"flying v fighting" Topic

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.

Well, we've just got to disagree, then. Because nothing you've used examples to illustrate has convinced me that your approach is anything less than "flying blind", and getting surprised in the execution of a maneuver: and your approach is to just "make up the reason" to explain the resulting position. If the aircraft cannot be put through a flight path, then the "pilot" is flying blind. If the aircraft does something weird, then the pilot isn't flying, he's waiting an outcome.

This is what ground combat games do, IF you accept that "bash him" games only require placing figures next to each other and rolling dice until a turn finally gives a result. But you've already shown that your game isn't about one-on-one dogfights; it's about groups of aircraft in combat: that one-on-one would be pretty dull, not even requiring models.

As I MUST "fly" my airplane when I play, there is zero interest, from me, in your approach to any of this. Truly a case of YMMV….

R-
"…the difference between initial and sustained turn rates, it just went by him."

no, i caught it --mentioned it a couple posts back…probably another failure of my poor writing skill, i guess. insert speed and bank/Gs and you get radius and rate of turn --the aircraft type doesn't matter…until (as you said) the sustained rate/radius is sought: then the specific ability of the aircraft comes into play (as well as pilot skill, of course).

"…it is clear he isn't looking at the games we have suggested that suit his criteria."

the ones you mentioned in your last post (with Canvas Eagles being the headliner) are point-and-shoot games, and the ones i recall from earlier (like Luftwaffe) are either multiple-aircraft (not 1:1) games or ones that resolve combat with a simpler CV comparison roll than the sort of "in the cockpit" RPG-ish level of player participation that i'm looking at (which is seen in the current point-and-shoot variety available).

i'm certainly not going to stand on my own limited experience and knowledge as the be-all-end-all authority, but my infrequent trips to the local stores and semi-frequent nosings into aircombat forums has shown me no examples, and my requests here have gone unanswered --proferring either more apples or perhaps a banana or two when i ask for oranges. either i'm not seeing it correctly (a completely valid, probable possibility) -in which case a single example that i could examine would suffice, or there aren't a lot (or any?) "orange" aircombat games on the market today.

of course, whether there are or are not any doesn't really affect my position that i think such a style of game could/would be a fun alternative to the many point-and-shoot apples that are available to those that want them.

Doug-
"…your approach is anything less than "flying blind", and getting surprised in the execution of a maneuver…"

how is surprise at a result out of place on a battlefield? does any player (not playing chess, that is) register surprise when a plan is not executed by the troops exactly as ordered? is every shot a hit? i'm not advocated chaos, but do see "not sure what's going to happen" a part of the mood/spirit fo the thing.

the turn length can be shortened if the reaction time is deemed too long to allow a response to changes in the battle --i picked 5-seconds in a sort of out-of-thin-air manner, and it could be altered if found too long. dunno, really, what would be best…how much time is spent in a turn of Triplane?

"If the aircraft cannot be put through a flight path, then the "pilot" is flying blind."

just as: if the sword cannot be put through a swing/arc, then the knight is fighting blind, and…

"If the aircraft does something weird, then the pilot isn't flying, he's waiting an outcome."

again: if the sword does something weird (which i take it to mean "unintended"…like miss?), then the knight isn't fighting, he's waiting an outcome.

"This is what ground combat games do, IF you accept that "bash him" games only require placing figures next to each other and rolling dice until a turn finally gives a result."

they certainly don't require it, and anyone who would game like that (in, say, the village raid example from before) deserves all the boredom that would result, and yes: just as with most ground games using abstract combat, a one-on-one fight would be dull. but in a barroom brawl, i think it's just the thing.

again: i see nothing (and have heard same) that supports the idea that aircombat possesses a quality that would either: exclude it from the "bash him!" level of abstraction found in every other genre, or: that requires of it the level of detail/control found in the common "point and shoot" games.

"…I MUST "fly" my airplane when I play…"

then oranges aren't for you --at least for aircombat (you seem to like them fine for ground stuff). i've maintained all along that it's all about personal taste with which there is no right and wrong. the huge popularity of abstract oranges in all other genres, however, leads me to think that --if given a bite-- there may be lots of gamers who would find they could like them in an aircombat game(along with the apples they already have).

or not…

ps -"YMMV…" ? i know i'll slap my forehead and go D'oh! when you tell me…

how is surprise at a result out of place on a battlefield?

The kind of surprise you are creating isn't going to happen that way. An experienced pilot will FEEL (flying by the seat of your pants, as it were) the aircraft's energy; low or high, he will feel how much he's got and know when he starts into a turn if he's going to wash out before it completes or not. A rookie pilot, sure, he might screw up the turn. But that kind of inexperience is dead within two weeks if he doesn't put it all together really quick. (We tried out a few of my rules for limiting/reflecting less than average pilots, way back when; they were not well received, because the gamers wanted to play their best always.) Surprise shouldn't include afinity with one's aircraft, imho, of course.

i picked 5-seconds in a sort of out-of-thin-air manner…

Yes, that is TOO long. Enormous changes will take place in five seconds.

just as: if the sword cannot be put through a swing/arc, then the knight is fighting blind, and…

It's not the same thing, at, all. To someone watching (as you insist) 500 yards away, it might look the same, but it's just not. You are talking about face to face, on the ground combat, and equating sword swings with "wingovers", etc. Yet you talk about "maneuvers" working or not with airplanes as if they are as immobile as the fighters on the groung; they aren't. The combat differences are just too different for you take this approach: "All forms of combat are essentially the same."

again: if the sword does something weird (which i take it to mean "unintended"…like miss?), then the knight isn't fighting, he's waiting an outcome.

Not the same. You are talking about the weapon not behaving; that is more like a gun jam, or badly aligned guns (not having tested them properly before the patrol/combat). To make the SE5 pilot suddenly flub a simple combat turn without any explanation is more like having the fighter's body suddenly let him down, e.g. his leg locks up on him or summat. That would be akin to airframe failure, not a temporary, inexplicable moment of his aircraft not acting as he knows it does.

YMMV, "your mileage may vary" :)

"The combat differences are just too different…"

i really don't see a difference. an example…? keep moving or you fall out of the sky? that's just a facet like "keep a grip on the sword or you drop it". again: my emphasis is on the thinking/decision-process of the warrior --at that level (which is the player's level) i feel they match. the detail/color of various genres are different, of course, and need to be considered by players --but the fundamental mindset of the combatants is similar enough to be covered in a similar gaming convention: just as it is across the board with other genres that utilize the abstraction (via numbers/dice) of detail.

"Enormous changes will take place in five seconds."

but at what speed can the player/pilot spot/recognize/decide/respond to them? that, to me, is the key to determining a turn-length. the condition of targeting/tailing a particular enemy (or flight leader) creates a special situation that bestows a bonus to reaction (and i include that as do most other games) --but for general reaction to the overall situation i don't think the turn time can be too much shorter than…what?…maybe three seconds? by the time the spotting/thinking/acting process leads to meaningful movement of the aircraft under the pilot's control…it doesn't seem like it could be too much quicker than that. dunno, really: this is all just armchair work, and doesn't carry much authority, that's for sure.

"To make the SE5 pilot suddenly flub a simple combat turn without any explanation is more like having the fighter's body suddenly let him down…"

i'm comparing the pilot to the knight flubbing a movement/swordstroke: people (especially those under the stress of combat) are not robotic chess-pieces that perform every task perfectly, and their bodies do "let them down". how do you explain times when your RPG-knight misses on a combat roll? --or the thief flubs a stealth roll? obviously their bodies didn't do exactly what the player wanted or it would have been successful. rules/games that don't allow for error would have every shot be a bullseye.

this is just a choice on the scale of chance that runs from chess to snakes&ladders: it's all personal taste. the presence of possible failure (to whatever degree) is something that can be included in any type of game whether it be point-and-shoot or bash-him!…if the players don't want it, they can leave it out. the experienced SE pilot in the example who was diving away from the DrI --upon spotting the Halb cross his front-- tried pulling out of the dive into a 3-4+G climbing turn and flubbed it: he had ~92% chance of success and missed. he would have completed the "simple combat turn" 9 times out of 10 --most would consider a chance-to-hit of that high a probability pretty good. still, it's all personal choice, of course: if you don't want chance included in any particular part of a game, don't use it. or modify the chances/results so that it has a more acceptable level to suit personal taste. easy to do, really.

sorry, lots of off-topic blather…but i do appreciate the input that makes me think…thinking is always good…

thought a bit about the "always moving" part of aircombat…

isn't that a reason to avoid displaying/controlling the exact positions? any picture is wrong for the moment before and the moment to come: what's the value in communicating that information and --more importantly-- making it the centerpiece of player input? unless the turn length is very short (for gaming anything but a one-on-one fight) and follows/describes the action in a frame-by-frame manner, the picture made in a point-and-shoot game is nothing more than an arbitrary moment. again: good for a one-on-one game (similar to a single, one-on-one swordfight that would be boring if handled by the usual RPG-ish combat system), but not as good as a bash-him! abstract game in handling/gaming a street fight or village raid which encompasses more than the momentary "what will i do, specifically, to best the opponent who stands before me now?"-question that belongs better in the one-on-one fight whose resolution marks the end of the game.

just thinkin'…

keep moving or you fall out of the sky? that's just a facet like "keep a grip on the sword or you drop it".

I guess you really can't see the difference, then. We talked about "energy" a ways back there: they are not the same, at, all. Energy on the ground is "how much do I have left", i.e. to keep fighting with. In the air, energy is forward momentum, which is constantly changing with airspeed. Again, comparing sword grips with forward momentum is worse than comparing apples and turnips.

"Enormous changes will take place in five seconds."

but at what speed can the player/pilot spot/recognize/decide/respond to them?

We were talking about this (and you :) ) last night: tenths of a second is all you have in making the difference in being hit or not in a sword fight. Similarly, a mere second or two can make ALL the difference in whether or not you get away in an air combat: it all depends on direction, commitment at the moment to that direction, and reaction time/experience, i.e. knowing instantaneously (without thinkng about it) what the right move is to do.

To assume that the SE5 pilot could climb up and five seconds later react to the Halberstadt turning away, is flying blind.

One second and a bit is all the reaction time you should be thinking about; anything longer than that is too long.

i'm comparing the pilot to the knight flubbing a movement/swordstroke:

It's much easier to imagine a flub, while two figures are placed next to each other: than it is to imagine what happened to explain two aircraft passing each other; or one chasing, and the other suddenly winding up in an above and behind position!

thought a bit about the "always moving" part of aircombat…

isn't that a reason to avoid displaying/controlling the exact positions?

The exact opposite. Always moving is the reason for showing exactly where each aircraft is each moment. The information is needed in order to reflect what the pilot is concerned with: time-motion to the target.

any picture is wrong for the moment before and the moment to come: what's the value in communicating that information and --more importantly-- making it the centerpiece of player input?

Because it is the "string" of those moments which leads the pilot to his own decisions and either a kill or an escape. Without the information moment by moment, the pilot is flying blind.

And again, you keep talking about groups of aircraft. I am always IN the plane I "fly"; outside numbers (size of the fight) is irrelevant to that perspective. It all begins and ends with ME "in" the aircraft….

"Energy on the ground is "how much do I have left", i.e. to keep fighting with."

…as well as "what amount does it take for me to move this way?" same as with an aircraft: if one has extended into a deep lunge (or risen to the apex of a hammerhead), then the options for the next moves are retricted very much by their energy requirements.

i agree that energy management is more of a critical consideration for aircombat (as would keeping your footing be for fighting on an ice-sheet), but it is not --to my POV-- a distinction that requires the use of a detailed point-and-shoot game mechanic IF the focus of the game is beyond the one-on-one duel.

both the short turn-length and physical point-and-shoot display of flight-sim games works in a scenario that would be the equivalent of a hand-to-hand scenario consisting of a single fight: like the combat that would ensue in the hut between a handful of warriors in a village raid where one would be very interested in a detailed level of control/results as opposed to the game consisting of a few rolls of the dice and a "you're dead-you lose" sort of thing.

but gaming the entire raid on the village with a dozen or more figures per side would, i think, play out better with an abstract, bash-him! style of rules (similar to the common RPG-type) where a second-by-second, detailed enactment of each individual fight would be a drag on the overall scenario --if it could even be completed in a single evening of gaming. same with aircombat: gaming a recon mission (or bombing raid or whathaveyou) can be done with a broader time/control level to allow for a greater scope of the engagement that extends beyond the momentary concerns of individual pilots caught up in a fight.

one needn't move up too far on the turn-length and degree of individual control, however, to that of squad/flight: i'm thinking something that allows for player input (as you described in your "kill the troll" and "not-so-sneaky thief" examples) that would put players somewhere between the "what will you do this second?" and "too late you're already dead" levels of time/control that is the equivalent to many/most RPGs (if not 1:1 skirmish-level rules).

the player connection/involvement with ground-based heroes is, i think, no less (or greater) than the attachment to their aerial brethren, and therefore see no reason for requiring that a game be played with the high level of control/short time turn of flight-sim point-and-shoot games: if you want to, fine; but if not, then that should be fine/possible too --and that "if not" option seems pretty scarce for aircombat.

Hi

"second by second…rpg".

As one of the guys in the old days who gamed with Gygax and Arnenson….I haven't seen YOUR version of an RPG game like your "raise to strike, second by second insistance".

And I have yet to see a ground game where the direction and facing was NOT important, wether skirmish or Division.

That you have not seen a game scale in aircombat between second by second of a "dogfight" and "luftwaffe" just reinterates that you haven't looked at any of the games between that we mentioned.

As for the tedium of finishing a game of such detail. Last night, we had a formation of aussie light bombers making a run on some japanese transports being escorted by wildcats and bounced by Oscars. By sheerest fluke, the level bombers actually hit a moving ship and left it dead in the water, and by luck, the oscars got 4 of the bombers while losing 2 oscars, including wounding an ace.

All played out in that detail you hate in 2.5 hours.

Rocky

"second by second…rpg"

oops. i was looking to place the game AT the RPG level --not that RPGs were at that (second-by-second) level.

"…a ground game where the direction and facing was NOT important…"

…but it is never displayed at the specific, detailed level of the direction/facing as it is in aircombat games --the frozen-pose foot figures show, at best, general location/facing: certainly not the variation of posture that occurs in a second-by-second turn-sequence.

"…a game scale in aircombat between second by second of a "dogfight" and "luftwaffe" just reinterates that you haven't looked at any of the games between that we mentioned."

like…? CE, WoW, CY6, Blue Skies, Algy…all these have the point-and-shoot level of detail/control that --as you said-- is not found in many(any?) ground-based skirmish/RPG games.

i don't HATE the detail --if it works, great. but it isn't found much (if at all) in any other genre, and i cannot therefore understand why something that isn't required elsewhere in the gaming world is vital (ie: HAS to be included)to aircombat.

Zocchi, Gygax, Anderson…sounds more and more like we've crossed paths 30+ years ago…probably got shot down by you more than once! ; )

i don't HATE the detail --if it works, great. but it isn't found much (if at all) in any other genre, and i cannot therefore understand why something that isn't required elsewhere in the gaming world is vital (ie: HAS to be included)to aircombat.

Doesn't full-blown GURPS do the HALF second turn thingie? It is very detail, blow by blow oriented. But I don't like playing RPGs like that either; yet I insist on second by second flight sim air combat?! They ARE different fish, gweirda, very different….

can't recall offhand about GURPS (copy buried somewhere…) --but, i agree, not very good an application for a game whose scope is greater than that one combat.

different fish…yes/no --depends on the fisherman/diner, i think. like i said earlier, i can "fly the airplane" for real if i get the itch…probably why i don't see the need (or feel much satisfaction) in doing it with models…?

I've flown; have a private pilot's licence; and I have played at hand to hand combat in reenactment situations. They, are, not, the, same, thing.

I think the main reason why seeing my RPG character standing statically in front of a troll doesn't bother me, is because I know that furious combat is taking place and each turn is connected seamlessly to the ones before; i.e. there is no "blind" spot/moment: the PC and enemy are only moving within the combat zone, but otherwise not moving about. Whereas, your approach to air combat simulation seems to allow for entire segments of flight unaccounted for; and defined with a result, rather than a seamless series of movements. Now, you say that this area wherein the air combat is taking place is analogous to the much smaller area where hand-to-hand combat is taking place. But as we have pointed out, the enormous difference is the nature of the movements. On the ground, the fighter is just positioning his body. In the air, inside a machine, he is constrained by the forward movement as a constant. You can abstract that into a null factor; but then you lose the feel/flavor of flying about; the dogfight becomes a comparison of factors only and modelling it isn't even necessary. Might as well play cards! (I hate cards.)

"…your approach to air combat simulation seems to allow for entire segments of flight unaccounted for; and defined with a result, rather than a seamless series of movements."

yup: the same way it is done in the fight with the troll.

"…the enormous difference is the nature of the movements. On the ground, the fighter is just positioning his body. In the air…"

…i see him as positioning the machine as an extension of his body in the same way the warrior on the ground shifts/postures his. while the size/scope of the movements is greater they are essentially of the same nature: physical responses to tactical intentions/objectives of the warrior. the fact that the pilot…

"…is constrained by the forward movement as a constant."

..is simply a restriction on possible movement no different than one upon the knight that prohibits a move that would take him underground --it's just not on the list of things the warrior can do.

"You can abstract that…the dogfight becomes a comparison of factors only and modelling it isn't even necessary."

the same can be said of fighting a troll -and in a game where that single fight is all there is i'd agree that it wouldn't be necessary (though i'd still probably want to use models!). yet, games with trolls and knights and all sorts of heroes and villains (that gamers are attached to) get played all the time via abstraction and figures that don't show a fraction of the physical action taking place, and players replace the dull dice rolls with stories of exciting derring-do (or embarassing fumbles) and enjoy those games.

and i wonder: if the nature of the miniatures allowed for the detailed representation of that furious infighting of close-combat, so that a true second-by-second (or less?)plotting/control/display of the physical movement/position of the knight or troll is made practical in the same way the larger movements of the pilot's body/aircraft is possible with aircombat games --would it be fun/popular? for a game that is limited in scope to a single combat, perhaps --but for a game that seeks to encompass a larger scenario (like that village raid?), it's possible that some would prefer a less-detailed abstract system if given the choice.

or not…dunno.

that's really all this is about: an exploration of using a system common to much/most of the hobby (the abstract bash-him! -level of detail/control) in gaming/representing aircombat. much/most/(all?) of the 1:1 level of aircombat available includes the premise/stipulation that the game (and genre) is all about the player pointing/positioning his aircraft to allow him to attack --this idea is so domninating that to question it's validity is a POV that lies beyond the pale. to me, however (sitting out here beyond the pale…!) such a premise/stipulation is the equivalent of saying the game (and genre) of swordfighting is all about the player pointing/positioning his blade to allow him to attack. they're both "no duh!" kind of statements, and to reduce the conflict to that level of dry, mechanical, physcial manipulation/interaction is to miss the thinkingg/spirit/mood of the engagement. we shy away from that intense detail level in ground combat (most of the time) --even with RPG heroes that carry personal attachments as strong as any held by our pilot alter-egos…why not do the same with aircombat? not all the time…but maybe some of the time?

again: dunno…it may be that aircraft/flight carries with it some special magic spell that generates the urge in gamers to require that detail level of control/display that they don't feel for their knights or other heroic alter-egos…

Hi

But if my knight isn't pointed at the troll, i cannot hit him!

Further, all the games imply weapons as well. Again, RPG, If I am 70 feet away and have a crossbow versus a longbow, I not only have to be pointed at the troll, but the way I do damage is different.

I know of a couple games that do "parry four", but they arent popular. I know of airwar games that use stick, rudder, dials all over at the same detail.

But even our M&M rules don't do that. The fiddly details like that are designed into the game. Even formal rules as simple as "a wing over does this and puts you somewhere here, your choice", isnt the same as "roll right 80 degrees, let the rudder looxe, slide off the side, dropping 70 meters and pullling back on the stick to pull out precisely here.

So, again, you are trying to insist that the rules compare and do things that no one actually does. In our games, the restraints on WHERE are historical, bud no one actually needs to know how to fly OR do airplane math. Similarly, the physical restraints on WHERE the knight is isn't the same as requiring the gamer knows how to ride, couch a lance and so on.

You are insisting that these skirmish games go into a level of detail that they do not.

Rocky

"…if my knight isn't pointed at the troll, i cannot hit him!"

if an equivalent to an aircombat situation that has two planes engaging within gunnery range but not facing to allow a shot, then that's too broad a view for comparison. a better phrasing would be: "my knight (who's figure is adjacent/facing the troll) is positioned with his sword in such a way that a blow cannot be struck". --and an aircombat equivalent to "my knight isn't pointed at the troll" (as would be shown with a facing away by the figure, i assume?) would be "i cannot engage the other plane because i have not chosen (or am not able) to do so" and would be shown by facing your aircraft out from the engagement hex.

re: position/facing mechanics…

"…stick, rudder, dials…M&M rules don't do that. The fiddly details like that are designed into the game."

the elegance of how a rules system allows players to position/point the models does not affect in the least the fact that it is all about pointing the models --the act of detailing the position/facing of the aircraft is itself a "fiddly bit", not just how it is done.

"…the rules compare and do things that no one actually does."

from the standpoint of detailing the physical motion/positioning of the warrior's "body" (which in aircombat is the aircraft), point-and-shoot games do present a level of display/control that stands above most hand-to-hand skirmish/RPG gmaes. i'm not insisting, i'm simply presenting the idea with the support i've detailed (re: similarity of aircraft/body in warrior's mind) and have seen only the scale/scope of the movement involved as the only objection/counter to the comparison: which i refute as being only a difference of degree and not kind (within the parameters of the warrior's mind which, since that's where i feel the gamer's thoughts should be, is the key arena for judgement).

"…a couple games that do "parry four", but they aren't popular."

right. i think that maybe the mechanics/fun of the abstract ones that are popular can be applied to aircombat.

or not…

Hi

But you have made my point. Skirmish games require the knight be able to face the troll, but don't say "my arm is raised". Partly this is important in "I sneak up on the troll from the rear and strike by surprise".

Airwar games are EXACTLY the same.

R

R-

they are different.

airwar games require not only that the model be placed within combat range --which would be the equivalent of the knight placed adjacent to the troll-- but also that the weapon (airplane) be pointed at the enemy --which is the equivalent of the knight saying "my arm is raised" which, you are correct, isn't required in most hand-to-hand games.

it's all scale-related: all movement of the knight (sneaking up on the troll) beyond effective combat range is just like movement of the aircraft (sneaking up on the fokker) beyond effective combat range.

once the distance is closed (to maybe 5' for the knight and 500' for the WW1 fighter ?), then --in the case of the knight/troll-- the figures cease to display the action/movement: such being handled abstractly via modifiers/dice rolls. in the case of aircombat, though, the figures continue to show the details of the action/movement that occurs within combat range. it can, physically, be done with the models (because the relative motion/distances are so large), but it doesn't have to be --the lack of such detailed display/control in other genres (like with the knight and troll) proves it.

at the level of what the warriors are thinking, i think that both the knight and pilot are on the same tactical/objective-oriented level when within that close-combat range, and that the same sort of game mechanic used to allow players to be inside the head of the knight can be used to put them inside the head of the pilot.

as the thread title suggest: warriors fight. to have players in aircombat worry/concern themselves with flying (in a detailed point-and-shoot manner) is a level of detail that is the equivalent to having them worry/concern themselves with the details of footwork/swordplay: such is not found in most hand-to-hand games, so i'm thinking aircombat could try pulling back a tad from the flying, and concentrate more on the fighting --at least at the player decision-level-- to match the emphasis/balance of concern found in hand-to-hand games.

or not…

But again, only for groups of aircraft. You've allowed that one-on-one dogfighting works best with a sim type game. I won't argue your point, which you have concisely recapped above: abstraction of air combat is just as feasible as ground combat. The trouble will start just the first time a player asks, "How did he nip around behind me? I was on his tail!"

true --but i figure since gamers have a proven history of answering the question "how did that thief nip around behind me? i was on his tail!" i'm guessing it won't be a serious issue.

and i think groups of aircraft (maybe a dozen…or even half that) per side would make a fun game/scenario.

or not…