"flying v fighting" Topic

Crikey!

I came back to this thread after a bout with a virus and I can honestly say that my head is spinning.

However, something has popped into my head.I don't know whether this is the kind of thing the original poster is getting at.

I have a picture in my mind of two players. Each is controlling one or more aircraft in a dogfight. There are no models, maps, hex-grids etc. The encounter is solely handled by playing cards from some kind of mega-deck.

The cards represent DECISIONS available to the players, or fleeting shooting opportunities, bad luck etc.It is the making decisions (playing the right card in the circumstances)that drives the game.

How the blazes this would all fit together, particularly with multiple aircraft, I've no idea.

And no, I've no intention of trying to design it!

Doug wrote:
"…cannot ATTACK except through the front."

as a punch cannot be landed unless the fist contacts the face: in many/most hand-to-hand games you just say it does (and how well) --there is no need to show it with the minis. why not do the same with aircombat?

i agree that specific-positioning/facing representation can be used in a detailed flight-sim to display the action, but i see it as having two flaws:

1)most flight-sims are poor. CYS, CE, WoW, Algy…they don't even come close. but even good ones (like i imagine Triplane to be, though i don't have a copy to examine) are still wanting when it comes to flying-sim, which sort of leads to…

2)the questions asked of flight-sim players are --although technically appropriate-- not related to the thinking/decision-process of flying, and are far from (and possibly damaging to) the exciting/perilous mood that, imo, should be at the heart of an aircombat game. the example previously given of "i will place my fist here" that cross-references to my opponent's "my face is there" to determine whether a punch lands is exactly the sort of method/game-mechanic flight-sim games use to describe the action --and it is dull dull dull.

"…in modelling air combat you DO need to point the model."

no: in modelling flight (and imperfectly at that) you need to point the model --in aircombat it is simply a factor that needs to be reflected/considered when describing the action

"…wargaming on the ground: the facing of units is important. In skirmish gaming facing remains important in most games…"

i think perhaps the scale difference may be causing a POV difference: the equivalent amount of space for a dogfight that would compare to a ground hand-to-hand contest (like a swordfight) would be "effective weapon range" --say maybe 5' on the ground, and 500' in the air. the numbers can be debated, but the idea is that anything as far as footwork/maneuvering and thrusting/facing within that space is handled abstractly --the specifics of the actions by the knight/pilot are left to the little guy on the tabletop.

"…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…"

agreed: just as having lunged to the right or parried high determines your options for actions in the next round, and a game that had players controlling the knight's movements at that level of detail would be correct…technically…and that's the problem i see with it: it is technical, and because of that, inherently dull. for an intense, one-on-one duel between swordmasters that sort of game is good, perhaps --but for a knock-down, drag-out brawl (more akin to a dogfight) i think the "bash him!"-style of games available would be a better choice for representing the proper spirit of the engagement.

ps- for those in the ww2 and modern crossposted boards: i'm not sure how well the "engagement zone" concept would work at the greater speeds/weapon-ranges of the post-ww1 eras, so apologies for clogging up the works, as it were…

Hi

Don, A NAME makes things seem more friendly and personal. I sort of hate screen names!

Anyway, as a digression, I have done flight sims for the USAF to do training. a sim lets an instructor do a point in a few minutes that if done with real aircraft takes 3 days to set up execute and debrief. My joke is that the Triplane/Canvas Falcons/Mustangs and Messeraschmitts/Mig Alley series is actually gamers getting to benefit from this work.

And a previous post has the essence of the scale problem for flight sims. In fact all aircraft have a range of variables, and part of the "trick" of the design for the USAF was deciding the level of meaning. It is too easy to "blend" things by having a scale where the differences merge into meaninglessness. We did a lot of work taking the jet stuff and back crunching the math to describe the significant range for the flight sim for WW1.

So, back to your desire, don. I do think I get what you want. YOUR game would be easy to do, and might be useful in some sort of adjunct to a larger WW1 system where one fights a bat. level assault and players put out flights for recon and bombing being escorted and "fighting" the resulting furball. Over the years, I have been asked for a lot of game design, but never airwar at your level of abstraction.

Is it that only YOU want such a game, or that no one thought of it. I have seen, for instance, a lot of naval and ground games where they get all upset over each tank and platoon, but abstract the air component as a die roll. I ONCE tried to do a game at your level for some navy guys doing an action in north africa. SM 79s making torp attacks and the like. And they HATED the distraction of their lovely formations having to break down reacting to the torpedo bombers.

Hmmm.

Rocky

as a punch cannot be landed unless the fist contacts the face: in many/most hand-to-hand games you just say it does (and how well) --there is no need to show it with the minis. why not do the same with aircombat?

BECAUSE, minis representing combat that is static by comparison look okay, without worrying about visualizing the movements of the body within that small physical space. Aircraft, contrastingly, MOVE constantly, pass each other, circle around for position: the physics of flight carry the pilots in large scale movements that change the FACING of the aircraft constantly: it is almost antithetical compared to ground combat. If you don't take that dynamic of MOVEMENT, ergo facing, into account, you will not create a game that has the feel of air combat that you protest that you want….

Rocky wrote:
"…YOUR game would be easy to do…"

perhaps…but certainly easier (i think) to grasp --insofar as the decision-level for player/pilots is on the "what do i want and what will i risk to get it?" -level that uses the sort of gambling one would do at the craps table, and that requires skills common to most gamers (as far as odds-assessment and risk/reward ventures)…sort of "should i bet the farm on making a 3?"…and should thus be more accessible to the general gaming populace (possibly, as you mentioned, a means of gaming air-support elements of ground actions?).

i still think, also, that the focus of the system on risk/stress for player/pilot decision-making is one that could produce a satisfying game for aircombat devotees as well. granted, the pretty picture isn't present as it is in flight-sim games --but i think the mood is captured at least as well…and i think a bit better. dunno.

"Is it that only YOU want such a game…"

ahh, there's the rub.

i'm asking that on the "Wargaming in General" forum --not too many answers yet, but we'll see. it could very well be that i am supplying an answer to a question that hasn't been (and/or doesn't want to be?) asked. if it flops, i guess it'll be time to move onto the next (dozen) projects!

don't want to dump it without giving it a fair go, though…

thanks again, Rocky, for your thoughts/feedback.
don

Doug wrote:
"…Aircraft…MOVE constantly…in large scale movements…"

my POV is that the "large scale" is merely relative: if you stood back and viewed the furball as taking place in an "engagment zone" of effective attack range then the dogfight and the hand-to-hand duel are comparable.

thanks to you, as well, Doug, for sticking with the discussion and working to challenge my thinking. i usually win the arguments i have with myself… ; )
don

Gweirda,
The level of abstraction for a WWI aircraft game is probably the same level as Chess is to medieval combat. Facing, attack strength, defensive strength, and terrain are all abstracted out to that the player only has to think about "strategic" considerations, even if the pieces represent individual soldiers.

You might try that tact, where you basically create a WWI flavor chess game – fighters, observation planes, bombers are the pieces and each has a move, attack and defense rating and may interact or support each other (i.e. similar to staggered pawns providing a form of "Mutual Assured Destruction" type defense – i.e you take my piece, I take yours.

Objectives could be scattered on the board (i.e. observation targets, airfields, bombing targets) thus providing some variety.

The decisions would then be more generalized – placement of this this fighter/squadron/group to cover the observers or to intercept enemy bombers or whether and observation plane/group of observation planes should head for the target or break off due to heavy enemy fighter cover.

You don't need altitude and probably could model this on a regular chess board, just using a few counters and models.

basics might be: (per side)
1 airfield
2 observation targets
2 bombing targets

2 fighter squadrons
1 observation squadron
1 bomber/ground attack squadron

Fighters:
Move 2 attack 6 defense 3

Observation
Move 1 attack 2 Defense 4

Bomber
move 1 attack 2 Defense 4

combat:
Attacking plane moves into target plane's square. Attacker rolls d6 + attack rating, defender rolls d6+ defense rating, higher total wins. Loser moves one space towards their starting side. Ties are no result – both aircraft remain. If winning total is double losing total, loser is shot down.

Shot down planes may return from the airfield.

Setup:
Player A places an airfield(own side) or target (opponent's side) Player B does the same. Repeat until all targets/airfields placed.

Starting aircraft are placed on the back edges or 1 may be placed on the airfield to start.

Turn Sequence:
Move 1 aircraft
If in a square with opposing aircraft or target square, perform one action (attack, observe or bomb)
Other players turn.

Repeat until 1 player has completed all 4 objectives.

Commentary – to me this has minimal WWI flavor, basically the only flavor is the emphasis on observation which is mostly a WWI characteristic over the front lines. CAP and bombing could be from almost any other aerial combat period. A slight WWI flavor is introduced with the closeness of the airfields to the front (i.e. within the combat area covered by the board)

Ground scale, time, altitude, and position are all abstracted into a simple movement mechanism and figure position model – facing has no bearing.

Combat is abstracted to a simple opposed die roll, with some aircraft being better for attack and some for defense. For variety the numbers can be jiggled (i.e. slower fighters early in the war might only move 1, and early fighters with a single gun might only attack with a 4 or 5 instead of a 6) etc. Other targets such as balloons may also be added.

I'm thinking that a "Dogfight" approach is what gweirda is after. Models to mark where the combats are taking place, but cards and dice to resolve combat. A more sophisticated deck of attack and defense cards would make the game represent different classes of aircraft, and even different aircraft within the class. Experienced pilots get more cards. (some analogy there, "he took off without a full deck" :) ) More than one aircraft in the combat zone adds to the potential of attack and defense cards. Cards are drawn randomly from the full deck at the beginning of each mission and are played into a discard pile. The card deck(s) are mathematically built to establish suitable over all odds, again according to classes of aircraft and types of aircraft with a class.

Doug,
that sounds pretty close, i guess…minus the cards, though: better pilots have better skills, and can therefore do harder things easier (though no one has a guarantee -there's risk involved for anyone attempted to throw his plane around). the presence of multiple-aircraft in any particular zone does create a "if i go after him his buddy may get me…" sense of risk, which is one of the facets of the genre that i'm after.

that's really the key aim of the game: the mood of risk and peril tied to the desire to accomplish one's goals.

have you checked out the sample game i linked to on the other thread? the visual may give a better idea of how i see the game working.

Hi

See, don, we have it, all done!

Grin.

The above suggestions really aren't that much different than the series of games Lou Zocchi did back in the mid 70s. Lou is an old friend. Before he stopped publishing games he actually approached me to do a "flight sim module" for them. We HAD done a boardgame flight sim that did well, that he liked. So, ironically, he had a slightly more abstract game than you want, don, but players wanted a more detailed sub game. The idea was that you could play the stratgetic/operational game, and if you chose, use the flight sim to actually "fly" the encounter instead of using the CRT die rolls.

The higher the level of abstraction, the easier the game is to write. Sadly, the less likely the players are to reliably get historical results!

R

Rocky wrote:
"…reliably get historical results!"

looks like we've come full circle, as it was an AAR from Mike's game that inspired the thread.

unfortunately, that means i'm back where i started: flight-sim games have a poorer chance of producing historical results (or a better descriptor may be "good AARs") because the game mechanics have players pointing airplane models instead of dogfighting. this applies more to the "pick your maneuver" brand of paper-rock-scissors games than it does to full-on flights-sims, but the general idea still sticks since you don't "actually "fly" the encounter" with a flight-sim because it simulates flight, not flying --and just as mechanically moving one's body parts in specific ways is not boxing, so moving one's aircraft in specific ways is not dogfighting. technically, yes, the motions could be the same…but the spirit of the venture that is set by the decisions being made by players is completely different. positioning/pointing is dull --or at least in comparison to the flying it is (mistakenly) purported to simulate.

dunno…unless anyone else cares to comment (methinks Rocky and Doug and i have pretty much flogged this one…!) i guess this discussion is one to stick back on the shelf…at least we made it over 100 posts!

thanks all.
don

Hi

Don, actually, our minutia flight sim DOES produce historical results IF the players make the same decisions.

My point is that the more you abstract from the sim, because you are removing the possabilty of the "same choice" you get less reliable results.

The point, though, isn't the sim. It is what YOU consider "fun".

Now, being old school, when Doug and I started gaming, the rule then was "write your own rules, it is the only way to get what you want". Then the issue is "who will play with you".

Last night we had a fun fight with a japanese beach landing being attacked by a formation of aussie bombers with poor escort being destroyed by a flight of zekes on cap.

R

Rocky,
"…IF the players make the same decisions."

that's the key. in a flight-sim game, players are not making the same decisions: instead, they are positioning and pointing the aircraft --pilots don't do that anymoreso than martial artists could be defined as "moving their arms and legs".

"…write your own rules, it is the only way to get what you want. Then the issue is who will play with you."

on that we can agree!

"Last night we had a fun fight…"

and that's really all it's about.

Don, you keep emphasizing the "dogfight" versus "pointing" thing, as if it is different or somehow mutually exclusive, one or the other. It's not. Sure, a trained pilot or any other warrior in a battle for his life isn't going to concentrate on pointing his weapons and positioning his body/airplane. It's just going to be automatic. But as a game, the player is already 99.99% removed from the reality of "fighting for his life." All that the game can possibly contain is an outlet or involvement in a play-acting exercise, in a subject that player finds intrinsically interesting. Now, if the game abstracts the methodology too much, the connection to the atmosphere is lost, ergo, nothing in the game to grab and grow the intrinsic interest, i.e. no seizing upon the gamer's imagination.

What Rocky and I have been saying, with our own air combat sim always in mind, is that the game involves simulating how airplanes actually fly. Then, once the rules are under your belt (not unlike graduating with your "wings" from combat flight school), you go forth and do battle: the rules and mechanisms are now second nature; you no longer have to labor the aircraft through the sky to make it conform to your instincts! It just does it "on its own", as it were. Which is what YOU want!

"…"dogfight" versus "pointing" thing, as if it is different…"

it is, because of the thinking/decision-process involved. as stated,the fiddly bits are automatic to a trained warrior. yes, a player is removed from the reality --but what part of the reality do you want players to get close to in the gaming experience?

"…if the game abstracts the methodology too much, the connection to the atmosphere is lost…"

i see it as the opposite effect: too much concentration on the fiddly bits (the stuff the warrior pays little attention to) places the player farther from the warrior's atmosphere.

i agree that Rocky's system is good, and that experienced players are not burdened by it --but i also believe that it is valuable only in support of itself, and not in support of dogfighting. it is like trying to communicate a thought: instead of speaking it, flight-sim games have one performing certain tasks (like pushing particular buttons or something) that arrange some sort of arbitrary devices that input into a machine that converts it into a printed statement of the idea. even if one gets familiar with the system so that it becomes second nature, it is still an unnecessary middleman to the process.

pointing the airplane is --while technically necessary in describing a dogfight-- really not meaningful when it comes to answering the meaty part of the "what happened?" question that a game is all about…and the mechanical, boring nature of such a physical narrative is far from the atmosphere i feel players should experience in a game.

sorry if this comes across as less-than-polite…sort of tired after work…

Hi

Last game. 4 zekes patrolling a landing of supplies observe aussie bombers with escort. All zekes attack, escort survives, the bombers didn't.

that is what happened.

What also happend is that, tactically, the zekes bounced the excort FIRST and putting hits on the escort, while maneuvering mostly diving for his life, he found himself unable to to resume protecting the bombers. When the escort wing overed in the wrong direction and lost too much height, the lead zero made a free, uninterrupted run at the bombers. And ONE zero kept the escort maneuvering while the rest made undisturbed runs.

Which game do you want?

R

Rocky,
"Which game do you want?"

the second version --that's exactly the sort of thing that comes out of my game. player/pilots make tactical choices directly via the game mechanics to create the results just as you described without messing with the details that --as Doug correctly pointed out-- the real pilots would not concern themselves with (in an overt, conscious way).

I must have my airplane "flying" in the right direction. The way it's pointed matters, a, lot. And since pointing it reflects flight with it, it follows that climbing, diving, banking, stalling, etc. and etc., all matter as well: it's what airplanes DO (via the pilot's decisions/actions).

A knight on foot faces his enemy, presents shield and weapons, exchanges blows, etc. We push the figures into base to base contact and leave them until a combat result changes something: or another enemy figure enters the fight, etc. We roll dice after comparing combat factors that in no way require us to "fiddle" with the miniatures themselves.

Airplanes will look STUPID just standing around, like knights on foot as it were, waiting for the combat resolution: that isn't dogfighting at all: it's just looking at little models on stands, next to each other, and rolling dice until one of the models gets pulled.

You may end up with the same results, Greg, as our game: but getting the results is all the fun, the results be damned. If a realistic, accurate outcome is all you are after, fine and dandy. I want to feel the game as it progresses.

And there we are….

Doug wrote
"…it's what airplanes DO (via the pilot's decisions…"

that's where we differ, perhaps: i don't think pilots decide which way to point the airplane --at least i don't. i'm sure something akin to it is going on somewhere in the brain, but it certainly doesn't occupy any seat in the front row.

it really is just the same as a knight on foot. yes, an airplane model will "look stupid" just standing around…but so does the knight (or any other figure used in a 1:1-ratio skirmish-style game) in his frozen pose. it's not swordfighting at all: it's just looking at little models on stands… same same, really (at least it is to me: haven't heard a good reason as to why it's different yet) and i don't understand why --just because it involves flight-- aircombat games have to play by different rules when it comes to the level of abstraction allowed.

i admit the visual of the game is not as pretty as that presented by a full flight-sim (though it's not exactly static, as the AAR slideshow i made shows), but i feel that the gain in mood/gameplay could make up for the loss in eyecandy.

"I want to feel the game as it progresses."

that's really my goal: to have players making risk/reward decisions that directly involve the action of the game in a perilous environment full of threat and uncertainty. dealing with the dry, technical business of handling the specific position/facing of the aircraft (which pilots don't do anyway…so why should players?) goes against that theme/goal, imo.

sorry if this just seems like a merry-go-round. any lurkers have an opinion/vote to cast to lend any insight?

i don't think pilots decide which way to point the airplane --at least i don't. i'm sure something akin to it is going on somewhere in the brain, but it certainly doesn't occupy any seat in the front row.

When we play ground combat games with several/many figures to a side, we obviously don't concern ourselves with what is going on in the head of each combatant. But in MOST rules, facing is important in determining the combat effectiveness; likewise, figures having to take on more than one opponent at a time, and being attacked from the rear, etc. But when the ground combat is more like an RPG, then we do concern ourselves far more with what the "character" is doing; his/her decisions then effect the outcome of combat, or at least the odds: you would not stand there eating a Big Mac while a troll was aiming for your head with an enormous club! So although the miniatures are only modelling the appearance and relative positioning for asthetic purposes, the chosen tactics/actions of the PC's are what make the difference in "stupid" and "smart" playing. The players themselves do not know the martial art(s) that their personnas are using: the rules take care of that, making everyone into equals as far as skill is considered. Likewise with air combat games: the rules determine the playing field, making every player into a skilled fighter pilot, in command of his aircraft and weapons, etc. What you are proposing, Greg, is a game of fleets of aircraft facing each other over miles of sky, not one-on-one duels, or effectively "skirmish gaming" in the sky. A game on the scale of "one-player-one-airplane" is just as concerned with PC decisions/positioning/tactics, at this moment, as any RPG is….

It's very strange; to read your reasons for thinking knights on foot and airplanes are the SAME! You see "static" models as identical, yet airplanes are only static when parked. Lines (phalanxs) of infantry bashing each other are fairly static until one side or the other breaks. Air combat NEVER produces such visual torpidity. You then respond with "area of combat"; which you allow is simply bigger because airplanes move faster and farther during the combat; but otherwise there is no difference as far as the models being static. This results, as near as I can tell, in your approach with models standing there facing each other within the same combat "space", but otherwise just like two groups of enemy knights that don't move, except to be removed from combat. It won't "fly", imho. But do your best. I am sure some players will enjoy it, because every game has adherents.

"…"area of combat"; which you allow is simply bigger because airplanes move faster and farther during the combat; but otherwise there is no difference as far as the models being static."

correct. 1-foot of movement for a guy with a sword is exactly the same as 100' of movement for a guy in a plane --it's just a matter of scale: the time (and therefore the decision-window for the player) is the same.

"Air combat NEVER produces such visual torpidity."

neither does swordfighting --from an effective, meaningful standpoint there's no difference. a plane just "tooling about" within a certain airspace is the same as a knight standing (relatively) still. from a player-dictated POV, the input required is the same.

"This results…with models standing there facing each other within the same combat "space", but otherwise just like two groups of enemy knights that don't move, except to be removed from combat."

that's pretty much it (with the same allowances for players to move their knights/pilots out of engagement if they so desire). this type of system/game-mechanic is used successfully across the board in pretty much every other genre…why not aircombat? the advantages of a better "mood" and -perhaps- faster gameplay are, imho, worth the price paid for letting go of the stick…

"…some players will enjoy it…"

that's my hope: just to present the option/choice which currently doesn't exist. no game/system is for everyone, and personal taste and having fun is what it's all about.

bottom line: i like airplanes, and i like oranges. right now the only way i can get airplanes is to buy apples (or maybe mangos, as well…) so i'm looking to put them with oranges myself for my own enjoyment --and perhaps there are others out there who would enjoy it as well (since oranges sell well in other aisles of the gamestore), but since it's never been available they don't even think about it. thus the queries here. dunno if it will ever get on the menu anywhere, but exploring the idea is all i'm after now…

Doug wrote
"…although the miniatures are only modelling the appearance and relative positioning for asthetic purposes, the chosen tactics/actions of the PC's are what make the difference in "stupid" and "smart" playing."

i thought this deserved highlighting, as it goes directly to my POV.

the apples-to-oranges facet comes from what is being asked of players, the form of their answers, and therefore the types of decisions they are making directly via the game's mechanics. flight-sim games (apples) ask knights "where/how will you swing your sword?" (-in space: no mention of a target is allowed.) the answers come in the form of movement/positioning and have no direct connection/impact from a player's intentions. (ie: a player may think "i'm going after him and/or parrying that other guy", but the game mechanics do not take that into consideration.) this method is in contrast to the hand-to-hand games in existence (oranges) that ask "who will you attack?" and leave it to the imagination to fill in the "how will you do it?" bits.

two different POVs, two different avenues --both can be enjoyable/fun…it's all just a matter of taste, and a subject(fun) that cannot be debated, only expressed.

Hi

But the second, preferred form was done with "pointing" the airplane playing Mustangs and Messerschmitts.

R

Rocky,

agreed: but the description you gave was not of the game as it was created by the players (which would have been a listing of the various positions/facings of the models), whereas the "…zekes bounced…the escort maneuvering for his life…the lead zero made a free, uninterrupted run at the bombers…ONE zero kept the escort maneuvering while the rest made undisturbed runs…" description would follow directly from the orders/decisions made in a "bash him"-style of game (oranges instead of apples).

a quick (admittedly poor) slideshow i made of your AAR (using WW1 stuff) as a "bash him" game would play out:

link

since you didn't mention any firing opportunities against the escort i didn't include them --and took the liberty of having the attacking leader's wingman follow him over to the bombers.

it is, i admit, not too exciting to look at* and the game would only be four turns (as described) --but then the scenario itself sounded like a one-sided action anyway, with the poor, lone escort not having much of a chance against four…

*like the other, earlier slideshow i posted, the models are symbolic of the action: not a photographic representation of the specific positions/facings of the combatants.

gweirda: any lurkers have an opinion/vote to cast to lend any insight?

I'm still lurking. I shut up a while ago, because we had each described our positions and we clearly disagree. I don't want to force agreement, it's fine that I like apples and you like oranges.

I agree with Doug and Rocky's arguments, have made similar ones myself at less length. I'll quote you back at yourself, in regard to your preferred game:

gweirda: it is, i admit, not too exciting to look at*

gweirda: *like the other, earlier slideshow i posted, the models are symbolic of the action: not a photographic representation of the specific positions/facings of the combatants.

Exactly. Because your game represents reality abstractly, rather than as a moving diorama, it does not appeal to me as a *miniature* wargame.

I construct an elaborate set of *models* in order to resolve a game as a moving diorama because I like the way that looks. There's nothing wrong with abstraction in a game, but it feels (to me) more appropriate to resolve a highly abstract game with flat counters on a board, or cards, or chips, rather than with highly detailed models.

I play many boardgames with counters and cards, and appreciate them for their own merits. But I have no urge to paint my chessmen, or the plastic pieces from my Axis & Allies boardgames. Some people do, and they're not wrong, but to me the clean abstraction of an unpainted pawn suits the abstract nature of chess better than the finicky detail of a painted model soldier would.

So. I like miniature wargames, and I like board wargames, but to me miniature wargaming is more concrete and visual, while board wargaming is more abstract.

As a matter of fact, when I've played 'cardboard miniatures' boardgames like Mustangs or Battle Cry, I've often been moved to transpose them from their original flat cardboard boardgame form to full 3D miniatures games. These boardgames have the detailed, concrete physical relationships of a miniatures game, and I want to play them with models and 3D terrain.

As a matter of fact, for lowest-level skirmish gaming, I have sometimes done what you say is not done, and provided different figures to represent a man doing different things. For instance, I have an interest in American Indian warfare, before and after European contact. In the pre-contact eastern woodlands, a warrior's panoply included both a bow, for shooting at long distance, and a warclub for close action. I have sets of figures where each man is represented by two figures, one with bow and one with warclub. It looks silly to have two guys with bows confronting each other nose-to-nose. It matters which weapon a warrior has ready. So I go to the trouble of providing double figures for this small scenario, so the game will look right.

That's me. You're not wrong to disagree. But I suspect more wargamers agree with my preferences for the concrete and the abstract.

…this method is in contrast to the hand-to-hand games in existence (oranges) that ask "who will you attack?" and leave it to the imagination to fill in the "how will you do it?" bits.

So I take it you don't like RPG's that get into hitting various areas of the body, and require the PC's to elucidate as much as they can what exactly they are doing in a fight. You just like the straight combat value comparison, roll for result, pull the loser, move onto the next opportunity in the melee. This is the extreme of abstraction.

A middle ground would include factors within the PC's control; e.g. ducking into a house to shoot from the windows, or standing outside in full view; or feinting an attack with ferocity, and when the enemy backs into a defensive crouch, turning and high-tailing it with the moment of lead time your successful maneuver has bought you. Examples are endless. One kind of game only has statically placed figures with sequential turns of combat results being rolled; the other kind of game allows PC decisions from the range of options in this particular situation.

I don't see how you can integrate all the multitudinous factors that decide how each air combat opens, without taking into detailed account all such things as position (including altitude), surprise, numbers of aircraft IN POSITION to make a difference RIGHT NOW. When you have a passle of aircraft within the "combat zone", there are any number of ways that they can be positioned, and those positions change in a matter of seconds.

How can your static game, with models essentially for limited visual appeal only, represent all these constantly shifting factors? Again, air combat, dogfighting, is like any other game where a player runs ONE PC/airplane. Games that allow players to run flights or whole squadrons, are not anymore concerned with fighter-to-fighter combat than massed ground combat rules are: yet we can take two knights out of their armies and have them meet man to man, and change the scale to an RPG where each decision, and even movement, can change the combat odds.

Are you saying that dogfighting one on one is possible to abstract asthetically, so that players feel the tension and danger of losing, when all they do is place their little models next to each other and roll dice each turn until one of them loses?

scale still seems to be the biggest POV problem, i think. to me, a pilot who does a wingover is exactly the same as a knight who does a circle-six parry --both deal with weapon movement/positioning, both take time, both are done almost reflexively in answer to a tactical intent…the fact that one involves travel over a larger amount of space is simply a difference in degree, not in kind. if this point cannot be agreed upon, then i see this discussion as going nowhere, i suppose.

again: i base my opinion/POV on my (admittedly limited) flying and fencing experience --to me they are the same, and involve similar thinking processes insofar as they are both intuitive, visceral actions that reflect intent: and it is that intent (rather than the mechanical fiddly-bit parts) that i feel games should reflect to best capture the spirit of the action. ground-based games do so all the time. aircombat games don't do it at all. why?

Doug wrote
"You just like the straight combat value comparison, roll for result, pull the loser, move onto the next opportunity in the melee."

no, the step i advocate is not that large. though the "roll for result" is more-or-less correct (add player input/choices and modifiers for current weapon/pilot status and it would be pretty close) i'm still talking a turn of a few seconds so the effects would not be "all done you're dead", but a gradual "your position is better/worse" and/or "you've taken/given this much damage" kind of thing --which will go toward influencing both what players choose (based on new risk-factors) as well as what is possible for the aircraft (based on new damage and/or previous maneuvering that resulted in speed/altitude loss, etc…) in the next turn. the fight will evolve and continue until one player is dead or runs or --more likely-- concerns or other elements of the larger engagement will intrude to change the dynamics and make the existing player concerns moot.

zippyfusenet wrote
"…your game represents reality abstractly, rather than as a moving diorama, it does not appeal to me as a *miniature* wargame."

that really confuses me, since the level of abstraction i'm advocating/exploring is not any greater than that found in pretty much every other genre --and i'm talking 1:1 skirmish games, not mass-infantry combats. few (any?)other miniatures game systems put the microscope on a warrior's actions as aircombat games do --none that i know of (admittedly not much knowledge base, there) create a "moving diorama" that displays the detail of action that is common to aircombat. yet they do just fine, and little complaint is heard from a genre's adherents that the representation/display on the tabletop is "too abstract" because every arm motion or piece of fancy footwork is not shown with the little toy soldiers. players fill in the blanks with their imagination and play moves on.

z wrote
"…for lowest-level skirmish gaming, I have sometimes done what you say is not done, and provided different figures to represent a man doing different things."

that's a bit down the path. to go to the extent flight-sim games do, however, you'd have to have a figure to represent each pose of the warrior with the club that details arm/weapon position as well as particular stance/lean/crouch --you don't, and yet you still play those games without complaint. why not apply the same POV to aircombat?

that's really the heart of the issue: why does aircombat play by different rules/expectations? i agree that the "wow!" factor of being a fighter jockey is attractive --but i don't see it as that much greater than the "wow!" factor of being a gallant knight or any other type of heroic adventurer. in games with those characters we happily place our frozen-pose figures next to an enemy and imagine the thrilling action that takes place as we attack or leap or whatever…why not the same if we're pretending to be a pilot?

even if the level of detail in figure-display were possible, would one get as excited about, say, a swordfight game if the actions allowed to players were confined to the dull, mechanical positioning of arms and legs that get cross-referenced with the similar plottings of an opponent to determine if a blow has landed? hardly sounds thrilling to me --certainly not reflective of the nature of the combat being represented, is it? yet that is exactly the sort of thing flight-sim players do: mechanical plotting of actions that real pilots don't think about much at all --anymoreso than knights would think about footwork or swing-arcs or whathaveyou. why frame a game that concerns perilous action with the technical stuff that's boring?

Doug wrote
"Are you saying that dogfighting one on one is possible to abstract asthetically, so that players feel the tension and danger of losing, when all they do is place their little models next to each other and roll dice each turn until one of them loses?"

that's about it: though the game is a bit more dynamic (as the slideshow AAR testifies) in the same way a hand-to-hand skirmish game is dynamic. if in a knight-combat game one simply moved one's figure to base contact and slugged it out
until one or the other is dead that would be as dull as could be --but that would be the player's fault, not the game's. the action that unfolds is up to the players: if a tedious slug-fest is what they want, then they can certainly have it.

dunno. as usual i talked too much…

again: my sincere thanks to those contributing to the discussion. who knows, maybe we'll hit 200-posts? ; )

Hi

Your slide show isn't that wrong to the actual game played. Details, of course, the zeeks during the overshoot climbed up and turned back and re-engaged.

One thing we do is generate scenarios and situations with a random event game. This particular scenario came up a few months ago in WW1. But in that case, the bombers, then Albatross C.XIIs took some damage but hit the target. In that game the escort was a SSW D.III who used his assets to dance out of the way of the attacking SEs but stay in position. In this case each attacker couldn't get a clean run. Position. Each attacker found that due to the SSWs flying he had to accept a clean dead six shot from the german to get his pass at the bombers. Ultimately, the brits only lost ONE plane, but got no bombers.

The spacing, position made the events very different.

In this scenario, with an abstraction like "aircraft and pilot quality" on a chart wouldn't have allowed this "one sided" scenario to come to any conclusion but a big win for the four attackers.

As happened in the zeke scenario, but not the Albatross scenario.

One of the reasons we do what we do is the utter unpredictability in scenarios that SEEM to have no chance.

as for the posts…I can talk about airplanes and how they sim and game forever. I am very boring that way!

R

I am very interested, that way.

Greg, 1:1 scale is where dogfighting is at. You admitted that that is what you are after. So we can pass on and not address players running flights and squadrons apiece.

I still can't see how YOU can see a way to represent a dogfight without knowing where the aircraft are positioned ALL THE TIME, and that includes which direction they are flying! It is absolutely critical in air combat to know the time-motion of it all, or you are either feckless or dead. If the game doesn't take into account these most fundamental aspects of facing and speed/direction, then it isn't in any way simulating air combat no matter what you call it. You have misjudged a similarity in "area of combat" here, imho: you say a wingover is akin to a knight swinging his sword such-and-such a way. But the BIG difference here isn't the area involved as "combat area", but rather the nature of the movement.

On the ground opponents "face off". In the air they are either going headon for a brief moment, or they are pursuing/pursued: a totally different kind of combat than with any other medium. Gunfights, swordfights, whathaveyou, all involve facing each other, or an ambush.

Air combat differs if it isn't an ambush: the goal is to get BEHIND the quarry and gun it down from as short a range as possible. Ground combat dueling rarely involves getting behind the enemy, and it certainly isn't something to work for or expect to finally achieve. Air combat is exactly that, however: maneuvering to get (if perfectly carried off) in the other guy's "dead six"….

Doug wrote
"…absolutely critical in air combat to know the time-motion of it all, or you are either feckless or dead."

the same can be said of fencing, where a lean in the wrong direction or an out-of-position blade can make the correct move impossible --just as sloppy positioning/facing in a dogfight can leave one with few options (other than to say bad words and curse your incompetence!).

"If the game doesn't take into account these most fundamental aspects of facing and speed/direction, then it isn't in any way simulating air combat…"

take into account? yes. ask players to micromanage them and to display them in detail? no, not necessary.

the key, important issue that a turn of action answers is "can an attack be made?" and, if so, "how good is it?" in that way, aircombat is the same as any other 1:1 skirmish-level game. the details of the specific positions don't mean anything, really, do they? as long as their EFFECTS are considered and have an impact on future play options then the ball can keep rolling. the "how did this happen?" question is left to players' imaginations, and can be debated/hashed-out over a post-game beer --the important thing is what type of situation (ie: quality of position) a pilot find himself in. the question asked is then "what do you want to do?" if "improve my firing position on that fellow" is the answer, then the attempt is made and --depending on how successful it is (those pesky dice injecting realworld randomization) and what the other fellow did-- the end of the turn will see the pilot in a new situation: maybe getting a shot off or maybe on his way to lining up his target for a killing blow or maybe getting blasted by the fellow's buddy who took the opportunity to sneak in and line HIM up! the exact positioning/situation is moot --just like that of similar ground combat is: whether the knight used a massive overhand blow that felled his opponent or whether he slipped and now finds himself at the mercy of some schmuck with a dagger doesn't really affect the "meaty" part of the action…the "what happened?" part that is determined by the attack die roll made by the player, which is "10 -you whacked him good" or "1 -you're in deep doo-doo." the number dicates the effect, the details/color comes from player imagination. it isn't necessary for players to plot out the exact lean/stance/swing (that the real knight wouldn't give a second thought, anyway) --the only thing players need to say is WHAT they'll do, not HOW.

the same can be done with aircombat. i don't see it as "a totally different kind of combat" --just one in which players get to zoom around the sky. the nuts and bolts are the same, however much the environment/modifiers may differ.

"…how YOU can see a way to represent a dogfight without knowing where the aircraft are positioned ALL THE TIME, and that includes which direction they are flying!"

the same way groundcombat games represent hand-to-hand fighting without knowing where the arms/legs/weapons are positioned all the time: by asking only "is it good?", and if so: "how good is it?" as well as "how will it affect the future?" the details don't matter: the effects do.

To arrive at the variables, that alter the effects, you must have a visual of what is happening. With airplanes this fundamentally differs from positioning of arms and legs etc., while FACING each other. Airplanes zip on past, circle around, climb for advantage or dive away to pick up energy or attempt escape, etc. and etc. DIFFERENT. I read what you say, and it all boils down to yes the kind of game you want sounds possible: but I cannot visualize HOW without taking the difference into account, i.e. always knowing the relative positions and facing. You completely tossed the "getting behind him" difference. This is a biggie, imho….

i don't see the difference between hand-to-hand and aircombat. it you step back a mile or so and look at two fighters in, perhaps, a 500' box, you would have the same view you'd have of two swordsmen within a 10' box: the ducking, weaving, lunging of the latter is the same as the turning, swirling action of the former.

while knowing the details of the exact positions is nice from a storyline aspect, it is not required for players to make informed decisions: they need only information on the relative positions (framed in an advantaged/disadvantaged manner, ie: is one in a better position relative to the other? or are they neutral?) as well as the current status of themselves and/or their weapons. based on that knowledge, they make a tactical decision: stay and fight (and how hard?), or move away, or maybe pick another target (like the guy who just showed up and gained a position advantage on you while you were busy with his buddy…).

if a "move away" choice is made, then the game/models would display the "climb for advantage" or "dive for energy" --i make a distinction between a)moving to line up a shot (in which case the only concern of the game is the relative positions between the would-be-attacker and his target --which can be expressed as a number, rather than a physical display) and b)moving to get somewhere (in which case the aircraft ends up in a general area of airspace: precise, chesslike positioning/movement in an aircombat arena is just not possible, imho). there is some crossover: a certain amount of lining up can be done while moving to get somewhere, especially for better pilots --if a target just tools along doing nothing, a good pilot can be "on his six" (symbolically, of course!) in just a few turns of pursuit.

so: a player/pilot would know a)in what general plot of airspace he's is (defined by effective combat range), b)his general direction of travel (using hexes, so 1 of 6) IF he's in the "moving to get somewhere" mode, and c)what, if any, position advantage he holds over another aircraft (and its quality) OR its converse: who has an advantage on him!

combined with the current status of his plane (altitude, airspeed, damage, etc…) he chooses his "orders" for the coming turn, as well as how hard he will push/stress the aircraft to succeed --eg: make a big, easy, lazy turn to get over there…or rack it around hard? --the former is pretty much guaranteed but will take three turns, the latter will get him there right now but it will cost speed and he may fluff it and spin…which to do? the same sort of thinking would exist if trying to line up (or evade) a shot: safe/easy that takes time or risky/hard that serves up a big gain quickly? if you pick easy and your opponent picks hard and succeeds, you'll be in trouble…

the details/story of what is actually occuring is left to the imagination (broken record: like we do all the time with ground-based skirmish games). of course it looks much cooler to have the models show every bit…but at what price? mechanical plotting of boring moving and pointing…it just seems to me to get in the way of the spirit of the thing. just say what you want to do (get him! or be there!) and then just do it (or rather: try --there's always a chance you'll fail, of course). don't jump through plotting or picking maneuver-number/card hoops --those details don't matter, really…at least not more than the "did it work?"-answer that doesn't require them (or --more importantly-- their drain on game-energy).

Hi

We need to get together in person. WE fly this game, and I used to be a college level fence, and I did do sims for the AF for their pilots.

I think you are confusing your experiences with saber with air combat.

And I cannot think of a way to do an analogy that would work to explain to you that I think you are "overthinking" the problem.

I spent hours the other day with a friend explaining how I upset my old chines masters in martial arts when i "broke rules" using techniques from saber to modify my blocking. But it took a LOT of time. And I don't think anything like this is apt.

In fencing, we wire up ourselves to make each move as part of a basic reflex akin to breathing. I did not, then, make a complex verbal decision on my attack, drop point, in 6, sweept….yadda yadda. Until the repost….

I always liked the description in Scaramouche, when it is akin to a chess game where you plan that in 16 moves, there will be a hole the size of your thumb that I will KILL you though. But the time frame, the element of decision is in tenths of seconds.

The weapon involved in aircombat is different. The pilots decision making in the same situation is actually way more open and variable than a fencing match. The pilot imput isn't quick enough to produce decisions in tenths of seconds that result in a resolution in 4 seconds. Rather it is 1.5 or so seconds that results in a resolution in a half minute or so.

So, I THINK you have flown the wrong games, and played the wrong skirmish games.

R

i agree that the fencing analogy doesn't hold up the entire position --it (beginning with the knight-parallel, actually) was the first thing that came to mind when searching for some common gaming-ground (hack-n-slash rpg-ing maybe something many have seen/done?).

rather than specific move/time-motion parallels, i'm really aiming to compare what's going on in the fighter's head, and --the other big chunk-- boil down the complexity of dogfighting maneuver to the meaty "what is its effect?" question (similar to what is done in hand-to-hand games).

there are facets, factors, modifiers, skills, capabilities, etc… that can and should be included in the player-decision process --but i think they can be reduced to their meaningful qualities in a generic sense and still have an impact on play in a satisfying manner. the color/detail is great, but it gets in the way of the play, i think, more than it contributes to the mood/challenge of aircombat.

dunno.

like you said: face-to-face and we'd have this sucker killed long ago…at least we're providing entertainment for the masses!

--if a target just tools along doing nothing, a good pilot can be "on his six" (symbolically, of course!) in just a few turns of pursuit.

You don't need models then. What you describe requires only a "GM" to regulate the RPG, munchies (drinks) and a lot of chatter between the players.

don't need models?…heresy! ; )

the AAR shows that models are very much needed --as they are in most games-- to show the relative positions (including altitude) of the forces and to track/display the changing situation as the play evolves.

again: it's the scale of one's POV that must shift out. a meaningful distance in aircombat is expressed in hundreds of feet --anything less than that is not worth tracking/displaying, since its benefit doesn't make up for the cost (gamewise).

everyone wants to fly the little airplane…trouble is, flight-sim game mechanics don't simulate flying, they're not even close --not from this pilot's POV, anyway. here i think the fencing and/or martial-arts analogy stands up: the mechanical/technical plotting of movement (no matter how elegantly accomplished) is at best a poor shadow of the physical reality it purports to simulate, and does absolutely nothing to encompass/consider what's going on inside the warrior's head. the questions/answers are all wrong --how can the outcome reflect the action?

no other genre requires this sort of by-the-by middleman mechanic to communicate player intent --and there are few (any?) cries of "too abstract!" heard in complaint. why the hubbub over applying the same prinicple to aircombat? is pretending to fly the little airplane so vital to the genre that no one wants to game without it? i agree that the fantasy is an attractive one (as are other heroic-alter-ego games) but --to me-- the imagination of the action has to work IN SPITE OF the dull mechanics of a flight-sim game, and not because of them.

flight-sims produce the picture pixel by pixel. yes, they create the image --but you have to step back to see it. all i'm saying is that the image can be produced from that "now i see it" distance with broader strokes. the picture is still the same --still a moment-by-moment series of twists and turns and decisions and successes and failures-- but the fine details (that don't affect the theme/story, and can't really be seen from the "what happened?" POV-distance anyway) are not meticulously inscribed.

everyone wants to fly the little airplane…trouble is, flight-sim game mechanics don't simulate flying, they're not even close --not from this pilot's POV, anyway.

The object isn't to simulate flying, but FLIGHT. Big difference. There is no taking the place of the pilot in the cockpit, feet on rudder bar, hands on stick and throttle and guns, etc. As you have repeatedly pointed out, that is the job of the little guy in the airplane. The gamer's "job" is to decide where to maneuver his aircraft; just like any RPGer decides where to move and what to do with his PC. The more you can represent graphically with miniatures, the less you need rules to spell out what is happening. Ironically, Greg, your premise is going to wind up with a rules-consulting-intensive game; a complication rather than a simplification of playing the game itself. I know that Rocky's/my game approach is complex to LEARN, vis-a-vis the mechanics of the systems. But once under your belt, the movement trollies and models they carry are actually a simplification: simply because everything is so graphically clear. Nobody has to say much about who is where, in what attitude, or where they can possibly BE in the next few seconds. The weakness, as in any game, is that it is all freeze-framed, as it were: we can't tell, without consulting each player, how fast an airplane is moving; and sometimes, because of the weakness of the equipment, we cannot always tell how steeply an airplane is diving or climbing or how rolled into a turn it is: these details, when important to me, I can secure simply be asking the player what his airplane is doing, before either of us makes our next move. But all in all the methodology is to simplfy the minutia of the game and free us up to enjoy the visual exactness of aircombat maneuvering….

Doug,

i confess/concede that directing my discussion towards the faults of flight-sim games was/is a mistake. i sidetracked my own debate. dumb. mea culpa.

i would, however, like to hear responses to the following points in the post concerning the success of other genres in abstracting the action and the way the picture of that action is created.

i do not believe that pointing the airplane is what dogfighting is about --it's just a detail/factor of the action. i, therefore, do not think that it must be determined/controlled by players and displayed in every attempt to simulate the action in a game.

"get on his tail" is a small, detail-oriented way of thinking --similar to "stab him in the gut". i'm looking to use a broader viewpoint --like other genres do-- in which to frame player's thinking.

i continue to rely on the fact that other genres succeed using this framework --the specifics of aircombat do not make it unique so as to make the gamemechanics unapplicable…or at least i don't see anything special about it. just 'cuz it's flying means nothing.

Hi

Again, you overstate the DETAIL you think exist in air combat games and "normal" wargames.

lets say we have a knight on the battle field as part of 20 other normon figs representing, say 500 men. Cav cannot just move 500 yards in any direction and attack in any direction. It matters which way they face, how fast the unit can change direction, how fast they cross the gap, and how the target responds.

Now make it an individual knight running down a peasant with a spear. It all still matters. It takes time when heading south to turn around and run at the peasant, and it matters if the peasant girds his loins, has courage and grounds his spear such that the cavalry man, with only a sword, knows the spear will kill him FIRST. OR if the lancer catches the peasant from behind, with no threat of a spear and runs him down.

Similarly, make it an Albatros C.VII taking photos. Attacked by an SE. It matters if the SE is pointing away, and how much time it takes to turn around and attack. It mattes which quadrant the SE comes in because the defensive fire might get him first. So, he runs UNDER the tail, comes up in a blind spot.

Notice that in neither example did I say "the peasant raises his left hand" nor did I say "the pilot gripped the stick with his right.

Rocky

i agree that it matters. i don't agree that it HAS to be detailed/shown at the level aircombat games typically do (it CAN be, but it doesn't HAVE to be). it's how you draw the picture: the same result (from a "what is it a picture of?" perspective/distance) comes of broad strokes or tiny dots. "bash him!"-style hand-to-hand games use broad strokes, flight-sim style aircombat games use dots.

i really don't see the difference between a wingover and a particular swordstroke: both are "dots". they are the same things = intuitive, reactive moves made by a warrior in order to execute a desired tactical intent. just because one warrior is moving an airplane in the sky doesn't make his level of control (and the need to detail/display it) any greater.

scale is everything, i think. your example of a knight chasing a peasant would, if applied to aircombat, involve movement over miles of airspace, and i would handle it the same way with airplanes as you describe handling it with the ground figures. the difference, it seems, is that i'm looking to continue to handle the combat in the same manner as the groundcombat rules once the figures closed to effective combat range and not --as flight-sim games do-- detail the movements/action of the combatants within that zone of fast and furious action.

Stepping outside your boxes for a moment, gweirda's game has been done, and several times over. Most naval miniature games representing WWI and later have rules for attacking ships from the air. And since aircraft can attack ships, they have rules for attacking aircraft.

The Admiralty Games( Fear God and Dread Naught, Command at Sea, and Harpoon) probably cone the closest to what you're looking for. Planes fly – no fancy maneuvering – several miles per turn. When they get in engagement range, say 500yds for the WW2 game, you compare your aircraft's ratings vs the enemy, modified for crew quality and some other factors, to see who gets a shot. Compare your planes gunnery factor vs your opponents structure gives a chance to damage/destroy. Fight can continue if no one is damaged, or if more planes are available. The furball stays stationary until the fight is called off by one side running. Of course the battle is only a few die-rolls, so they don't last long..

Hal
p.s. there is a little more to it than that, it's from memory while cubicle dwelling…

thanks for the info: always finding out how little i know of the big wide world!

though i was a bit surprised that you didn't mention newts… ; )

Oddly enough, when I want to drive a plane (and blow stuff up), I grab the Playstation. Ace Combat 4, 5, or Zero. And then I blow up planes for a while and let off a lot of stress.

I'd love an air-combat minis game where the action flowed like White Wolf's Exalted, or like 7eme Cercle's Qin (RPGs), where I can concentrate on hitting the guy, not trying to mechanically push a plane around to get him in my sights (which I do on autopilot playing Ace Combat). Why should I, as a player, be thinking about stuff in a minis game that I don't think about in the computer flightsim?

This has to be one of the longest discussions I've ever come across on this subject. Doug, Rocky, you are far, far more patient than I could be on this. I've played just about every air combat game there is, ranging from Birds of Prey to Wings of War to Luftwaffe to Battle of Britain. Me? I prefer to at least have the illusion that I'm maneuvering in 3d, at high speeds, pitting my piloting and my aircraft's performance against my opponents. I am very sorry to say that Don is just not going to get it.

Scotty

Lion in the Stars,
your final question (or something similar) was the catalyst in creating my current POV. the desire you mentioned to control the tactical-intentions of the little figures on the table (rather than the mechanical fiddly-bits) is also a key objective for the style of rules i propose. broken record: this level of game-POV (the broader "bash him!"-type, as opposed to the narrower "stick my sword in his gut"-type) is used across the board with other skirmish-level games with success…why not aircombat?

look at AARs: descriptions of flight-sim games (like the one Rocky put forward as an example) DON'T take the form of the gameplay, but are instead translated into the "bash him!" language that reflects the action from a broader "what happened?" POV. all i'm saying is that you can skip the mechanical-positioning step and play the same action out on that broader "what the pilot does" level with the player/pilot making the tactical decisions (that are used to describe the action) instead of mechanical ones.

Scotty,
there are tons of flight-sim games available to answer players' desire to pretend they're controlling the specifics of the aircraft performance, ie: lots of apples on the shelf. alongside, i'm proposing to have an orange in the aircombat aisle (like the kinds found in every other genre's selection) that lets the little guy in the model handle the fiddly-bits and allows the gamer to play from the broader, tactical POV that is common (and successful) in those other aisles.

i get that apples are popular -i understand (i think…) their appeal. what i don't understand is why oranges can't work in aircombat: the two are not, to my mind, mutually exclusive. no one has yet pointed out a quality of the genre that differentiates it enough to justify its exclusion from the "bash him!" level of play --just 'cuz it's airplanes doesn't mean squat. in the head of the warrior, there is no significant difference between the knight and the pilot.

i am honestly here to learn (insert previously posted "support of a position blah blah" disclaimer…), and understand the preference some have for flight-sim --but i don't "get" (or accept) the position that it is required for a good game, especially since (as LitS pointed out) the mechanical decisions of flight-sim are not made by pilots…surely, then, they shouldn't have to be made by players?

Hi

I assume "Scotty" is my old gaming buddy.

Greg, what you are missing is that we HAVE done those games, you aren't really listening. I am not sure why.

There are games as described above in conjunction with naval games, but as might be expected, the navy guys really aren't interested in the air combat at all, only the results.

And I offered other examples of this to you. As scotty mentioned, for instance, there is the old Luftwaffe, the old GDW series that does the entire of the war in europe in separate games and so on. None of them are "skirmish" games though.

Lets go back to OUR skirmish game. Assuming "Scotty" is the right "Scotty". Lancer running away has zero combat value and if attacked usally dies. If facing the enemy, he has a basic combat value based on weapon and armor, he gets a bonus for being mounted, he gets more bonus if moving and a lot of bonus if charging with couched lance. But even so, as A SKIRMISH he must be charging INTO his enemy, not away.

A wing over isn't back on stick lifting nose, left on stick, pulling G, dropping the wing tip, using rudder to control the decent, pull out at right point by starting to roll level, pull g ….yaddda.

Position and direction MATTERS in both skirmish games. next step up, leaving out this stuff makes it an operational game. Like "Battle of Britian on first day" GDW game.

Rocky

R-

you're too close. step back a mile, and a wingover is just like a circle-6 parry. no different. --at least i don't see any difference. scale and speed are differences of amount, not of kind. to the warrior's mind they are the same, and that is the framework i'm working on since it is the player's experience that is the focus of the game mechanics.

in hand-to-hand games, few have "circle-6 parry" on a player's menu of choices (which many/most aircombat games have in the form of "wingover") --and no hand-to-hand games have the next-level-closer set of instructions such as the one you described (and that i suspect are on the menu of detailed flight-sim games?…at least insofar as model-movement goes, ie: players don't have "wingover" as a command, but instead move the model in a flight path that can be called "wingover").

in many/most hand-to-hand games, the choices on a player's menu are the broad, tactical ones similar to those made by the warrior on the ground. it is that same sort of method/game-mechanic that i'm proposing be used in aircombat.

"Position and direction MATTERS in both skirmish games. next step up, leaving out this stuff…"

who said anything about leaving it out? the scales are different, though: the lancer on horseback is like the aircraft moving hundreds (if not thousands) of feet -that direction/motion is shown. but once within combat range things change regarding the display in the game and, more importantly, the choices made by the warrior --then, "circle 6" equals "wingover". as with the knight with his sword, position and direction matters immensely: but it isn't detailed/displayed in the game, merely considered/factored-into the action in an abstract manner.

Note that I still do get into turning contests a lot in Ace Combat… does the decision of *mechanically* how to get the guy in my sights need to be mine? I know there's some positioning that I need to control, but the specific maneuvers (is it a 6g turn, or a high-g wingover?) are things I don't think about, whether I'm driving the Playstation or a Cessna (OK, cessna can't take a 6g turn, but you get my point).

"…does the decision of *mechanically* how to get the guy in my sights need to be mine?"

not in the game i propose. the intensity, or difficulty/stress-level, of the maneuvering is the pilot/player's choice, but the details are left to the little guy in the model.

Lion: have you looked at the AAR i posted over in the Game Design thread? it sounds like you'd (be one of the few to) like what i have in mind.

Yeah, it's me, Rocky. Still kickin'. There are unique aspects to air combat that are different from any other type of one on one fighting. The third dimension alone makes this so. Making it work the same way as a medieval joust (for example)takes away from that uniqueness. I don't deny that air combat gaming requires a little extra from the players, but that just makes it sweeter when you master that little extra.

As for playing the flight-sim aspects. Very few games are going to try to really put you in the cockpit (well, some computer sims do, but we're talking about board and miniature games here). I get it that you don't want to have to learn how to fly to play an air combat game. But there's no point in playing an air combat game unless you immerse yourself, at least a little bit, in the lore and detail of the subject. That's why I reject the idea of trying to equate a ground maneuver to an air combat maneuver. It really is apples and oranges. If you want oranges, don't do air combat.