair of Me-109's but the early Battle of Britain tactics dictated that the British fly Vic's often losing the second wingman during fur balls and effectively eliminating any numerical advantage. Early Spitfires had carburated engines, which would cut out in steep dives as the engine was starved of fuel – Me-109's would dimply nose down and dive away to escape. Later Spitfires had fuel injection and didn't suffer from this problem. In practice this meant that Me-109's would strive for altitude advantage as they knew they could then get away at any time by simply diving out of combat. When forced to closely escort the bombers, they lost the height advantage and the balance shifted to the British.

How does a counter of 4 or 9 aircraft accurate represent these details? They are small, but played a huge role in the actual tactics used, and as the differences changed, the tactics changed. Most game systems don't detail how they have abstracted these factors, so it is very difficult to determine if the results are accurate (i.e. you can either get to 10 by 2*5 or 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, it appears that you get the same answer, but change just one factor (a two to a one or a one to a two) and you can see that one method produces a very different result than the other.)

Abstracted systems are good if the abstraction is done correctly, and very few are, there are always compromises for playability and simplification which eliminates key details that don't reflect reality very well. For instance, very few systems showcase the defects of the Fw-190 – poor altitude performance, short range, and when weighed with extra cannon, low roll rate.

I personally prefer games that depend on an individual pilot to make "tactical" decisions, not necessarily the details of how to fly the plane – i.e. turn the plane tight right and dive to cut inside the opponent, not, I need to kick the rudder over hard and bank right 15 degrees, lead the target 18 degrees at a range of 100 meters and increase throttle 10%.

--Binhan

Binhan:
"I personally prefer games that depend on an individual pilot to make "tactical" decisions, not necessarily the details of how to fly the plane – i.e. turn the plane tight right and dive to cut inside the opponent, not, I need to kick the rudder over hard and bank right 15 degrees, lead the target 18 degrees at a range of 100 meters and increase throttle 10%."

my position here is that your level of detail in flying the plane is still way too high --ie: "turning tight right and dive…" is still involved/concerned with pointing the aircraft, and it is the final positions of the models on the tabletop that will dictate whether you manage to "cut inside the opponent". this concentration on movement is a tedious exercise that communicates player intentions in a fashion that is not only indirect (insofar as what you want has no impact --game-mechanic-wise-- on what happens) but also contrary to the spirit/mood of aircombat.

the question i pose:
why do aircombat games deal so much with the fiddly-bit details of flying the airplane? this infatuation with the specific control of a soldier's movements (of self and/or weapon) is found in no other genre to the dominating extent that it occurs in aircombat. flight sim seems to me to be the stick by which games get measured --and yet even the best games fall far short (by orders of magnitude) when it comes to simulating the flying part of the experience: why concentrate game-design efforts on a dead-end?

it seems to me that the path other genres take in allowing that the little fellows on the tabletop know how to do their particular business (and that it is the players' job to tell them what to do --not how to do it) has led to reasonable success in presenting fun games.

i think aircombat game design could benefit from exploring this idea.

i also think that i'm probably the only one in the crowd who sees this, and so will take my meds and go back to my room… ; )

Hi

You might check out older board games. Mostly by Lou Zocchi; "Flying Tigers" is section level, "Battle of Britain" is sqauadron level, and "Luftwaffe" is wing/group level.

What the issue is with all of this is what is being simulated and the "feel". I have gamed at all these levels, but in the end, flight level and above games end up with my group wanting to resolve the comabat with a flight sim and treat these other games as "campaign" games.

Rocky

Merely because everyone disagrees with you, gweirda, doesn't make you wrong, particularly when we're exchanging views on a passtime that we pursue for entertainment. You raise some provocative questions. You make me think. Here are a few thoughts you've provoked:

I think most airwar gamers really like airplanes, really like their technical details, really like making them do airplaney things, rolls and loops and bursts of cannon fire.

Airplanes are ultra-high-tech and ultra-capital-intensive. Nation-states that have millions of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces, tens of thousands of tanks, boast a few thousand planes. Technical superiority really counts: a handfull of superior fighters can tear up much larger numbers of opponents. Most wargamers want to see all that technical detail perform in our games, at our command. (There's also a huge logistical tail supporting these few thousand powerful war machines, that we completely ignore. Not sexy.)

Airplanes are fast, airplanes are powerful. Most wargamers like to vicariously experience that speed and power in our imaginations when we game. Most of us have pedalled really fast on our bicycles and chunked a rock at a fragile object to smash it. It's fun, in a game, to push the throttle though the gate to MAXIMUM WAR EMERGENCY POWER, to fire the rockets and blow a big bomber up, to drop a thousand-pound bomb on a battleship and escape through the flak bursts.

Much of what I've written here also applies to warships, with regard to power, high tech and capital concentration, and most naval wargaming systems also include the technical detail that you question in airwar gaming.

We play this way because we think it's fun. Capture our imaginations with something redically different, if you can.

Gweirda,
I think we have two different ideas of air combat. You are describing a very abstract level of combat where the individual aircraft and their abilities makes no difference to the outcome of the engagment – you are postulating that the effect of a single aircraft can have no meaningful influence on the outcome of a large formation movement or action.

While this may be true for a large number of WW2 aircraft engagments, this isn't the reason why most gamer play games. Most gamers would like to believe or at least play in games that they, as an individual, can influence the direction of events. If a game system has thousands of units and a player can only affect a few dozen or hundreds, then his efforts are swamped by the game system. i.e. you might as well be playing with wind up toys that you release on the table as your decisions after a certain point have no effect on the game.

Most players prefer the feel of individual control, even if it's not real. For instance, how much effect does a single Fw-190 have on a fleet of 27 B-17's, very little overall, but the personal satisfaction of being the plane that shot down the lead bomber or caused the formation to break up is worth much more than simply rolling a die for a counter and looking up the "bomber shot down" result.

Along those lines, satisfaction is derived from the effort required to achieve the result (i.e. the journey is more important than the destination theory). For instance if you are issued a prize for shooting down 24 bombers in a game where that is the result of a single die roll, it is very different than receiving a prize for shooting down 24 bombers by flying an individual plane and having to maneuver and roll for shooting down each and every plane.

You can certainly generate an air combat game that simply has a counter or marker to locate the units without regard to facing. and roll some dice to determine the results of combat, but if you abstract too far, it loses all WW2 air combat flavor – it could be WW1, WW2, Korea, Arab-Israeli, Vietnam, Modern, or space combat. Detail is what differentiates these era – the quirks of mechanics and physics, the differences of tactics and training, and the changes in technology and science.

So you aren't wrong, it is just that you prefer a much more abstracted game than other people. I for instance prefer to fly individual aircraft, but not have to deal with lots of fiddly details such as M&M or Fighter Pilot does. Some people prefer even more abstracted games than that with a single counter representing 2 or more aircraft.

--Binhan

The key to a good game is summarized as thus:

It has good decisions to make.

What does this mean? It means that the player has to make decisions on what to do, but not just any decision, ones that matter and will have an impact on the game. Not just failure to do the right thing will lose the game, but making the right decision can win the game.

A player having to do twenty or fifty actions that result in nothing is extremely frustrating. A player doing twenty or fifty actions that each result in chances to win is more satisfying.

You can create an extremely good abstract game with flavor, but understand that with abstraction, each and every action a player takes must have more meaning and value than when you have lots of smaller, detailed actions.

--Binhan

Rocky wrote:
"What the issue is with all of this is what is being simulated and the "feel"."

exactly. imo, games that ask players to move/point the aircraft do little to help (and perhaps some to harm?) the feel of aircombat. no matter how elegantly accomplished, flight-sim game mechanics amount to dull, mechanical operations. a soldier aiming a rifle using an aircombat flight-sim system would be described as "raising the weapon to 80-degrees above the horizontal, sidestepping 1.3 meters to the right, and twisting counterclockwise at the waist the full movement allowed --perhaps 27-degrees…determined by detailed studies of anatomy and reaction-time weighed against turn-sequence-parameters" …and if the target's movement that turn places it in the arc of fire a shot can be taken! wow…wake me when you roll the dice…

as zippyfusenet put it, "Most wargamers like to vicariously experience that speed and power in our imaginations when we game", and i think the boring nature of flight-sim does not contribute to that "wow!" factor.

i agree with z that the "cool" facet of airplanes (or spaceships or…) does much to generate the desire to go "zoom!". still: other "heroic"-style gaming does well without the technical burden --starshiptroopers don't have to "run" their suits, cowboys don't have to load their six-shooters, knights don't have to position their swords…other examples can, i'm sure, be named-- the point is that players can enjoy the "wow!" factor in all those other genres (and tell really cool stories during/after the game about what their guy did…) without having to jump through hoops during play that involve them dealing with the details of manipulating the weapons at their soldiers' disposal.

perhaps the fact that if i get the urge to go "zoom" i can climb into a real plane to satisfy that desire leads me to question the need (and/or benefit) of including such detail in aircombat games?

besides the "anti-mood" aspect of flight-sim, i also wonder as to the simulation benefit. (disclaimer: i've never flown in combat, so i speak with no authority beyond my own opinion.) i think the pilot's decision-process has little-to-nothing to do with moving the airplane, at least on a conscious level --nomoreso than the thoughts of a martial artist during a match are on footwork or hand/arm positioning. given that flight simulation is a very difficult design target (that hasn't even come close to being achieved…if it ever even can be) i think that minimizing game mechanics on that front and getting more into the heads of pilots by asking players to decide WHAT they'd like to do (rather than HOW) is an avenue worth exploring. it may be a dead end, but i'd like to take a peak…

"Capture our imaginations with something redically different, if you can."

i've made an effort…just not too good at presenting it, i think. if someone wants to look at the concept-phase ideas i've put to paper they're more than welcome to give them a looksee. to be honest, i'm at the stage of wondering if the concept is viable and worth more effort…answering a question that no one is asking, as it were.

edit:

Binhan:
my game does have players moving individual aircraft -they just don't deal with their exact movement/position. individual capabilities (in pilots as well as aircraft) are factored into the mechanics. the key, unique abstraction is in dealing with the "how" part of flying --the "what" question (that i agree is the important one to be asking players) is highlighted and influences the action directly (as opposed to the indirect mechanism of position-based flight-sim games).

i agree with you that asking important questions of players is the key to a satisfying game. to me, "which way do you want to face?" is an irrelevent question if the answer has to come in the form of a compass bearing.

ps- all previously-posted disclaimers and qualifiers regarding my intent and such in this discussion still apply: i'm interested in idea exchange/exploration, and will defend (or attack) one only in the spirit of creating the strongest, best results of the debate.

Gweira,
There are major differences between a man and a plane. The physics are very different, for instance, aircraft have to constantly move or fall out of the sky, a man can stand or lay still with no ill effect. Unless you are talking Harriers or Helicopters, most planes can't fly backwards, or change direction near instantaneously, both of which a man can do. Any air combat game has to take these physical factors into account, otherwise it's not air combat – it's space combat or an abstract combat system that doesn't relate much to airplanes.

Chess is an excellent abstraction of ground combat, but it certainly doesn't feel much like a medieval battle – the pieces, moves and combat are so abstracted that even though a player merely has to decide on a move to make (no thinking about the physics of how a horse or man moves) and combat is automatic (no dice rolls, attacker always wins) it would not fulfill most gamers desire for a medieval combat game.

The game you describe, if you replaced the word aircraft with robot, ship, or powersuit would be completely playable without any change in mechanics – therefore it has zero WW2 specific flavor to distinguish it. The WW2 flavor comes from details specific to the aircraft, pilots and nationality of the era.

It sounds like you would prefer a highly abstracted game, such as instead of a judo master analyzing his opponents stance and taking a defensive posture and leaning left with weight on the front foot, you simply want a defensive factor that applies all the time against any attack so that you don't have to think about the details of defense, it just happens. Judo masters don't conciously have to think of such details, because they are trained for hundreds or thousands of hours to REACT AUTOMATICALLY. They have a repertoire of dozens or hundreds of basic moves that combine for thousands of combinations. They have spent time and effort to learn the appropriate actions and reactions as a reflex so that they can then afford to study the small details that will win them victory – the opponent is shifting left slightly, a hand is not in the ready position, the opponent's weight is shifting from back leg to right leg, the eyes are targeting the knee etc. A top competitor in any sport or game knows the basic mechanics, moves and tactics and is thus freed to focus on the small details that bring victory – if they know you are going to make a move before you do, then you have lost without having even made the move since they will have already started the appropriate counter and and started their own attack.

Pro tennis players have been scientifically shown to know where a ball will be hit before the opponent has started their swing. By extreme knowledge of what a human body looks like when swinging, they can tell the angle, direction and speed just by how you raise your arm to strike the ball, thus giving them a quarter second more response time, often allowing them to run in the direction the ball is going to be before it strikes the racket. Novice players focus on the ball and thus don't move until after it is struck by the racket.

It is easy to say that a tennis game is just about where to hit the ball, but that would be a poor game. Factors such a temperature, court surface, ball wear, hydration and fatigue, racket string tension, position of the sun, the shoes worn, muscle condition, and such, all play a factor in how a player determines where to place the ball. For instance, if you know the opponent has tired legs and has trouble with their backhand, you will place the ball to their off side knowing that they will have more difficulty returning it. If the ball is worn down slightly, then backspin will be less effective, and instead of dropping shots short, put more topspin to make them rebound forward faster. All of these decisions impact the course of the game, but are built from lots of tiny details, that in and of themselves don't seem like much, but put together form what makes tennis tennis and not table tennis or badminton.

--Binhan

Sounds as though your problem is not the rules, it's the miniatures. Have you seen "Down in Flames"? It's a card game, but basically resolves dogfights by actions \ reactions, so player 1 intends to get a tail position by a tight turn, his target counters by playing a barrel roll etc etc.

There is a free basic pc version available on line that gives you a reasonable idea better than I could explain

link

Binhan wrote:
"Any air combat game has to take these physical factors into account, otherwise it's not air combat…"

agreed. deciding how and where the factors impact pilot/player decision-making is the fun(hard) part. my attitude/outlook on accounting for the physics of flight is, i think/guess, more restrictive than most insofar as i inject a "fog of movement" to reflect the non-chess-like movement capabilities of the aircraft (and pilots).

"The game you describe, if you replaced the word aircraft with robot, ship, or powersuit would be completely playable without any change in mechanics – therefore it has zero WW2 specific flavor to distinguish it. The WW2 flavor comes from details specific to the aircraft, pilots and nationality of the era."

i agree that specifics/flavor are an important part --i'm assuming that it is my poor wordsmith skills that give the wrong impression.

the thrill/challenge/passion/whathaveyou regarding the genre (z's "wow!" factor) that draws us as gamers to it needs to be present, for sure. in game design, however, (and i speak here as a complete amateur) i feel one needs to look beyond the "shiny bits" and measure/evaluate the system at its game-mechanics foundation, ie: the thing should play reasonably well using blocks of wood. the addition of the flavor is critical to a successful result, but the inherent "nutritional value" (to butcher the metaphor further…) needs to be present --nothing but sugar and spice may appear attractive but will fail to sustain interest as a game (i'm sure a few examples of "pretty" games that suck come to mind…). i find i need to keep a rock handy to whack myself upside the head when i fall into a techno-rabbit-hole and get lost in the seductive details of something "cool".

"It sounds like you would prefer a highly abstracted game…"

on a certain scale, yes. it's all subjective, however: every game is abstracted. the degree is just a matter of personal taste: there is no right or wrong, just fun/enjoyable or not.

my venture/exploration here is not to step out of the cockpit entirely, but to move from the control stick to the pilot's head. your judo example is spot on: most every aircombat game out now has players concerned with the sort of detailed positioning/maneuvering that you (correctly)describe as occuring automatically --thus the intent of the pilot/player (the decisions being made in the head) are reflected indirectly. i'm looking at eliminating the middleman of positioning (which is boring) and trying to have players affect the action more directly by asking them "what do you want to do?" questions rather than "how do you want to do it?"

as i've said: pretty much every other genre goes down this path (few games have players issuing orders in the manner of their general-alter-egos or have soldiers attacking via blind compass-bearings that don't reference the environment) and i hear little in the way of complaint that they are too highly abstracted.

as z pointed out, aircombat does have a big "wow!" factor that is sexier than most: imagining oneself as a fighter pilot is much more attractive than as a grunt in the trenches. the success of similar hero-style genres, though, makes me believe that the same can be accomplished in aircombat…or not: the idea is pretty raw --exploring it and getting feedback is what this is all about.

PilGrim wrote:
"Sounds as though your problem is not the rules, it's the miniatures."

true: but i think that's a disease/fault we all (as miniatures gamers) fall prey to --ie: it's good if it looks neat! ; )

i don't think, however, that my advocation/proposal to reduce the detail level to which the miniatures represent/display the actual position/configuration of the real aircraft in action harms the enjoyment that can be had in the game --in fact, i'm hoping that cutting back on the fiddly-bit control will speed play and allow players to make more direct, tactical decisions: two steps that would contribute to a better "mood"?

many examples from other genres can be found. a recent one right here on TMP was the teaser AAR for TwoHourWargame's pulp-adventure game: the photos showed figs in the usual frozen poses (in a saloon, at a train station, on a boat…) and would hardly elicit much beyond a yawn without the storyline that accompanied them. sure: it would be really cool to have figs that could be posed to display the hero ducking here and now punching there…but it doesn't happen and we get along just fine using our imaginations (though i hope i'm not alone in setting up little vignettes during a game that take advantage of a figure's pose…?).

no one ever suggests that, because the individual (or ranks of) miniatures we use in other games don't exactly display the look of the action at any particular moment in a game, we should clear the table and just use cards. the minis are symbolic.

i would venture a guess that if figures were available that could be posed, hand-to-hand combat games may have suffered under the same sort of infatuation with anatomical movement that is the focus/dominant factor in the currrent batch of aircombat games?

egad!…another round of morning blather…sorry.

i would venture a guess that if figures were available that could be posed, hand-to-hand combat games may have suffered under the same sort of infatuation with anatomical movement that is the focus/dominant factor in the currrent batch of aircombat games?

I've known people to use different figures in skirmish games. reloading, firing and advancing say for horse & musket games. Prone, knelling and advancing for WWII.

I do like your ideas and will be interested to see if anything comes from them.

Actually we have used 1/18 scale pose able action figures for some WW2 skirmish games – roughly a squad per side. The 21st century toys are ideal as they are relatively cheap, come with a variety of weapons and are pose able.

When using figures such as these, our biggest problem was terrain scale as we could only fit a few houses and hedges in our playing area, rather than the whole city blocks that we normally use in 15mm. We used exactly the same rule set, but due to the scale difference there was a change in perspective.

When playing 15mm, MG's rule – players try to position their MG to cover the most ground with the clearest lane of fire. In the large scale, the game started with the figures much closer (in scale) and the MG was less effective and much more hand to hand combat occurred in doorways and windows.

The ruleset was exactly the same, and the types of terrain we used were similar. All that had changed was scale and it perceptibly changed how players viewed tactics and weapons. In fact, people took more advantage of cover since it was more obvious that cover was available (i.e. a 15mm short hedge is only 1/2" tall, wheras the 1/18th scale was 3" tall.)

By making a simple decision such as scale of the units (individual vs. group or small vs. large) you can change the perception of the value of various factors. If you want to create an airgame that doesn't require facing, then you need abstract concepts to provide differentiation – i.e. defensive or attack modifiers based on certain actions or "attitudes" – such as increased defensive modifiers if the planes are in a Lufberry Circle (Defensive Mode) and attack modifiers for better formations (Rotte vs. Vic). The player doesn't need to know what a Lufberry circle is, they just need to know they are in a defensive posture. Then you can add meta factors such as aces or increased technology – certain aces when added to a unit may negate a defensive bonus or add additional attacking modifiers.

Then again, this basically is adding back detail that probably should be in the basic mechanics anyway instead of adding additional rules. The best rule sets are short and complete and don't depend on "common sense" to resolve. One rule set that drive me nuts is DBA – Rule A, except when B, which might be excepted by C or D, unless E, then F but not G unless H is also true. You have to read through all the exceptions to determine what the base rule is.

Flames of War has the same issues as they add meta rules (i.e. some troops get extra moves or firing phases) but they go so far outside the structure of the regular rules that they create super units. If the base rule is sound, then meta rules aren't needed to differentiate unit types and the overall rule set is not as confusing and dependent on an interpretation.

If you would describe what kind of turn/actions/decision a player would need to make in your game, I think I would have a better time visualizing what type of game you are proposing.

For instance in Knight's Cross the turn is:
Check for Tailing – tailing aircraft get an information bonus from targeted plane
Choose maneuver
Move plane
Shoot
Damage resolution
repeat
The only two choices in the sequence are what maneuver to make and if you have multiple targets available, what plane to shoot at (and technically how long to fire).

With only two choices per turn (if you can shoot at someone) the game runs quickly. Choosing a maneuver may take some time as you have to factor in any other planes near you, but that simulates real combat – you can ignore other planes at your own peril. A large portion of the game is psychological, threats real and perceived, goals, and your planes vulnerability and advantages all work to shape your decisions.

-Binhan

Hi

I might be in an odd position here. I have done combat sims for the AF, I have done skirmish games in print and I have done SF skirmish stuff. Oh, and a few air combat games based on the AF sims!

I think that G, you are overstating the human skirmish detail to match the airplane detail. In fact what you describe would be being anal about where the plane has rolled and where the throttle is and micro changes in performance as fuel and ammo burn off. In fact, in a skirmish game no matter the subject, the designer first, in my opinion, needs to know MORE than the game, and decide which parts not to simulate.

Pilots don't make decisions like "44.5 degrees of roll sothat I can turn X degrees a second". so, first you abstract roll postion and merely indicate the initial minimum possible turn rate.

Not a lot different than doing a skirmish game with a swordsman having a range effect, and how fast he can turn facing.

The next level abstraction up from this skirmish set up involves small groups, pairs or better. THEN the stuff used for, say an Albatross initial and sustained turn isn't the issue as much as how the formation moves.

As an examplle, consider that one aspect of the 8th airforce bomber offensive and the bomber box was not, as usually presented, the defensive fire. In fact, the bombers are flying in close 3 plane vics like most others. At the beginning of WW2, long vics were difficult to turn, 3 plane vics in a "vic of vics" maneuvered faster. This mattered in producing better bombs on targets and going home. The 8th AF bomber box allowed bigger formations that could still turn on a target, if overshot turn back and try again, and turn to flee the target. With a vic, the effective bomber on targets is 9 or 12, with wic of vics the C&C limits go up to 24-36, and with the box, 128.

So, if the focus of the game is the bomber offensive, then these considerations BY THE DESIGNER define the rest of the game. If the game is a sole interest in the dogfight, then then game changes from the above bomber formation detail to handing a dogfight. And it is difficult to do a dogfight with "feel" when you abstract it beyond leader/wing.

So, first decide what is being gamed!

Rocky

Binhan wrote:
"If you want to create an airgame that doesn't require facing, then you need abstract concepts to provide differentiation…"

agreed. i include facing for general movement, it just (usually) isn't shown/considered in determining firing opportunities --those are handled with an abstract, numerical rating that is achieved/modified each turn by the player/pilot. i know a number is not as sexy as placing a model on an opponent's tail…though i do that, too, to display the strength of an attack/tailing situation.

"…modifiers based on certain actions or "attitudes"…"

exactly. things like: who you're after, who HE'S after, how difficult a maneuver you chose in your attempt to line up a shot (as well as how well you succeeded in performing it), how well your target did the same --all influenced/modified by the base rating/quality of both pilots and aircraft.

"…back detail that probably should be in the basic mechanics anyway instead of adding additional rules…If the base rule is sound, then meta rules aren't needed to differentiate unit types and the overall rule set is not as confusing and dependent on an interpretation."

agreed. i'm trying to keep modifiers both elegant (in how they fit/use the existing game-mechanic foundation) and intuitive (so as to avoid chart-shuffling and/or dependence on calculators) --and definately not dictate tactics/results by fiat (such as "this plane gets to automatically do this" simply because it has unique capabilities…right-hand turns for rotary-engined aircraft or the hang-on-the-prop-crap for Fokker D7's come to mind…)

"The best rule sets are short and complete and don't depend on "common sense" to resolve."

amen. trying to write such a beast is quite the struggle: making the attempt has given me huge respect/admiration for those who can accomplish the feat.

"If you would describe what kind of turn/actions/decision a player would need to make in your game, I think I would have a better time visualizing what type of game you are proposing."

i'm not sure this is the place to evaluate the specifics of my game (though i confess to having slipped well into that area many times). i'm willing to send you a copy of what i've got, or you can view a version in the files section of the ww1aircombatgaming yahoogroup. if anyone has a clever suggestion as to where (outside of the dreaded yahooworld) i could enjoy such a selfish discussion (…as if this isn't…!) let me know.

as far as the choices to be made in a turn related to the subject at hand: players choose who (if anyone) to attack, and then how hard they want to try maneuvering (as in how difficult/stressful -for both themselves and the aircraft). if a shot is possible, whether to take it (and how big a burst) is then decided.

"Choosing a maneuver may take some time as you have to factor in any other planes near you, but that simulates real combat – you can ignore other planes at your own peril."

my point is that with the typical point-the-plane game there is no real connection between a player's decision to "ignore other planes" and the actions allowed by the game, ie: what you're thinking has no effect whatsoever on whether you encounter any "peril" as a result of your choice --the move you make is the same regardless of your intent and has no direct impact on its quality. in my game, however, the value of a maneuver is directly affected by the intent of the pilot: the same move that would allow you to escape a foe would do little-to-nothing if your intent was to ignore him. dunno…that's probably confusing…i s'pose i need to hire a writer…quantity certainly doesn't mean quality! methinks it's time for me to shut up again… ; )

or not…

ps: thought it would be good to note --for those stuck in crossposts that have not followed this from the beginning-- that my rules deal with ww1 stuff…though i do think the concept could work until speeds and missiles blow the basic "engagement zone" foundation all to hell and gone…so apologies for taking up space on the other modern forums.

sorry for the delay in responding, Rocky -wasn't ignoring you…

Rocky wrote:
"…you are overstating the human skirmish detail to match the airplane detail."

i don't think so. my POV is to consider the aircraft as a weapon similar to a rifle or sword: its positioning is assumed by most rules to be controlled by the little tin soldier to match/reflect the "orders" given by the player --whether they be to reload/parry, aim/thrust…whatever. in that regard, aircombat games are more nitpicky, and deal to a much greater degree with the details of positioning the weapon-at-hand than other games/genres. there are some (En Garde! comes to mind) that do so: but they work best in a one-on-one duel, not the sort of fast-and-furious action of a multi-figure barroom brawl or streetfight that compares better to a dogfight. as i suggested upthread, substitute foot figures for the airplane models in the next WoW or CYS! or CE game played and wonder if it feels a bit odd.

i will repeat that i am in no way meaning to disparage the existing crop of games: this is a discussion on apples to oranges --both are good. i'm just trying to explore the apparent lack of oranges in the aircombat aisle when they are common and successful-sellers in the other genre-aisles.

"The next level abstraction up from this skirmish set up involves small groups, pairs or better. THEN the stuff used for, say an Albatross initial and sustained turn isn't the issue…"

this point seems to be one i can't get across: i'm still talking about games with single-aircraft control. the assumption made that if detailed control of the plane's positioning/movement is removed then i must resign myself to flight/squadron-level gaming has no basis. the roll rate or sustained turn capabilities of an albatros are essential factors --but they're just technical details/modifiers that affect how well/easily the pilot can accomplish what he wants to do with the weapon…the same way the weight/size of a rapier would influence a swordfight differently than, say, a battleaxe. hand-to-hand skirmish games don't make players deal with the details: they ask simply "what do you want to do?"…if the answer is "bash that guy!" then the weapon capabilities are factored into and/or modify the attack roll (or perhaps even make it impossible: "the axe is too heavy…you must spend a round readying it…") and the action/game moves on. as i stated earlier: our imaginations fill in the blanks that are created by the frozen-poses of all our other toys without any great ill effect on the games' popularity/fun…i don't see why the same can't be accomplished with aircombat --that's the idea i'm exploring/proposing. it may not pan out, but at least it will have kept me off the streets for a few years…!

Hi

I understand, and i tried, by abstracting the bomber thing, to suggest approaches.

What I see you saying is that you want a player "dogfighting" in a simplistic fashion in a system where you either fly one airplane, but are done in 4 minutes, or a regular two hour game where the player runs multiple airplanes at the same time.

I can see an easy game for the latter if using hex based systems.

I think one dead end is being influenced by mechanism hold overs from "Dogfight" game. Where there are set maneuvers applied to a situation, such as cards. Now dogfight, old often is interesting, could resolve a furball with 2 players running 6 planes each and playing maneuver cards. Tossing in modifiers for the airplane strengths and weaknesses would not be difficult, adding altitude as a factor and so on are a matter of simple detail.

The question isn't if it is possible, I can do that. The question is "who would want it".

When I was doing analysis in the day and converted info to flight sims for the AF and gamers, I asked the same question. Most of you are familiar with Mustangs and Messerschmitts. I asked then "who would bother with such a sim involving spending thousands on models. I was wrong. And I might be wrong here!

Rocky

"What I see you saying is that you want a player "dogfighting" in a simplistic fashion…"

nope. i guess i can't communicate what i mean very well. anyone out there getting what i'm trying (obviously poorly) to say?

the amount of time in a turn i'm looking at is no more (and maybe less?) than what i imagine other games to be: around 5 seconds. therefore a dogfight between two players would not be over in less (real) time than it would be in another game (all other things being equal, of course). i am hoping that by reducing the level of fiddly-bit control players have regarding movement a quicker play will be the result, but don't really know for sure.

"i guess i can't communicate what i mean very well."

i thought of another way to phrase things that may help people find where i'm coming from on this…

if an aircombat game has players controlling the position/facing of the models (no matter how precisely or simply or effortlessly) and relies on the resultant physical relationships of the models to determine if an attack can be made, then that game is what i would term a flight-sim-type game. what i'm aiming to do is to have player control of the aircraft be handled in the same way other genres have soldiers control their specific weapons.

can anyone name an equivalent game mechanic in another genre --one in which a weapon's value (say, a rifle or sword) is dictated by the physical positioning/facing of the model? i know of few --but that doesn't mean much…most every day finds me learning things on this and other forums.

the point is: the system/mechanics used by other games works just fine in other genres…can't it be applied to aircombat? i know aircraft have a special "wow!" facet, and it's fun to move the models through the air and go "takka takka takka!" (i've been doing that for over 40 years…), but is it necessary for a good game?

Rocky hit the nail on the head when he brought up the question: "who would want it?" …it's pretty much that that i am asking here. i've cobbled together a rough sketch of the concept -does the idea have enough merit to warrant further work?

gweirda: can anyone name an equivalent game mechanic in another genre --one in which a weapon's value (say, a rifle or sword) is dictated by the physical positioning/facing of the model?

I think I can. In general, the 'moving diorama', the analog representation of the battlefield by use of physical models, is the very essence of miniature wargaming. We have a chronic problem in that the scale of our models generally does not and can not match the ground scale of our rules. Nonetheless, we keep on struggling with that problem because the results look so *neat*.

In my horse-and-musket game, my infantry battalion, represented at 1:50 scale by 12 X 15mm figures, can only issue musket fire within 45 degrees of its front facing. It can not fire to flank or rear. It can only fire at targets within its musket range, say three inches. It can only move at full speed in the direction it faces, must change facing in order to move to flank, may back up at 1/4 speed.

In the same game a cavalry squadron must make a dice-roll ('break bayonets') in order to melee that infantry battalion from its front; if the cavalry fails that roll, they will fall back from the infantry's front without combat. However, if the cavalry can hit that battalion from flank or rear, they automatically go to melee, and fight with double combat factors.

The physical positioning of units on the game table, their physical relationship to one another and to the terrain, is the essence of this miniature wargame.

In my horse-and-musket wargame, I control perhaps a dozen battalions, squadrons and batteries, representing a force of perhaps 5000 men. I fix the figures in multiples to bases and position the units, not the individual figures, because there are far too many figures to control individually in a reasonable amount of time.

In my airwar game, I control three or four, or maybe a dozen individual aircraft, most of them crewed only by a pilot. In this game I can track the individual plane and crew in more detail than in my horse-and-musket example above, because there are so few of them.

A game built around four fighter planes is interesting where a game built around four horsemen might not be, because the fighters are individually so fast and powerful, and represent an extreme concentration of technology and capital. A game built around four giant robots, or four destroyers, or four super-soldiers in power armor, might be interesting.

Hi

Dunno, I cannot think of a skirmish game that goes to "rifle at 45 degrees" or whatever. I do note that in any skirmish game you CAN be shot in the back, or stabbed in the back, and facing does matter.

And which weapon is being carried.

A board game with 5 second moves such as some of the trek games and SF games I have done still take a lot more than 5 seconds a move. Simply, players stroke their chin and do NOT rush things. Not like they are really being shot at!

One problem with airplanes is that pesky 3ed dimension. It inevitably requries time. I remember playing an S&T airwar game whre you had to pull out a numbered counter every move to indicate altitude! Took more time to find that "level 34" counter than if you just had 3d stands and moved the model!

I have done air games simpler than M&M that play out in minutes. As I said, a hex works well, with a control sheet with a marker for altitude and abstracting the movement (turn one facing every 2 hexes moved). But you still need to be vaguely pointed at the target.

R

zippyfusenet wrote:
"…I can track the individual plane and crew in more detail than in my horse-and-musket example above, because there are so few of them."

right. it is that "it's possible so let's do it" facet of moving little airplane models on the tabletop that has given rise to the dominance of flight-sim game mechanics in the aircombat genre. my question is: why do it?

the emphasis on flying is a diversion from the objective of building/playing a dogfighting game. "i'm pointing my aircraft in this direction at this location in space" is what players in flight-sim games do, and it is, technically, a descriptor of the action --but i would say it is as poor a one as "i'm moving my fist so that it occupies the space where my opponent's face is located" is a descriptor of a boxing match. it is BORING.

who would want to play a fistfight game that asks players to plot their body positions/actions? …especially in a scenario like a barroom brawl or streetfight? yet that is what flight-sim games ask of aircombat gamers, and it runs counter to the mood of the action, imo.

it's fun to fly --but games do a very poor job of simulating flying (not flight -flying)-- and i think that de-emphasizing the flying aspect of aircombat and taking a look at and exploring the way other genres approach the challenges faced by their particular little tin soldiers is a worthwhile venture for the genre.

flight-sim games (that have players positioning/pointing the models) are not the only possibility, are they? i don't think so --and i believe that the questions they ask players do little to help create the right "mood" of aircombat, and that the obsession with flight-mechanics has created a poor scale by which the games of the genre are measured. it's as if horse-and-musket gamers rated how well a ruleset handles sitting the saddle or bragged of the clever card-activated pan-priming game-mechanic in another game…

it's a bit like a flight-instructor would say: get your head out of the cockpit and fly the plane…

Hi

G, you confused me again.

If you want a dogfight game, but not indicating where the plane is, then you aren't flying either!

Your "position body and throw punch" example has no parallel in aircombat. I actually do analysis in the real world on this, and every air sim I know abstracts air combat performane down. I do this in my games, only reflecting the stuff the pilot is aware of. I don't, and no game does, have the pilot setting mix and pitch, setting exact roll angle for the turn and so on.

R

"Your "position body and throw punch" example has no parallel in aircombat."

hmm…and i see it clear as day. i'm beginning to get the impression that i'm the only one in the platoon that isn't out of step! : )

maybe i should schedule an mri to check out my odd POV…or just cut back on the mushrooms…

but theriouthly folkths…i appreciate your continued struggles with me, Rocky…i realize the weird nature of this and feel frustrated at my inability to communicate here. anyone out there maybe grasping any of the odd stuff i'm trying to verbalize?

I've hunted with a rifle, fought with my brothers/enemies and I've flown an aircraft alone. One similarity? It is too easy to hit the wrong target. One dissimilarity? Aquiring a target within my sights. No comparison. A lot of variables are involved in air combat compared to infantry/hand to hand combat (though no more dangerous). So when any flight sim (board or computer) makes E/A engagement and combat resolution too quick or easy, I wonder. The secret to success in pre-radar air to air combat is how soon you see your opponent and how well you FLY your machine. The fighting qualities of your aircraft are important, but, possibly secondary. So, I play rules that allow me to fly in order to fight.

King Cobra wrote:
"The secret to success in pre-radar air to air combat is how soon you see your opponent and how well you FLY your machine."

agreed. the "how soon" part is --to be honest-- something that is for the most part bypassed in gaming: getting waxed before you even get a chance to do anything may be realistic but it's not much fun.

as far as dealing with "how well you FLY"…i see that as similar to a martial-arts aficionado's viewpoint of any number of the hand-to-hand combat games available: most (if not all) allow that the little tin soldier has the requisite skill/knowledge to perform the tasks assigned without specific direction by the player. any gamer who thinks that their skill/mastery of the flight-sim mechanics of their favorite game represents any sort of flying skill…well, this way to the egress…

Hi

What I do with skirmish games is give a general combat capability modified by weapon use, and use randomization for the internal "body position, throw a punch" thing.

What training does is give an advantage, not a win. The advantage is cutting out the higher brain function and adopting a suite of skills akin to "instinct". The trained fighter doesn't think about HOW he holds the gun or gets a sight picture, or how to do a punch. He thinks tactics and his body follows the idea.

In WW2, for the airplane refrence, the US navy was unique in actually teaching "defelection" shooting. What this ment is that most pilots, well trained, still had to look through the sight and guess how to pull lead. Experienced hunters especially with birds, had an intrinsic advantage doing the "guesstimation" but ultimately experience provide the "training". Thus, in an airgame, one could have the player guess, fly to point in front of the enemy OR have everyone just point at the aircraft and throw a die, modified by the experience of the pilot and/or training to produce an gun effect.

I think you are assuming that the sims you have SEEN do not make these assumptions in the shooting example above. But they all do. Just as no one in the ground skirmish game makes the player estimate "kentucky windage" or other factors in the shot, you roll a die to reflect the general success or failure at these details.

In game design, this reflects the level of abstraction being considered.

Or as I mentioned earlier, at a certain point you can have a game where, simply, a Albatross has a CV of 7, and a BE2 a CVof 1, put them in proximity, roll a die to resolve combat.

What level of abstraction do you want?

R

Rocky wrote:
"What I do with skirmish games is give a general combat capability modified by weapon use, and use randomization for the internal "body position, throw a punch" thing."

that sounds pretty close to what i'm looking at. the pilot skills (what i have so far are experience, flying, and shooting) as well as aircraft capabilities (less well-defined at present…sort of an amorphous "maneuverability/handling" and "aerobatic quickness" along with the usual min/max speeds, engine power, firepower, strength, etc…) are used to modify/determine a player's attempt to move and/or line up a shot on a particular target within its combat range. in a one-on-one fight it would pretty much devolve into a dice-rolling contest that wouldn't be very satisfying (or at least as much as using any other hand-to-hand skirmish rules would be in resolving a similar one-on-one fight), but in a furball scenario with lots of space and aircraft involved it moves fairly well…i think…or not.

i made a link to a sample-game-slideshow on another thread if anyone would like to see what i'm aiming at/with…

TMP link

I think Gweirda wants a more abstract "cloud" concept for positioning where lots of factors are abstracted down to just a few choices – attack, defend, evade. The overall position of your plane is abstracted (think Ender's Game) where the player mere thinks of an overall idea, such as attack, defend or evade, and the piece moves in accordance to the thought without having to figure out how it moves.

Basically that set of rules are all referee driven, the referee determines the players intent and translates it into movement and effect.

Most games now are moving from the referee moderated model to more open and detailed record-keeping so that there is no issue between what is represented and what the player intends. Writing down moves for instance eliminates any argument if a move was legal or intended, the evidence is on the paper. If you black box too many things and a unit doesn't quite move the way a player intends, it becomes complicated to explain to them why it doesn't work. For instance, if a player thinks – Attack and the target is not destroyed, you may have to explain that result. This is much more transparent if the rules are laid out such that the player can follow the train of thought – a base number with modifiers for movement, rate of fire, armor, targeting ability, hit location etc. rather than simply "your attack failed".

It sounds like you want something much along the lines of anime's "Macross Plus" mental control system or "Firefox" where Clint Eastwood merely thinks of activating an offensive or defensive weapon system.

The problem is that the appearance of simplicity is deceptive, it actually requires a lot of calculation, rules and physics to make it happen, much like cell phones. Cell phones are tremendously easy to use, particularly voice activation, but the technology, software, coding and physical infrastructure required to make a simple action such as a phone call happen is huge.

I believe that to create the system that you want, will require tons and tons of detail to be sifted through, formulas, arrays, algorithms and flow charts to be created, then the essence boiled from them and captured. This is not a project that can be built from simple materials such as a WWI plane with just some wood, metal and fabric, but the equivalent of the B-2 with high tech, precision machine, exotic materials and hundreds of thousands of computer time and simulations to create the right effect.

--Binhan

gweirda, you evidently want something akin to boardgaming pieces facing off against each other: stats, comparison, roll, result: if the turn did not result in a winner (as in opponent shot down or escaped), then continue for another turn. But HOW do you represent the MOVEMENT of air combat without concerning yourself with the positioning. And HOW do you concern yourself with the positioning/MOVEMENT if you don't physically manipulate the models? And if you do manipulate the models according to movement, then how can you possibly do that without moving the models AS aircraft move? In other words, you have to represent flying them, since that is how they move. On a battlefield, all the "pieces" move according to their mechanical advantages/restrictions; you are not suggesting, I believe, that such games that don't concern themselves with "cut, thrust, parry, dodge, block," minutia, should also dispense with maneuvering, which is a huge part of tactics: it is all displayed in the time-motion considerations, and the gamer who understands that best will have a huge mechanical advantage: when to move, when not to move, where to move and with what units in what sequence, etc. and etc., is what tactics is all about. It is no different in air combat. And I cannot visualize the kind of compromise you seem to be pursuing: an air combat game without positioning/moving the aircraft!?

Binhan wrote:
"…a more abstract "cloud" concept for positioning where lots of factors are abstracted down to just a few choices…"

that's more or less correct: the choices i am looking to present to players deal with broader objectives (like "attack", "defend", "flee") rather than the specific mechanisms/positioning that would (indirectly) lead the player to those objectives. again: this is the way it is done in many/most other games…i'm just looking at applying the same design principles to aircombat.

"…simplicity is deceptive, it actually requires a lot of calculation, rules and physics…will require tons and tons of detail to be sifted through, formulas, arrays, algorithms and flow charts to be created, then the essence boiled from them and captured."

right --this happens in other games/genres all the time: the massive amount of action that takes place gets reduced to an answer to the one, meaningful question: what happened?

how much of the details/action that can be influenced by the players is what i am proposing to reduce --but only slightly, imho. as with a boxing match, players in flight-sim games give an answer in the form "my fist is here" that must --to have any meaning-- be cross-referenced with the target's answer of "my face is here" to get to the final (i would say: only important) answer: did the punch land? i'm proposing to eliminate that middle-step of specific positioning and get right to the meaty answer (as it is done in other genres).

Doug wrote:
"HOW do you concern yourself with the positioning/MOVEMENT if you don't physically manipulate the models?"

the same way other games do. the miniature knight's arm doesn't move: the rules abstract the details of his specific weapon-handling/footwork and present an answer to the question "did a blow land?" in response to the player's order for that turn to "bash that guy!" simplistic? yes. unsatisfying? perhaps --but for those who find that level of control/detail wanting they can dig out a copy of "EnGarde!" i would propose, though, that such a more detailed level of control would handle a barroom brawl or streetfight in a less-satisfying manner than one of the many "bash him!" -level of rules available.

…"you have to represent flying them…"

no, you don't --at least that's the idea i'm exploring. the trouble i have with flight-sim games is that they do a very poor job of representing flying (at least in anything prior to the glass-cockpit-era of technology) and that they, therefore, play to the system's weakness. moving a little model around on a tabletop (or floor) --no matter how elegantly it is accomplished-- reflects/represents flying in a very minor way…though it may capture FLIGHT well: two different things entirely.

Hi

You keep confusing me. Sigh. "knight raises arm", not in anything I know of. Rather, knight has CV of 20 to the front while charging. But if someone attacks his rear, he is zero.

In aircaft, it kinda matters if you want probable results. Say, Zeke had cv of 20 due to its complex evaluation of its performance vectors. Gets bounced by a wildcat, which has a CV 0f 16, but gets plus for the attck…HOWEVER, the zeke and zero have different flight envelopes. If the zero turns hard, the F4F cannot follow…unless he responds with a hi-yo yo, and can escape by overshooting and burning off his speed for altitude. In the yo yo, the F4 might still not get a good shot.

All this means, that I suspect your desires need to be articulated better!

R

…"you have to represent flying them…"

no, you don't --at least that's the idea i'm exploring.

Your knight's blow analogy is fallacious, in that the arm can fall or not, depending. But an airplane canNOT stop moving; moving is the constant nature of the beast. They are not comparable in any sense at all….

Rocky wrote:
"You keep confusing me. Sigh."
i truly appreciate your continued participation/efforts, and feel frustration as well.

"…I suspect your desires need to be articulated better!"
agreed…so: once more unto the breach…!

"…"knight raises arm", not in anything I know of."
nor i, really --that's my point: the level of detail/control common to aircombat games is not found in other genres, yet they seem to do just fine. the sexiness of being a fighter jockey (as z mentioned earlier) is certainly a factor, along with the fact that it's possible to display little airplane models easier than to pose knight figures --but neither are, imho, powerful enough determinants to dictate what can be done in the genre.

"Rather, knight has CV of 20 to the front while charging. But if someone attacks his rear, he is zero."
that is too great a leap detail-wise. allow, instead, for the knight to have a certain cv whose base value is determined by the knights' stats (weapon, armor, skill, etc…) which is then modified by the situation that the player is allowed to influence via orders (such as "full-on attack" or "guarded attack" or…?) that is then used to determine (along with a mechanic to introduce variability: our friends the dice) the results of the turn, ie: did he manage to land a blow?

same thing for when the Zeke gets bounced by the Wildcat: though i don't have each pilot beginning the moment/turn with a given cv (-but a plane in another's rear would receive a bonus), the gaining of one (via a skill/performance test) is modified by his skill and the capabilities of his aircraft (which are, of course, influenced by the current altitude/speed) and the results of each pilots' efforts are compared/added and yield an answer to the question "can one of them shoot?"…as well as "how good a shot is it?" (-since the numerical abstraction of cv's provides a scale to measure quality of attained firing position).

egad…that sounds confusing. oh well, my son wants to play a game, so i will post this and see how the chips fly…

Doug wrote:
"…the arm can fall or not, depending. But an airplane canNOT stop moving…"

agreed. i'm working on the assumption that the little guy in the model knows how to keep it moving, so players don't have to deal with the fiddly bits of flying --which are handled poorly in flight-sim.

i'm working on the assumption that the little guy in the model knows how to keep it moving, so players don't have to deal with the fiddly bits of flying --which are handled poorly in flight-sim.

But to reflect air combat, the model must keep MOVING; that means it must appear to move as aircraft do. You can't abstract that, or else you will end up with something silly and unbelievable.

Doug wrote:
"…to reflect air combat, the model must keep MOVING…"

well, i'm trying to see if that's true or not. my view is influenced by the fact that miniatures used in other genres do not display the actual positioning/configuration of the action they model --they are symbolic pieces only, and games with them are (or at least appear to be) popular and satisfying even with the presence of abstraction. to say a frozen-pose knight standing next to a similarly posed enemy represents a fierce and heated swordfight is, yes, silly and unbelievable --but we play the game and find it enjoyable nonetheless. we place the models next to each other and say they're fighting and use imagination to fill in the "wow!" part of the action --why can't the same be done with models of airplanes? the action of the knights' battle is no less dynamic than a dogfight, and the models' representation of the action is adequate to our gaming needs, despite it being abstracted.

my premise: two (or more) aircraft can be said to be within combat range and maneuvering to gain a firing position (or to evade such an advantage being gained by a foe) in the same way that two (or more) knights could be engaged in a fight. the pilot/knight faces the choice of whether to stay engaged, and if so: who will be his target. if an attack is to be attempted, a skill test is made (considering both his skill as well as the capabilities of his weapon) to determine how successful he is: the details of how that attack will be carried out (as far as specific maneuver/sword-stroke) is left to the little guy on the tabletop --all that matters, really, is whether a blow/shot was landed and its effect. next turn: a new situation (perhaps), and another decision/choice needs to be made by the player.

the fact that in one case the forces being represented are men standing toe-to-toe and in the other swirling about in the air really doesn't affect the similarity of the two engagements and how they (could be) resolved…maybe…or not?

an odd pov, i admit. i guess that's why i'm voicing it and seeking response: it could be (as i posted above) that i'm the "only one in step" and that the idea itself is truly too far "out there" to have any use/application…but i'll never know until i try. if it goes belly up, so be it…there's certainly no end to the list of projects to tackle!

we place the models next to each other and say they're fighting and use imagination to fill in the "wow!" part of the action --why can't the same be done with models of airplanes?

Because the nature of the two beasts is entirely different. Airplanes always move. Units of troops often are not moving, even as they fight, they are fixed in place. The imagination part is adding in the sounds and sights of combat: our imaginations supply that, even in an air wargame: the machineguns don't shoot, the damage isn't inflicted, the aircraft don't go down in flames, etc. It's all done with dice and imagination. The final effects as a game supply the believability.

If you think that you can put on an air combat game with models of aircraft staticly facing off like mounted knights, I say that such a game AS representative of air combat is impossible to pull off.

At the very least, you must maintain movement each turn. Heck, even "Dogfight" (MB) did that much; the rules wouldn't even let you use up your movement by moving into the same square again, i.e. no bouncing back and forth.

You don't want to worry the players with positioning the aircraft: but without positioning as part of FLYING, you end up without airplanes.

One-on-one combats on the ground or in the air are vastly different. You keep comparing them, but there is little to compare! "Knights of the air" was a disservice as a comparison in WW1; only in mentality was there any similarity. The environments could not be more UNalike. So when you say we have fun without seeing the little figures beating each other with their fancy footwork, so why can't we do that with airplane models too?, I can only respond: airplanes are not like taking up a hand weapon. The airplane becomes the fighter's body in a very real sense. And THAT body holds the weapons. The pilot becomes more like a brain controlling the nervous system of the entire aircraft. When the aircraft is doomed, the pilot bails out, much like a metaphysical spirit abandoning the physical body.

Until that happens, the aircraft is in motion in three dimensions, not just two. And time-motion supplies the fourth dimension of air combat. You can't abstract that too much, or the resulting game will bear no similarity to air combat….

Doug wrote:
"…why can't we do that with airplane models too?, I can only respond: airplanes are not like taking up a hand weapon. The airplane becomes the fighter's body in a very real sense. And THAT body holds the weapons."

agreed. so the aircraft is like the knight's body, whose specific motions/position is abstracted.

"One-on-one combats on the ground or in the air are vastly different."

why? the third dimension means nothing, and the requirement of movement for aircraft is like the requirement of breathing for the knight.

as far as the player/pilot-knight is concerned, the decisions that need to be made are the same, and the attention paid to the how-tos and why-fors of specific footwork/maneuvering is the same: minimal --certainly nothing that comes close to the dominant place they hold in flight-sim games.

my thoughts/POV on this comes from my fencing and flying experience --though admittedly limited in scope in both cases (never had to fight to the death in either arena).

just to keep things in perspective:
ps- all previously-posted disclaimers and qualifiers regarding my intent and such in this discussion still apply: i'm interested in idea exchange/exploration, and will defend (or attack) one only in the spirit of creating the strongest, best results of the debate.

Hi

G, what is your name? I have trouble reading the posts just stopping with the name!

Anyway, altitude is tactic. As I said in an earlier post, thinking vertically is part of the superior pilot. Most players of Mustangs and Messerschmitts and the derivitives and the USAF sims all have problems with thinking two dimensionally. Starting from the beginning, the superior pilot uses the vertical and thinks in 3d. I earlier mentioned the use of the "hi yo-yo".

But I got an insight, I think, in the other thread about rules (I am always reluctant to mention M&M because of its detail nature), you mention emphasis on the game reflecting the pilot.

And what HE does.

So, I think I have finally seen what you want. Going back to your "skirmish game where the king raises his hand"…

That analogy doesn't work, but I think I know what you want.

One fig represents, say the 21 year old newly knighted Joseph of Wales versus William Marshall the "cheif leg breaker" of Henry the second. A man so fearsom that Richard refused to face him in his lifetime.

So, several figs on the board, i use my WM fig to attack young joe with confidence he will take Joe and make a hole versus maching up other knights. So, WM with his similar equipment is a CV of 22 versus young Joe with a CV of 15, roll the crt, WM almost always wins.

The equivalent would be having an airwar would be Albatros II with Boelke versus fresh out of school in a Pup. Alb is rated with a CV of 6, Pup is a 6, Joe schmuck adds zero to the CV, Boelke adds plus 3, roll on CV Boelke usually defeats Joe.

I think most people see themselves as the pilot,not having rules that let them fly Boelke. And you would be correct to suggest that a bigger scale game as a historical sim would fail without some mechanism to be able to re-do the Voss versus 56 squadron fight UNLESS you had some mechanism to make it work inspite of the actual flying talents of the pilots involved.

I use this one because of the refight that someone staged 30 years ago with the "Triplane Rules". In short the sim failed. The GM thought he was McCudden! And the guy was one of the worst I have seen. He and his buddies played 56 squadron and none of them were that good! Doug, however, is good enough to play Voss. I played the lone stray albatross and didn't get shot down and did shoot down half of 56squadron.

Huge failure as a sim because of the limits of the guys playing the brits.

Your suggested game would be 2d and have pilot ratings and the like………..I THINK.

I can see the game. I think I might use it in a modified version of "Blue Sky".

R

Rocky wrote:
"G, what is your name?"
don glewwe --the gweirda lable (email address) came from incompetence when starting up (filled in the wrong blank) and figured changing it would be more trouble than it's worth…

"…altitude is tactic…thinking vertically is part of the superior pilot. Most players…have problems with thinking two dimensionally."
agreed. a certain sword move or stance would be a similar facet in rating a superior knight, and again: most players wouldn't be familiar with it…but they'd still have fun playing a game where they duke it out as Sir Whatsit, and there are many rulesets out there that provide that opportunity by allowing that the little fellow on the tabletop will handle the how-fors and leave only the directions to the player to determine/dictate.

i've believed all along (though perhaps didn't repeat it often enough) that this is very much an apples to oranges thing, and that i enjoy flight-sim games (even when i lose…which is often!) --but that the idea/concept of "smart" miniatures used extensively (almost exclusively) in other genres is not really present in aircombat, and i'm just trying to see if the genre can benefit from using those tools common to the rest of the hobby.

"…in the other thread about rules…"
i thought of plugging Triplane, but thought that for a beginner it would be too much too soon.

"…Albatros II with Boelke versus fresh out of school in a Pup. Alb is rated with a CV of 6, Pup is a 6, Joe schmuck adds zero to the CV, Boelke adds plus 3, roll on CV Boelke usually defeats Joe."

more or less true, though in what i've gotten so far the advantage by Boelke simply gives him a firing opportunity (that may or may not yield effective results) rather than an outright victory. also, Boelke's skill would only give him a better chance to do well: he could fluff it and/or the rookie succeed on a high-odds/risk gamble and end up on B's six…not likely, of course…but it could happen. as i said earlier: a one-on-one match wouldn't play too well --add in a couple more on each side (so that Boelke has to worry about Joe's flight leader) and it works better. oh: and totally 3d…i really can't stomach aircombat offerings without altitude (that's why i made my "skating penguins" game) --personal taste is all.

"I think most people see themselves as the pilot,not having rules that let them fly Boelke."
from the response (or lack of same) i've received so far, that's beginning to sound more and more true.

i wonder what it is about airplanes?…other "heroic" genre games don't face that same hurdle -players seem to like being sgt.rock or the big bad troll or sharpe or… and don't seem to mind that their own personal fighting abilities are not being tested in the game.

Rocky,
Gweirda is looking for a very abstract game that has all the essences boiled down to simple decisions. All the factors of movement (speed, altitude, attitude, pitch, throttle, engine output) are simply represented by a single model on a stand. The player simply moves the stand regardless of facing or direction.

This could be abstrated to where each hex is 5000 feet and any altitude, direction or speed change does not significantly show up in that scale, or the model actually represents several aircraft and therefore doesn't really indicate a single direction, altitude etc.

The problem is that when you abstract that far, most of the flavor (read details) have disappeared. He would like to know why no one has created that level of abstraction and yet retained the feel or detail.

In short, it can't really be done with current technology. Unless a new and better algorithm is designed that can take such factors as speed, direction, throttle, fuel, attitude, pitch, weather, air temperature, etc and convert them into a simple table or number, your abstraction will either have too much detail or will be flavorless.

Most air combat systems tend towards more detail at a cost of abstraction and simplicity. If you are creating a new system, you'll have to decide how much flavor you want, and with the current technology, this will determine how much abstraction you can get away with.

If for instance you want to have one aircraft faster than another, but the statistics say that they only differ in top speed by 15 mph, then you will need a game system that can show a 15 mph difference. If you have two aircraft that you want to differentiate and differ in speed by 100 mph, then you only have to account for 100 mph differences (i.e. planes that only differ by 15 mph fly at the same game speed).

To sum it up, I would first decide on the flavor first and then build the system to suit as opposed to building a system then trying to make it flavorful.

--Binhan

Binhan wrote:
"Gweirda is looking for a very abstract game…"
better to say a "more" abstract game. i find it hard to accept a "very" lable when similar abstraction exists in mansy/most other 1:1 skirmish-level games.

"Most air combat systems tend towards more detail at a cost of abstraction and simplicity."
i'm proposing that the detail is not that important to aircombat --at least not enough to be required in a game. answer this: in a furball-style engagment, what does it matter which way you're facing? or how much (or in which direction) you're rolled? the main thing those things determine is which of the next hoops you can jump through in the following turn -but without the hoops, they become unnecessary and a drag on play. the important thing they determine is if you can shoot (or be shot), and that can be answered in a yes/no fashion (with a rating to detail the quality of the shot) --you don't need to point the model to get the important answer. i think pretty much every answer given by positioning/facing the model can be given without the positioning. pointing the model is only important if you have to point the model next turn…and the turn after that, and the turn after that, ad nauseum. if you dump the requirement to point the model you can maybe clean up the game and get to the meaty bits without jumping through hoops.

"…decide on the flavor…"
i did. i wanted one of risk and thrill and peril --plotting the dull and mechanical movements of a model plane does not answer that need. flight-sim is NOT flying: it is tedious and boring, and it doesn't (for me, at least) come close to capturing/representing the spirit/mood of what i feel should be in a dogfighting game.

answer this: in a furball-style engagment, what does it matter which way you're facing? or how much (or in which direction) you're rolled?

Facing matters more than any single thing!

Even more than a hand to hand combat on the ground, an airplane (a fighter specifically) cannot ATTACK except through the front. Being rolled the wrong way denies maneuvering NOW onto someone's "six" or meeting someone in a headon, etc. Nose up or down in that instant makes all the difference in whether a pilot can attempt an escape vector or not. So yes, in modelling air combat you DO need to point the model.

This isn't so different from wargaming on the ground: the facing of units is important. In skirmish gaming facing remains important in most games: it is what limits the PC's ability to "see" and deliver an attack, etc.