"flying v fighting" Topic

"…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."

the same could be said for any martial-arts game of hand-to-hand combat, though, couldn't it? greater knowledge used in a game that encompasses it is certainly a wonderful avenue for aficianados of the genre, but there are few who would stipulate that such a skill knowledge is a requirement for that genre. how many hand-to-hand games require the sort of physical-skill-set input from players to the extent aircombat games do? …any? yet the bag of tools available to a swordsman is as varied and detailed as that used by a pilot: they are not really all that different --the third dimension isn't: a swordsman moves in three dimensions. it's just another factor to be incorporated into the warrior's thinking. a wingover is a parry: they are the same in kind, only different in degree/scale.

what/how games ask players what they want to do varies by level of detail/abstraction. flight-sim games provide a level of detail/involvement unique to the genre (due, i think, to the ease with which the models can be made to display specific positions during combat -something that just isn't practical with foot figures). this detail level --while possible-- is not necessary: it is no more a requirement to ask which way one's aircraft is pointing to allow a shot and/or restrict future maneuvers than it is to ask where exactly one's fist is to allow a punch to land or restrict future moves. such a method/game mechanic CAN be used, but it doesn't HAVE to be used --as the plethora of hand-to-hand games that don't have that kind of detail attest.

"If you want oranges, don't do air combat."

why? i've not heard a difference that gives such a statement any support. in the warrior's mind, the thinking is the same --and since placing the player into the warrior's head is the object of the game (or at least a good chunk of it, for me), then i see no reason why the "bash him!" level of detail common to ground games cannot be used in aircombat…especially when one considers that pilots --like other warriors-- don't think/decide on the close-in-detail level of flight-sim games: they don't move/point the airplanes (anymoreso than martial-artists move/point their fists) --why should players? it's possible to play that way, of course (the mass of current games proves that), but i think it should also be possible to play (as in other genres) from a more distant level of detail/control: one that is closer to the warrior's own level of thinking.

Hi Scotty! Long time since I've seen you, or even communicated in any medium.

"…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."

the same could be said for any martial-arts game of hand-to-hand combat, though, couldn't it? greater knowledge used in a game that encompasses it is certainly a wonderful avenue for aficianados of the genre, but there are few who would stipulate that such a skill knowledge is a requirement for that genre.

Take this into another three-dimensional time-motion environment: under-water combat. The frogman becomes a slow-moving version of an aircraft, but only as far as the tactical positioning is concerned: there is no "flying" aspect -- no control of a machine. Still the three dimensions are there. Where this is exactly the same it needs to be represented to obtain the "feel" for the difference. Making under-water combat two dimensional fails to convey the depth of the combat area.

As I said before, without visually depicting what is actually going on, in specific terms of altitude and speed and orientation, you are not visually depicting anything like air combat: and you will need extra rules to adequately achieve a realistic outcome; rules that dispense with the need/dependence on models.

The best approach is to make the models do as much of your visual information delivery as possible: that way you don't have to include a bunch of rules to tell the players what is going on.

It's sort of like comparing original D&D with the later, miniatures versions: a fully modelled dungeon complex, positioning of PC's and denizens, treasure and furniture, etc., eliminates most of the dialogue of the GM required in a paper and chatter-only game.

(That's odd: Scotty's profile still only shows one post. A profile updating Bug?)

"…without visually depicting what is actually going on, in specific terms of altitude and speed and orientation, you are not visually depicting anything like air combat…"

just as leaving out the display of specific body position in a hand-to-hand combat game (as is done when we push foot figures to base contact and do nothing to show the furious action/movement that takes place within that combat range) does not visually depict hand-to-hand combat --yet we do it all the time without complaint as to the huge amount of abstraction done.

a dogfight that occurs in a large box of air (the size of which is debatable: i propose effective combat range…which may very well put jet-era combat out of the picture) is the exact same thing as a fistfight that occurs in a similarly-proportioned space on the ground (perhaps as little as a 6'-circle?). the thinking and concurrent "orders" that the warriors issue are the same in each case --the fact that one set of warriors has an extra avenue of attack or defense (via the available vertical airspace) only gives them another tool: it doesn't change the nature of their thinking/tactics in kind, only in degree.

it may well be that the "best approach" is to display the details of this close-in action with the miniatures, but if that were true then all hand-to-hand games are "second best" --and i don't think that that is true. would anyone play a hand-to-hand game that has players moving/positioning their bodies in the manner aircombat games have them moving/positioning their planes? if given the choice between that sort of detail/control and a "bash him!" style of game, i think the latter would be more popular --as well as capture the spirit/mood/thinking of a barroom brawl or street fight that is the ground-level combat equivalent of a dogfight.

that's the key: what is the mood? what is the game asking players? what choices are they allowed to make? and most importantly: how close are these choices to the ones made by their pilot alter-egos?

the ones offered by flight-sim are the mechanical/technical choices of position/facing: things that i think we've all agreed play a distant second-fiddle in warrior's minds.

the ones offered by the "bash him!"-style of game common to groundcombat are the tactical/intent-reflecting choices that are, i think, closer to the thinking/mindset of the warriors whose behavior the rules purport to represent --which is the aim of a "you're in the cockpit" set of aircombat rules, isn't it?

one is apples, the other oranges: the appeal is left to individual taste/preference. --but it's not a choice if there are no oranges to pick…

Hi

See, this is the problem greg. Scotty knows me, Doug knows me. Both know that I have a black belt and I did fence in college and I did do gang fights and Scotty and I have both done sims for the USAF.

Simply, you comparing a "circle six" to a wingover means you don't understand your analogy.

it might be better that as a fencer, you decide to do a "run", you know that if you come hign drop….yadda yadda, you will in the next few sectonds make a series of movement that hopefully result in that little hole you kill your opponent with.

Thus, the "wingover" os more askin to a game where you don't do any specific attack in 4 or whatever, but merely state, "make a run".

Now, making a run on mat 4 when your opponet is upstairs means that you have done nothing. Most of what you see in airgaming with a box of air leaves out the critical form of even being in the same part of the tourney.

R

no analogy is perfect, certainly --and my limited fencing experience (like you, only college-level, and that was more than a few years ago!) hinders the discussion. i chose hand-to-hand combat as an analogy (not just formal fencing) simply because i felt it would touch base with the greatest number of gamers' skirmish-level experience (as dwight the knight or tim the troll…).

two facets are key to my position: the scale/scope of the movements involved (which i set as occuring within effective combat range), and the type of decisions made and answers given by players.

for the first, any likening to a ground match on a mat (be it with or without swords) must consider the weapon range. being around 15' away would be the same as a WW1-era fighter being 500 or more yards away from his opponent, ie: two (or perhaps three?) times the effective weapon range. within that area, a wingover would be comparable to any number of body+weapon positionings insofar as it would possibly improve one's status (good or bad) for that moment. the details can be chosen/displayed by the players --but they could also choose a tactical order/intent (like "avoid that blow" or "bash him") that accomplishes the same thing game-wise without specifying the particular move made to accomplish the task.

this highlights the more important facet of the analogy:

player choices. what sort of questions are asked and the form the answers take plays an important part, i think, in establishing the overall mood/spirit of the game. for this to apply, any close approximation to hand-to-hand combat isn't really necessary: it can stand pretty much alone.

in a flight-sim game that has players moving/facing the models in a flight path (that, when viewed over a certain period of time, could very well resemble a wingover and be labled as such) the answer given by players is "i will move/point the airplane this way" --an answer that isn't given by pilots.

in a flight-sim game that has players choosing from a set of possible movement options (such as WoW or CY6! or CE) the answer given by players is "i will do a wingover" (or sometimes: i will do maneuver #27A) --still, an answer that isn't given by pilots.

both examples result in a description/display of the aircraft's motion that is a true representation of the action --but both fail to represent the pilot's action. both are good games if representing the behavior of the aircraft is desired, but both equally fall short if the goal of the game is to represent the pilot's behavior in the face of the challenges of aircombat.

technically/mechanically the truth of the action is there: but the spirit is missing.

gotta run.
don (not greg)

ps- it may just be the fact that it's been below zero (C) for four weeks and i'm just inordinately ornery…sorry if all this comes across poorly.

Nah, it's been below zero (F) for about two weeks (inversion finally broke and it warmed up today), so I've been cranky, too, but I get your point.

Is it important to keep track of altitude? only as altitude applies to ENERGY, which is a really abstract though until you've played around a bit in a plane.

Do I have the ENERGY to get into a turning contest with this guy, or do I need to extend and get some speed/altitude (=energy)? That's the question I ask when playing Ace Combat, since I can't afford to go play in an aerobatic trainer. That's the ONLY thing I think about. Not weapon selection, not range to target, just energy.

"…below zero (F) for about two weeks…"

where are you, alaska? we had 80-odd hours below zero(F) a couple weeks back that was bad enough…i know, i'm getting old and weak… ; )

"Is it important to keep track of altitude? only as altitude applies to ENERGY…"

i think so, yes. in what i've got so far, trading altitude for speed is the only sure way of recovering energy lost in maneuvering (though a better pilot has a better chance of performing maneuvers more cleanly and thus lose less energy that a ham-handed pilot who shoves the machine around the sky with little grace), so ignoring how high you are relative to the other fellow is a poor path to take.

if in a turning contest, it becomes a test of skill as to who can perform best to lose less speed to hold altitude (or maybe even gain a tad?) and achieve an advantage in firing position. that's the theory, anyway…

Don, sorry (don't know how Greg crept in; I think I'll just stick with your handle gweirda). Your insistence that flight sim deprives a feel for what the pilot does is not applicable to our flight sim. When I "fly", I don't occupy my mind with the minutia of game mechanisms: I think in terms of time-motion, knowing that I will trade energy for altitude if I go up, and give up altitude/position if I dive, but I will gain speed. All the while, I am gauging where the opponent will be and at what angle and range I will take my shot: these are specifically PILOT determinations, not game mechanisms. As I said, the visual modelling answers most of the questions about what is going on; eliminating the need for verbal clarifications and extra rules….

Hey Doug, Rocky! It feels like I've been down South forever.

Doug, hang onto that energy approach. I think that's the key to this discussion. Air combat is all about energy, it's use, conservation of, and lack thereof. The player who learns how to use energy to his advantage is the one who is going to tend to come out of a dogfight alive. This means keeping your speed up, staying above your opponent til you strike, and so on. You gain energy from engine thrust and gravity. I don't see a reasonable analogy to any other sort of combat.

Boyd proved it- energy management is the key. With it, you can reduce angle-off and position yourself for an attack. Or increase angle-off and keep the other guy off your six.

M&M shows this very well (as do a small number of other games).

Try as I might, I can't picture a pair of fencers working with energy management in their maneuvers (other than, I guess, conserving their motions to the least to get the best result- deflection and thrust).

Hi

Scotty, in fencing, the issue is small movements. No matter how fast one is, the guy who makes the smallest movement is faster.

Most parrying in a thrust, is merely a twist of your forfinger and thumb to roll the strike away. A cut is mostly deflected rather than opposed. Very few events happen in less than tenths of seconds.

Anyway, back to the subject. We were doing a game a couple weeks ago where some of the players were, due to flying sopwiths and my SPEED were certain I had no shot. But managing the energy, I was suddenly where I needed. A solo bounce on a half dozen planes. Anyway, I saw it from the beginning with the sopwiths crossing right to left, and did one smooth arc to get the escort turning then BOOM. Anyway, the WW1 terms were different, but in essence I had done a high yo yo for the shot. A 30 second "pass" that invovled a single smooth move.

I do have fond memories of our gaming decades ago.

Rocky

hmm…i thought i saw the horse twitch… ; )

Scotty wrote:
"Air combat is all about energy…I don't see a reasonable analogy to any other sort of combat…I can't picture a pair of fencers working with energy management in their maneuvers…"

i can, quite easily. reduced to its basic physical form/description, any hand-to-hand combat (including fencing) is nothing more than motion/positioning/energy-management. how would you describe a foil touche in a way other than "the point of the weapon was brought in contact with the target at such-and-such a force in so-and-so a direction" ? the question is: would you play/enjoy a game that was framed/conducted in that technical/physical manner? the consensus on aircombat seems to give that answer as "yes" --which i won't/can't argue with since it's a matter of personal taste in fun, but i do dispute the contention that such a framework/game-mechanic is REQUIRED in order to play a game that describes the action of aircombat.

in the same vein as the regular statements made previously that a player/pilot needs to know the position/facing/motion of the aircraft in order to have meaningful input in an aircombat game:

how could a player have any sort of input into the actions of his swordsman alter-ego without first knowing the currently existing position and motion-status of himself and the weapon? isn't moving the sword in a manner so as to create a condition in which a damaging blow is scored the purpose/meaning of swordfighting? how can you possibly game that (or any other hand-to-hand combat) without giving the player that level of input/control? what is your next move? what will you do? can you give an answer that doesn't --at its fundamental level-- rely upon a description of the motion/positioning of the weapon and yourself? -both of which rely totally upon energy management?

it's done all the time, though, isn't it? pretty much every hand-to-hand skirmish-level game allows players to combat the enemy without describing/controlling the warrior's actions to that degree of detail. even the rpg-style games Doug mentioned don't get that introspective…at least none that wish to create/maintain a feeling/mood of fast-and-furious action during play.

-and that's the main thrust/point of my position: the questions asked of players and the game mechanics that allow the answers to be expressed are, in flight-sim games, of a technical nature: no matter how smoothly or effortlessly or elegantly it is done, it is still nothing more than pointing/positioning. physically, the description of the action is correct, and that would work well if one were gaming the actions of aircraft --but we're not (or perhaps: we shouldn't be?): we're gaming the actions of the pilots who (as has been agreed?) DON'T occupy themselves with pointing/positioning the aircraft (at least i, when flying, don't --and as, i'm guessing, Rocky doesn't concern himself with finger/arm/weapon motions while fencing). why not have players occupied/concerned with the sort of thinking that their pilot alter-egos are? -as is (pretty much always) done with hand-to-hand games? the thinking/mindset of the warrior is the same: only the arena/weapons differ. the "color" of the game comes from how those unique characteristics are included in the game: they don't need to be detailed/displayed/controlled, only considered.

dunno. it may well be that no one is looking at this anymore, and that the continuation of the discussion has little-to-no value…but it's a nice way for me to avoid work, so i'll keep poking at it! ; )

We are looking at it, still.

Gweirda, if by your contention ALL individual combats are essentially the same, then only the means to the end (a "kill") are different: but if the means/technicalities are tedious, slow and boring, and a swift resolution is your "key" to a fun (fast and furious) game, there is no need to consider such niceties as altitude, energy or position, at, all. And thus you do not have an air combat game; you simply have a dueling game with model airplanes to show which kind of duel it is. The pilots are just as intent in their milieu as fencers are, and, as you say, just as unconcerned with thinking about managing the controls as the fencers are about managing their feet and balance and grip. The game then dissolves into a simple d6 roll with bonuses for greater advantage (skill and fluctuating tactical edges): with the resulting comparison of d6 rolls producing a result for THIS turn. Anything from an out and out "kill" to a +1 or more added onto the next turn's d6 roll. Really, I don't see how using models is required at all, when you are convinced that no particular factors/mechanics of ANY type of dueling need concern our gamers.

But we are miniature gamers and like to see our miniature personnas; so put the airplanes down on the gaming surface anyway; move them to within attack range and roll your d6's each turn; remove downed aircraft; add in arriving aircraft, with resultant, obvious bonuses for entering without being seen, or adding numbers, etc. Simple. Just like a few cavalry figures cavorting about on the table within their movement rates, making contact and rolling melee results, etc. Sounds very dull to this "ring-tailed killer" (hehe) though.

I will grant you one very certain observation about flight sims: in my experience, they are way, too, slow. I wish I could have my cake and eat it too here: I want to fly/fight FAST and keep the flight sim aspects. Haven't ever seen a way to do both….

Doug wrote:
"…if the means/technicalities are tedious, slow and boring…"

though that may be a problem, it is the focus/framework of a game that depends on those technical means that i think aims players' energies in the wrong direction: thus no matter how well the mechanics may work (or how able the players may get at manipulating them), the behavior/action highlighted by the game is that of the aircraft --not the pilots.

"…there is no need to consider such niceties as altitude, energy or position, at, all."

they definately need to be considered, since they are what give the unique flavor to the genre --there is, therefore, no threat that…

"…you do not have an air combat game; you simply have a dueling game with model airplanes to show which kind of duel it is."

the player/pilot should be faced with choices that take those factors into consideration, and the results of those choices should reflect the impact those factors would have on similar decisions made by the historical alter-egos --but they can be abstractly shown in the game via effect on status (and influence on future action choices) just as effectively (regarding input on player knowledge) as they can be shown via a physical display, with the advantage of quicker play (that enhances the mood of the game) to offset the loss in eye-candy. (note: don't think from this that i don't like eye-candy! as a modeller for 40+ years -a dozen of which were professional- you will find few in line ahead of me to lean in close and say "come see how cool this looks!")

as with hand-to-hand fighting: if the figures could show players the exact posture/position of their warriors then they could use that technical/physical display to evaluate their status and order a technical/physical action that would (hopefully) improve that condition, and the picture the game would present would be an accurate representation of the physical behavior of the warriors --no one could argue that what was being played out was a true model of the actions. …but is the spirit of the game on target?

the limitations of "frozen-pose" figures meant that hand-to-hand games were forced to go the abstract route, and (almost?) every set of rules available uses the…

"…simple d6 roll with bonuses for greater advantage (skill and fluctuating tactical edges): with the resulting comparison of d6 rolls producing a result for THIS turn. Anything from an out and out "kill" to a +1 or more added onto the next turn's d6 roll…"

…system you laid out: and they seem to satisfy gamers just fine, however poorly they visually represent the action.

i wonder if the fact that --because of the scale of the action-- aircombat COULD be shown in a detailed physical manner isn't really a curse that dragged the genre into the corner of fiddly-bit manipulation that it now occupies? dunno…you'd think that if it were such a superior system the hand-to-hand designers would have long-ago answered the demands of players by coming out with similar rulesets that would utilize pose-able figures (i'd think the common action figure of today would do?) to allow players the same sort of "realism" for their combats. i'd guess that the truth, though, is that a game that had players plotting the arm motions and footwork of their little heroic-alter-egos
in the same technical manner as flight-sim games have players plotting the motion of their little airplanes would be treated with disdain for reducing the thrilling action/mood of battling an evil troll to a series of movement plots. yes, a D6 roll is far from thrilling as well (though i use 2D6 --now THAT'S exciting! ; ) ), but it does have the virtue of being quick --and gamers have gotten pretty good at filling in the detail-blanks with their imaginations (how many stories have been woven around what was really only the roll of a die?). abstract dice-rolling may, indeed, be dull to some: but as i've maintained all along, for aircombat gamers there are plenty of exciting flight-sim apples to pick from nowadays to suit that taste --but few (if any) dice-rolling oranges to try out.

"…I don't see how using models is required at all…"

for a single, face-to-face fight i would have to agree…but then who sets up a game like that, anyway? many/most aircombat scenarios are set up like the action that would take place in a village hut during a raid: here's the enemy in your face, go for it. nothing wrong with that if a fender-to-fender slugfest is what you're after. what i'm looking at --by pulling back on the detail-level of flight-management and thereby enlarging the groundscale-- is to expand the scope of the engagement to the assault on the entire village: players would move their forces based on objectives/tactics/intentions, and if they commit to busting into a hut wherein the enemy lies in wait then a furious fight will take place during which the only choices left to the player will be whether to stay and fight (and in what general manner: holding action?…berserker charge?…prisoner snatch?) or to extract themselves from what is deemed to be a profitless waste of resources (though the cost of running away could be high…). that sort of ground-engagement is, i think, played out successfully (and enjoyably) many-a-time. i think the same type of game could be had in aircombat.

"…I want to fly/fight FAST and keep the flight sim aspects. Haven't ever seen a way to do both…."

nor have i, so i'm experimenting with dropping the flight-sim aspects and aiming instead to focus on the mood/spirit of the genre. it may very well be that --if the flying bug bites me-- i can go scratch that itch in a real plane (though the current season would keep me out of the open-cockpit biplane pusher…i'll take McCudden's word that it was cold up there in the winter…!) so that i don't feel the need/urge to strap on a model as highly as others…dunno.

i do think (though may easily be proven wrong!) that a "bash him!"-style of game could work in aircombat that would allow gamers to play the Viking-raider/BEF-recon-mission-scout creeping up on a Saxon village/German supply depot with the same level of challenge and enjoyment.

or not…

…the player/pilot should be faced with choices that take those factors (altitude, position, energy) into consideration, they definately need to be considered, since they are what give the unique flavor to the genre…

But, you said:

…reduced to its basic physical form/description, any hand-to-hand combat (including fencing) is nothing more than motion/positioning/energy-management

So HOW can you then claim that aircombat's "unique flavor" is "altitude, position and energy"?? Is ALTITUDE the only unique factor to air combat then (that's the only factor missing in your comparison to hand combat)? Altitude in any modelled game would indicate who is outside the combat area due to being (at the moment) either too high or too low to be involved. Arriving finally, they are now either going very fast (diving down) or not even full speed (energy lost climbing furiously).

I agree, we cannot ignore any of the factors of position, altitude and energy. However, it is possible (even desireable, as you have clearly observed) to dispense with positioning of the physical body and its appendages, the hand-held weapons, in playing out a skirmish game. For some reason, what works okay on the ground (in two dimensions) is changed entirely in the air. I don't see how they can be abstracted and wind up with air combat being different in feel and appearance from ground combat.

"…I don't see how using models is required at all…"

for a single, face-to-face fight i would have to agree…

That is revealing. You are concerned with representing a group of pilots facing another group of pilots. A "skirmish" game involving numbers to a side. But that is only ONE aspect of air combat. In all periods, but especially early and modern, individual duels are very, very common events. And it is that "intimacy" which flight sims do best: the pilot (the "PC") is in control of his aircraft, and the model does indeed very clearly represent what is happening right NOW: i.e. altitude, position; and the movement rules cover energy….

i see the factor of altitude as simply one other avenue of movement. the difference between air and ground combat is the same as that between ground combat in an open field and ground combat in a narrow hallway. aside from the inclusion of energy gain/loss that results from movement in the vertical (which i agree needs to be present), there is no real significant difference in the representation on the tabletop: using some sort of adjustable/variable stand to show altitude levels is all that's needed to account for the reality that you can be so far to the side of another fellow as well as so far above/below him.

"…individual duels are very, very common events. And it is that "intimacy" which flight sims do best…"

i agree completely. when gaming the meeting of two (or at most four or five?) warriors in the village hut, a detailed flight-sim-style game would be the best. but i don't think that's the system to use in gaming the entire raid on the village, where as many as a dozen or so other warriors are busy waiting their turns. i'm looking at those scenarios/situations (that i believe were as common) wherein the few in the hut are just a part of the total engagment and --more importantly-- can't afford to let themselves get too involved/distracted with what is really only a small piece of the overall objective.

i want to have players needing to rise above the immediate "what move do i make to get this guy?"-level of thinking to being concerned with the mission as a whole --sort of like the BoB example i gave over in the Game Design thread that has a pilot realizing that the bomber stream…which he's supposed to be attacking…has moved far off while he was fooling around with a fokker (in a Messerschmitt…). you can do that with flight-sim, of course --but the speed of play (and the space required) would, i think, make such an exercise frustrating (like gaming Kursk with Tractics?).

so: when it's a one-on-one (or nearly so) fight in a hut, flight-sim would be the choice. but when you want to do the village raid, players can choose….what? it's that gap that i think would be filled well by a "bash him!"-style game.

again: …or not. worth a peek, anyway… i see no point in going back to my energy-management flight-sim project: Rocky's already invented the wheel…no reason for me to go to all the trouble, is there?

Hi

G, you again overstate the issue with a couple assertians about other skirmish games and real world fencing.

I can only think of ONE game where "parry 4, repost 6" would exist for a touch. And energy is not the issue in a fencing match. Establishing rightaway is an artifical part of the story, but in fact, energy isn't the issue. Most parryies weather thrust or cut, are lower energy "touch" that makes the attack miss by "that" much. In fact that is the real issue and why "circle 6" isn't common. Power, energy attacks are too slow!

I agree in a fencing game, people won't(the game I mentioned was a failure) accept the endless detailed moves of a 3 second charge as a game. Most skirmish games work this way: Knight in armor with broadsword has a CV of 14 facing a peasant with a pitchfork with a CV of 2. Reach, the pitchfork strikes on the down 12 table and usually fails and the counter by the knight rolls on the plus 12 table and usually wins.

In your description, you would seem to quibble if the rules required you to not only be in the same room but actually have the knight burst into the room and FACING the peasant without consideration that the peasant is hiding behind something and stabs by surprise from the rear.

So, first, in any skrimis, there needs to be a mechanism for the players to see the figs in the same place and time.

Then give CV and bonuses AFTER you have that locater. roll die, end.

My rules (also involving Doug and once upon a time Scotty who was preassuring me to use my aero math skills to make they game THEY wanted), were specifically to do a flight sim. By request.

I have also done skirmish air war for other groups that go up an abstraction level, at request, for gamers who don't actually want to do a flight sim. But WHERE the planes are still matters.

Again, picture a tournament with 20 strips resolving the fight. First the fencers have to be ON the same strip and facing each other and the judge crying "fense".

Or picture an airwar game where a flight of wildcats are bounced by above by a trio of zekes. The zekes, like our knight above, get first attack, and the wildcats, but not dutch P40s, are allowed to counter with "thatch weave"…

The attack and the defense have combat values based on the qualities of the pilots and equipment and position. One die roll, probably both sides losing one airplane, then….

continue the fight or run.

Easy and done.

Is there enought "feel" that is a different question.

Rocky

Sorry, got sidetracked with my other bad habit: subs.

I live in Boise, ID, which is down in a valley bottom. the cold air just settles in, and clouds over. One day, it was 50degF up at 6000 feet (the base of the ski hill above town), but down in town at 2500 feet, it was about 8degF at the same time.

It sounds like Rocky could/has written rules like what I want to play, but I'm curious why most people go for a simulation as opposed to a more abstract game like Wings of War/Aeronautica Imperialis.

Rocky wrote:
"…energy is not the issue in a fencing match."

of course it is: what do you use to move the sword or to recover from a lunge? it is the same thing as moving one's aircraft into a desired position/facing: you can no more shift your posture/position from a low-target lunge to an upright-high-parry without energy expenditure than you can "blink" your way onto someone's six without paying the appropriate energy cost.

to maintain that "energy management" is a quality of combat unique to aerial engagements has no basis. it may play a greater role than in hand-to-hand fights (though the guy caught extended/off-balance in a sword fight may think that "energy management" is pretty important at that moment, since it's probably what will kill him…) but it is not something that only aircombat can lay claim to.

if a set of hand-to-hand rules had players controlling their body positions (as flight-sim games do for players controlling aircraft position) then i'm sure the energy requirements would govern the potential/price for making moves. there are no rules like that, however, because as you said: "…people won't accept the endless detailed moves of a 3 second charge as a game." why not? and more importantly: why do they do so for aircombat games?

"…in any skirmish, there needs to be a mechanism for the players to see the figs in the same place and time."

but to what level of detail? in most hand-to-hand games, it is only shown that the two are within weapon-range with (if included in the rules) facing to indicate an advantage held by one over the other (which would allow something like a first-, limited-defence-, and/or unanswered- strike) --they don't bother with the detailed foot/arm/weapon/shield positions: it's assumed the little fellow on the table is doing his best in that regard…he is the "real" warrior in the game, after all.

"Then give CV and bonuses AFTER you have that locater. roll die, end."

that's true at one level of time-per-turn: if the game is played at a closer level (to accomodate the player-input that would be better suited to a game that sees players controlling only a few -or perhaps even only the one- figures), then i would lean towards the description Doug made a bit upthread that has the possibility of a turn/round of combat resulting only in the situation being modified as opposed to a final "end" in a single roll of the die.

there is no law that says a multiple-turn/round combat cannot be played out in an abstract manner. yes, the roll of dice is not as visually appealing as posing the figures to show the action as it occurs: but it is much quicker and the thinking/decisions by the players are much more in keeping with the spirit of the action being represented than it would be by the technical/mechanical plotting of arm/weapon/foot movement.

"…WHERE the planes are still matters."

of course: but how is that information (their location/facing/etc…) communicated/shown? it can be done visually via a flight-sim (and i'll admit that it looks really neat), but it can also be done abstractly (like in hand-to-hand games) to no less of an effective manner insofar as the information is understood by the players and they can use its input to formulate their actions.

"Is there enough "feel" that is a different question…"

i think that the abstract method is --while inferior visually-- better in the area of speedy-play and --most importantly-- presents a set of player-choices (and a form in which to give answers to game challenges) that better parallels/resembles those made by the pilot-alter-egos: qualities that i feel contribute to a better representation/recreation of the mood/spirit of aircombat.

of course, having never had anyone shooting at me while i fly (knock on wood) i speak only from an arm-chair-general's perspective and only have my own opinion/taste as support --but since game = fun = personal taste = individual choice it's really all up for grabs, anyway.

bottom line, i guess, is that i'm throwing the idea out there because i'd personally like to see/enjoy having an orange aircombat game to try when/if i don't feel like having an apple one. not being a very good game designer (and living in the "hinterlands" without much access to a pool of gullible victims), i come here to bounce ideas off the gaming public and get help working through the pile of problems i encounter. i debate strongly (sounds much better than "act like a PITA", don't you think?) because i want the ideas that rise to the top to be good ones --thus i really, really, REALLY appreciate the time/effort taken to respond to this seemingly dead-horse-thread. i imagine that a couple hours over a beer (or two…?) in person would have seen this resolved/closed: this medium is not the greatest for communication, but, any port in a storm…

d

H

D, you still don't get it. In aircraft energy is the primary determinant to success. In fencing it isn't otherwise all matches would be won by the charge.

And you keep ignoring the mid stuff. Try out the game Lion mentions, or things like the "blue skies" stuff.

As to WHY people like flight syms, I have no idea! I like doing flight sims, I like mid sim and I like strategic. But I am easy.

What I am baffled by is the whole thread where D keeps insisting that things are one way or another in skirmish games but not in airwar.

R

"In aircraft energy is the primary determinant to success."

right. i agreed to that. but it isn't unique. it's just a piece of the picture, not the be-all/end-all --anymoreso than it is for fencing (want to try moving your sword without expending energy?).

"…you keep ignoring the mid stuff."

because it's either flight-sim lite or squad-level abstract. there aren't any rpg-level rules (that i know of---big disclaimer, i know) that allow a player to control an individual pilot (NOT aircraft) with the same kind of "bash him!" inputs that are common in ground combat games.

"What I am baffled by is the whole thread where D keeps insisting that things are one way or another in skirmish games but not in airwar."

i put that on the table because i see it that way: ground combat skirmish games regularly allow players to control figures/warriors in a manner unknown in aircombat games --that's an observation that is obviously limited by my own experience/exposure which is far from extensive…but i don't recall anyone presenting an example of either a hand-to-hand combat game that delves into the detail of movement that even WoW does, nor an aircombat game that parallels the sort of game-mechanic that a skirmish game (or even an rpg) uses to abstract the action of in-close fighting.

Hi

We have actually presented several sets that do, you just ahven't looked!

I think the "instant" series does this. virtually all games with individual aircraft do what you want. M&M/Canvas Falcons/Triplane/Mig Alley doesn't. But I think that this illustrates the unique nature of the system.

Further, that others don't is probably based on the fact that the math skills aren't there to produce real world states for most designers.

R

i think that the abstract method is --while inferior visually-- better in the area of speedy-play and --most importantly-- presents a set of player-choices (and a form in which to give answers to game challenges) that better parallels/resembles those made by the pilot-alter-egos: qualities that i feel contribute to a better representation/recreation of the mood/spirit of aircombat.

I don't think an abstract game has to be inferior visually; as long as you include positioning to visually show what the combat results are. Without actual rules I can't provide an example. But you can imagine how the models might be positioned to represent the combat effects, and based on the previous positioning of the models. The positioning can be very basic and instantly recognized by all players. The last thing you want to have is imprecise positioning of a mob of aircraft. In ground-based games the positioning of the models, even their facing, in most rules is of paramount importance in defining a miniature's front, flanks and rear, and also existing or potential movement. This is even more critical in playing air combat.

"…as long as you include positioning to visually show what the combat results are. Without actual rules I can't provide an example."

i use the hex-nut bases to show relative combat results: face-to-face is neutral, and if there is an advantage held by one aircraft it is positioned in contact/facing one of the target's edges (indicating the quality: best is on the target's six).

i may as well stick a link for the slideshow AAR i posted as an example over in the Game Design forum --it may helpo to visualize the path i'm looking to take…

link

a couple other notes:

--hexes are "engagement zones" (roughly = combat range). models in the center have no facing and are assumed to be "stooging about", while models on the edges (facing out) are "passing through" in a particular direction somewhere within the space.

--the banking of the models indicates the level of difficulty/stress of the current maneuvering done by the pilot: level = least through 90-degrees = most, and does not in any way represent the specific configuration of the aircraft.

I think some specific configuration is in order, to define combat results clearly. Just "stooging about" is most uninformative to any approaching enemy pilot. He deserves to see the facing of his intended victim….

being in the middle of a hex "stooging about" represents an aircraft that is in an almost constant state of facing change (in order to remain in that box). if, on the other hand, the aircraft is in a "going somewhere" mode, then the facing is shown and an advantage can be gained by a stalking enemy.

posted earlier:
…i don't recall anyone presenting an example of…an aircombat game that parallels the sort of game-mechanic that a skirmish game (or an rpg) uses to abstract the action of in-close fighting.

Rocky wrote:
"…presented several sets that do…I think the "instant" series does this. virtually all games with individual aircraft do what you want."

the sets that have been referenced (at least the ones i knew of or could check into…i recall hearing of some that i was unfamiliar with and asked for more info) all have player input chiefly (if not exclusively) involved in positioning/pointing the model --and the resultant model placement/facing determines in large part the chance/quality of attack that may be made --and that sort of mechanism is not common (or even existent?) in hand-to-hand skirmish games. even the "Instant…" series --while further down the abstract scale in how the models are moved-- still uses the "point and shoot" method of achieving an advantage over an opponent.

there have been references to aircombat systems that are more boardgame-ish --but the impression i got from those is that they are either at a flight/squadron-level, or on a higher time-scale level and are made to resolve a combat as a whole in one or a few turns (as more of a sideshow than the key engagement represented in the game).

i want to keep the player/pilot decision-level on the same "what will you do in the next few seconds?"-level of most existing games, but to abstract the question/answer to a broader, tactical level.

Hi

But that is my point. Your impression is not reality. I would check out, for instance, the online "Canvas Eagles" rules.

I was supposed to do a similar set for Gamescience some years ago to go with Zocchi's strategic level games, but conditions forced that to end.

I understand your problem, what I am saying is that you misunderstood what is out there.

R

maybe i'm looking at a different CE. the one i see is similar to CY6 (or WoW) in that players choose from a set of possible movement options, everyone places their models in the new positions, and if someone is in front of you (within 3 hexes, iirc?) you get to shoot --that's exactly the sort of "point and shoot" mechanism that dominates the existing crop of aircombat games: the models are moved and the resultant positions determine attack possibilities.

i'm missing something, i guess…but what?

What do you have against "point and shoot"? That isn't any greater detail than choosing which way your PC faces in an RPG or skirmish game. PC's do not get to attack through their own rear (except by "SBD"). They can "defend" through their own rear -- analogous to a pilot jinking to put someone off his "6"….

in reverse…

first: a similar "point and shoot" detail-level move with a ground-based RPG or skirmish game would involve a player choosing/executing a specific sword thrust (via some sort of body-motion game mechanic) that would result in contact with the target (whose own body-move-plot may cause a miss). this is based on my (seemingly unique?) POV that the action that takes place in an aircombat game that sees fighters swirling about within combat range of each other is the same thing (from the warrior's POV) as the close-in action of a swordfight, so that the choice of a particular flight maneuver is similar to the choice of a particular sword thrust: the detail CAN be plotted/displayed (and would look really cool if done), but i don't think it's necessary.

second: my concern with the "point and shoot" mechanic is that it concentrates player energy on the technical/mechanical aspects of the engagement (which the alter-ego warriors pay little attention to) instead of the broader tactical/objective-based thinking that i believe lies closer to the spirit of the encounter --and having a game that works on that abstract "bash him!"-level of player input (as is found in most RPGs and skirmish games) has a chance of recreating/representing for gamers a better experience of the peril/risk/excitement of the genre.

or not…

here's a sample turn from a game i'm playtesting now that may help to illustrate the "bash him!"-style i'm exploring…

picture

at the start of the turn, the Se5a pilot has decided (for some reason) to ignore the German fighters (both of whom have a successful spot on him) and to go after the Halberstadt (this is declared in the targeting phase of the turn before any movement).

picture

the Se moves first (having lost the initiative roll, due in part to the DrI pilot holding a slight tailing advantage over him) and he turns/climbs in pursuit of the Halb (who simply runs/turns away). the DrI pilot uses the gift of an enemy crossing in front of him and the high maneuverability of his mount to slide easily in behind the Se and fire.

that's the "story".

the game mechanics used were: a)declared targeting that applies the full value of maneuvering (either offensive or defensive) ONLY to the target --thus the evasive value of the Se5's movement was reduced to almost nothing by the fact that he wasn't paying any attention to the DrI, and b)a maneuver-test roll (by the DrI pilot) to determine the success/quality of the movement (awarded in numerical "combat value" points) that placed him in a firing position (in this case a 2d6 roll greater than 5 gave the maximum/best shot, a roll of 5 would have been good, a roll of 4 would have been poor, and a roll of 3 or less would have resulted in a botched attempt).

what exactly the DrI pilot did to get onto the Se5's tail is not detailed: only the result (that he is in the best position possible and able to fire) is told. likewise, if the DrI's test-roll had been snake-eyes, it would be up to the player's imagination to devise the specific occurance (foot-slip on rudderbar? stuck controls? sneeze?) that caused the poor result --the same way players would have to explain a poor roll in an RPG or other hand-to-hand skirmish combat (they're not all 20's…).

the firing rolls by the German were fair: lots of little holes made that will cause the Se5 pilot to think twice when deciding whether to stress his airframe in the future, but no "critical" hits.

the combat will continue…what should/will the Se pilot do? in this "bash him!"-style game, the decision by the player is a simple "run?…or fight?" if the former (which seems the wiser…), in which direction?…and how hard to stress the plane in doing so? --one of those holes may have been close to a spar…

dunno if that helps give an idea of what i'm picturing…

How did you determine where to put the models? It seems arbitrary. Imho, a specific positioning of the models should be required for each combat result….

sorry -sloppy cropping and no descriptions. i went back a couple turns, so this should show how they got there…

link

the movement between hexes is regulated --though not "neat" since i include a "fog of movement" (basically requiring success for maneuvering the same way success in shooting is) that prevents players from predicting moves as they would/could in a chess game.

ps- seems like in photobucket you have to click on a picture in the slideshow in order to see the descriptions…

Hi

You are back to your "raise the arm" point which isn't what any game does even airwar!

All skirmish games require that you have the fig facing in the direction of his attack, which is no different than what we are saying. Further, every skirmish game gives you bonuses for behing behind cover, or on higher terrrain where that affects the combat.

So, again, you are overstating the comparison.

R

how is it overstating? within the context of effective combat range, a wingover is the same as raising the arm --especially (and most importantly) in the minds of the two warriors.

two foot figures toe-to-toe are the same as two WW1 fighters within a 200-yard box: each can be struck by the other depending on the current positioning within that area. hand-to-hand games leave the details of that positioning to abstract representation (and the players' imaginations), while flight-sim games (of the "point and shoot" variety) have players controlling/displaying the specific positions taken within that "hot box".

i'm just experiementing with the use of the hand-to-hand system (which i've been referring to as the "bash him!"-style) in aircombat, where the player decides things that i feel (in my admittedly less-than-expert opinion!) are closer to the types of things on the minds of pilots, and also closer/better-aligned with the spirit of the engagement being modelled/represented.

Hi

"two foot figures toe-to-toe are the same as two WW1 fighters within a 200-yard box: each can be struck by the other depending on the current positioning within that area."

err..no it isn't. Two foot figures who are within a run move are! But If they aren't actually facing and toe to toe, they could be, say, on other sides of the building.

or in the 200yard box, My SE5 on the north edge pointing north full throttle at 125mph versus your Alb, on the south edge heading south at 106, will never engage unless they turn back into each other.

You have created a false pardigm.

R

R
the key to the comparison is the conditional "depending on the current positioning within that area." the two aircraft that are on opposite sides of the box (and heading in different directions) would not be able to attack one another because of their current positions (included, of course, with "position" are other defining things like speed and facing) just as two foot figures would be unable to attack (this turn) because of positional restrictions (or perhaps because they're both just ignoring each other).

being in the "box" simply means that the two COULD position for an attack --they can certainly ignore each other (which, in the rules i propose, would be done directly via player "orders"/intentions as opposed to the by-the-by happenstance of a "point and shoot" game), or they can take steps to modify their positions to allow for an attack to be made in future turns.

rather than a plot/execution of a specific movement as would be required in a "point and shoot" game, the mechanism for that modification in a "bash him!" game would be simply a declaration of intent and subsequent attempt to line up the other fellow for a shot. if he ignores you, then the full value of your maneuvering (if successful) will gain you a firing position (of a quality determined by your maneuver) --if he evades (or tries to line you up) then the values of each maneuver would be compared: it may just be a stalemate, or one may gain an advantage over another. if a shot is possible it can be taken, and/or play proceeds to the next turn based on the new status (which may include the arrival of more combatants to confuse/sweeten the pot…).

note that no mention/determination is made of the particular maneuvers made to line up and/or evade: as with hand-to-hand combats, the details of the action as two warriors thrust/parry/dodge/weave are left to player imagination --the die roll of "20" is hailed as a crushing blow, while the fumbling "1" is described (over the post-game beer/bull session) as an embarrassing slip that (almost?) cost the poor fellow his life. the same can be done with aircombat.

or not…
d

Okay, I have reexamined your four piccie example game. I am scratching my head.

For the "roockie" Se5 to do a climbing approach, only to wind up with empty air in front of him, while the Halberstadt executes a 180 degree turn out of his sight, implies "flying BLIND!"

Similarly, for the "vet" Se5 to go after the Halberstadt, only to have his desired/needed "quick tight turn" end up a "slow wide one", implies nothing but dumb chance in flying: this is hardly "what's occupying the pilot's attention." "What the just happened?" is more like what is simulated here. There doesn't seem to be any connection of events leading to the results: and too much randomness in the results following the stated intent.

the rookie Se5 move was the result of the initiative/sequential movement mechanic: his lack of experience and failure to acquire a good spot on the target meant he lost the dice roll and the Hlab moved after him. what did that symbolize? a low-time pilot lost his target (maybe he checked his instrments in the climb? or…?) and when he next saw it it had turned off of its original course and was no longer in front of him: doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

the failure of the vet Se5 to make a tight turn was the result of two rolls of snake-eyes --not a common occurance, for sure-- and represented either the shift in RELATIVE positioning after the moves caused by everyone moving during the turn and/or the pilot just plain flubbing a 3G climbing turn: they're certainly not all perfect, and this was one of those "not perfect" ones --it happens, and you don't get to choose when the gremlins strike.

i agree that too much randomness is bad: this particular set of turns wasn't the greatest example of "things going right" (since the Pfalz pilot flubbed as well), but the chance of things not going well increases with the level of difficulty attempted by the pilots: if they'd "played it safe" they would have gone where/when they wanted to go, but since they took risks with more difficult maneuvers the chance of something going wrong increased.

well, have to go to work now. will check in later.
d

I understand what Gweirda is attempting in his game. Initially, I was going to spend my first post berating him for being so difficult, but this turn overview really cleared it up.
The abstraction makes sense really- in Canvas Eagles, that who situation might have taken 3 turns to actually play, as planes have to manually turn each few degrees. However, the problem that I can foresee is in the statistic lines of the aircraft themselves. Because you lose the nuances of just exactly HOW tight that Halb can turn, or how fast that SE5 pilot is able to climb. How do you plan to represent the difference between a Nieuport 17 and a Nieuport 28 in game terms? You seem to be limiting aircraft choices severely.
Finally, you speak of putting 'Stress' and 'Difficulty' on a maneuver and then gaining benefits proportional to the effort applied. My question is- how do you determine what kind of bonus you get for the maneuver? In the "flying sim" game, I can do a very simple move and find myself in a VERY beneficial firing position. Usually in fact, the stressful move's positioning benefit is counteracted by the amount of concentration/movement involved, making shooting less effective.
My intention is not to rain on your parade- I'm just curious how you intend to answer these questions.

The Captain wrote
"…the problem that I can foresee is in the statistic lines of the aircraft themselves. Because you lose the nuances of just exactly HOW tight that Halb can turn, or how fast that SE5 pilot is able to climb. How do you plan to represent the difference between a Nieuport 17 and a Nieuport 28 in game terms? You seem to be limiting aircraft choices severely."

i admit that the technical backing for the game numbers i currently use is…well…shoddy: in a cursory search of technical data on the aircraft, i got the impression that for every two sources consulted, three answers came back!

the turn/climb capabilites came from the fact that --no matter what you're flying (an F16 or a piano)-- the turn rate and radius depends on nothing more than bank/G-force.

now: how WELL you turn (and how much speed you lose while doing so) does have a lot to do with the individual aircraft (which are easily included in the game mechanics via modifiers) --and the skill of the pilot at the controls (also included via modifiers). BUT --there seemed to me to be a whole big range of performance possibilities that had more variables than you could shake a stick at. so…i figured to just boil it down to the bottom line: did you succeed? and if so: how well? beyond that, who cares? really…does anyone give a rat's behind how they got onto the tail of their enemy? do you really need to have the game dictate to you how you managed to land that critical blow that slew the dragon?…or did you manage to come up with a good enough story to explain that "20" you rolled last night?

"…how do you determine what kind of bonus you get for the maneuver?"

the truth: it's made up. i crunched numbers for hours based on G's pulled and angles turned and radius this and radians that…and got no more than a headache. bottom line: i figure it's based on how hard you stress the airframe/pilot-skill, and the more you do so the higher the reward --but also the higher the risk: you may win, but you may also screw the pooch.

"Usually in fact, the stressful move's positioning benefit is counteracted by the amount of concentration/movement involved, making shooting less effective."

agreed: which is why the burst-size of the shot you take is directly influenced/determined by the maneuver-stress-level you choose, ie: if you pull the wings off to line up a shot, your shot that turn will suck. you need to stay on the target a turn or two (that's 5 or 10 seconds more) to steady your craft for a good shot. but --what are his buddies doing? can you afford to concentrate on this guy while the air fills with his friends who are probably lining you up for lunch?

that's the objective mood of the game i'm exploring: peril…opportunity…stress…reward…risk…

and i think that mood is best achieved by getting players to think/decide on a level that lies closer to the one occupied (imho) by their alter-ego-pilots.

ps- the actual numbers/rules i've generated are available to any upon request.

also: while i admit that the missile/mach capabilites of jets most likely outstrip the usefullness of the "hot box" concept that lies at the core of this idea (and therefore re-extend my apologies to the "modern" board visitors who are plagued by the crossposts) i do think that the concept could be successfully applied to/through at least the Korean war era.

added note on numbers:

i don't want to give the impression that "making up" stats/ratings/performance figures is a required pill to take with this type of game: i just quit the struggle when i came to the conclusion that the concept itself needed testing and that --if it was viable-- time could be spent in the future coming up with better numbers to plug into the system.

like the hand-to-hand combat versions i'm copying, the level of detail in stats/modifiers used is a matter of personal choice/taste: the knight could have a simple, one-number combat rating, or he could have a multitude of descriptors (strength, agility, combat awareness, etc…) that would apply in different ways to different situations/actions.

really…does anyone give a rat's behind how they got onto the tail of their enemy? do you really need to have the game dictate to you how you managed to land that critical blow that slew the dragon?…or did you manage to come up with a good enough story to explain that "20" you rolled last night?

Yes, I DO. And I want to know how my puny PC managed to land a mortal blow on the dragon. Long years ago, I was in my very first RPG. The rules were ultra simple. I got into a combat with a stone troll: 20 "hits" was the toughness of the beastie. One hit on ME and I was cooked; that was the comparison. I called out all kinds of nonsense about what my PC was doing, so the GM would understand HOW I was going about the combat (included dodging a lot and using obstacles to inhibit the troll's ability to land a blow on ME). The GM gave me a few "columns" of advantage on the results table, and I maxed out my advantages and started landing blows, whittling down the troll hit by hit. I won, and barely (missed being killed one turn by rolling one number away from an "AK" (attacker killed) result). Another example: I was the GM, running a dragon scenario; a PC dropped into the dragon's "livingroom" while it was sleeping, and quickly ran across the open space and crouched down near the wall. I considered this to be a very poorly conceived tactic (dragon's being very light sleepers and possessing very keen smell and eyesight, after all); but I let the PC roll for success: he botched it, badly, and the dragon jumped him -- resulting in one round of combat and PC "puree" all over the floor and walls. The gamer laughed with the rest of us and rolled up a new PC.

The point is that players in the main DO want to know, from the progression of the game, how they came to their success or demise: having to make up details to explain things is just poor game design, imho….

i like to know, as well: but most (all?) hand-to-hand games depend on abstract dice rolls to tell what happened and leave the details to our imaginations.

my guess is that the RPG game you played didn't tell how you landed the mortal blow: at least not at the detail level of describing the exact posture and arm-swing combination used. nor did the rules ask you as a player to dictate/control those movements via a set of game mechanics (as in "step here", "thrust there", etc…). you were allowed to modify your combat/attack ability (inherent in the "design" of the character) with tactics and such, but it still came down to (abstract) dice rolls and the specific story of what happened was left to your imagination.

--and that's exactly the sort of thing i'm proposing to use in aircombat: as in the example most recently linked, the specifics of the DrI's maneuver that put it on the tail of the Se5 are left undetermined --only the quality/effectiveness of the move is told (as would a good roll in an RPG fight tell only that a solid blow was struck, but not tell anything about what it was). same with the flub by the (not so sneaky) PC in the dragon den: what he did, specifically, is not detailed --just like the trying-to-turn flubs in the linked example (or an explanation of why the DrI missed lining up the Se if HE had been the one to roll snake-eyes).

as i said earlier: in a one-on-one fight, this type of abstract system wouldn't work all that well (the same way a game that consisted only of a single, man-to-man swordfight would be pretty flat if played with the common RPG rules), but in a barroom-brawl setting or that village-raid spoken of earlier this sort of abstract, "bash him!" style of game is just the thing to represent the mood of fast and furious action in an arena filled with peril and opportunity.

or not…

Hi

I can and do regularly do the math on aircraft performance, and your basic idea on how turns work is just wrong.

Lets give an easy example. In WW2, all aircraft CAN reach 8 Gs at speeds above about 250mph. But slower, they cannot generate enough lift to turn 8 gs. In modern jets, all aircraft can do enough Gs to break the pilot, again, at speed, but a better measure about 350kts is calculating the degrees of turn which varies based on specific excess power, and wing loading.

A famous example of this is the interaction of the Hellcat "outturning" the zero. The zeke with lower wing loading outturns the heavier wingloading of the Grumman EVERY TIME…..

Except at speed where the zeke can turn no tighter than the grumman for the simple reason that both are at the physical limits of "g" for both the pilots and airframe. At that regieme, the grumman STILL loses speed faster than the zeke, but has way more power, meaning on balence it loses airspeed slower and walks into getting close enough to the zero to pull the trigger.

But going back to your "raise the shield" point, I just don't get your insistance that this exists in ANY airwar game.

It just doesn't and your analogy doesn't work. In fact, to my mind, most games already do what you want.

Go play.

R

R-
"…basic idea on how turns work…"

oops -noticed i forgot to mention speed in the post above. an aircraft's rate/radius of turn is dependent on its speed and bank (=Gs) -nothing else. whether it's a Zeke or an F-16 or a Piper Cub doesn't matter. now…how long/well it can HOLD that turn (or get into it) DOES depend on the aircraft stats (and pilot skill).

"…your "raise the shield" point, I just don't get your insistance that this exists in ANY airwar game.

It just doesn't and your analogy doesn't work."

i'm guessing it's a POV issue? to me, standing back perhaps a mile from a dogfight wherein two aircraft are remaining in contact/combat range looks the same as standing back a few feet from two guys having a swordfight --what is it about one that makes it different from the other? physically, the differences are merely a matter of scale/degree --not of kind. more importantly: in the warriors' minds i think they match fairly well. the tools at their disposal are different (and including their specific uses/effects is what gives the flavor to a particular genre), but the thinking/objective of the guys in the engagement is pretty close, imo.

"…most games already do what you want."

most ground-based games, yes…but aircombat games that don't saddle players with the fiddly-bits of moving/pointing the aircraft?

Rocky, Doug- Why are you still talking to this guy? Surely you have better things to do.

Gwierda, I'm sorry, but this is a massive waste of time. I come back and check this thread every couple of days and you're still singing the same old tune while Rocky and Doug flail away at trying SOME approach that will satisfy you.

Forget it. Go do something else.

For the rest- I apologize if this post offends you, but it has become a real pain in the backside.

bottom line: this is just blather about a game with toy airplanes, so it isn't (to me) a "massive waste of time" because i'm not investing a massive amount of anything.

the objective is a fun game, and for that i will continue to propose ideas and examine/rebut counterarguments just because i think it would be neat to have a fun game of the "oranges" variety within the genre for gamers to choose if/when they feel like having an orange instead of one of the many apples that are currently available in the aircombat aisle. it may very well be that most/many will not like oranges --but since they haven't had a chance to try one yet (at least in this aisle: they're common and popular in the rest of the store) i'm going to withhold judgement on any possible future success until more people get a taste.

basically, my position currently:

i've seen, so far, no evidence to support the contention that aircombat is "unique" in some way that requires the sort of detail level in gaming that is found in "point and shoot" flight-sim rules.

a wingover is the same as moving/posturing your body in a sword/fist-fight: both from a tactical/objective-gaining standpoint as well as from a measure of the place controlling such movement is found in the warrior's head.

ground-based games routinely abstract this level of detail --including it only as modifiers to dice rolls and/or abstract impacts/ratings on/of the current status of the forces.

aircombat could be done in the same manner, gaining (perhaps) increased speed of play and (more importantly) a focus of player energy in the same area as that of the pilot alter-egos --creating a game experience that captures/represents the mood/spirit of aircombat.

or not…

Hi

Scotty, I know and understand. I notice that when I got geeky trying to explain the difference between initial and sustained turn rates, it just went by him.

It is probably a failure on my part to explain. And it is clear he isn't looking at the games we have suggested that suit his criteria.

Scotty, I SEEM to remember you sent me a prototype of a game someone published like he wants back in the late 70s even.

G….look, your perception on comparisons are just wrong. Go try some of the suggested games, or the suggestions that doug and I have suggested or SOMETHING.

R