"seeking feedback on aircombat game idea" Topic

since polls are popular on TMP, i thought i'd put out another one. well, it's more of a survey, actually…maybe i'll start a parallel thread that's a poll on the correct definition of this thread…?

i'm looking for opinions/feedback on the viability of a game design idea i have -i've been puttering with it and annoying the people on the aircombat forums with my odd posts for a couple years now, but since the idea's larger target audience is the general gaming populace, i feel it's time for a "thumbs up/down" as to whether --if i ever get anything done-- there will be a reception waiting that amounts to something more than turned backs.

though my first specific efforts are in the WW1 era i feel the concept can be applied effectively through the prop-age and perhaps into jets --at least until speeds and missiles render the core "engagement zone" principle pretty much meaningless. dunno really -as i said: it's just in the concept phase, so a lot of questions remain both unasked and unanswered.

i'm trying to view aircombat in the same way that other genres are viewed. it seems to me that the path other genres take in allowing that the little fellows on the tabletop know how to do their particular business (and that it is the players' job to tell them what to do --not how to do it) has led to reasonable success in presenting fun games. i'm exploring those same avenues/methods in relation to aircombat. dunno if it's a dead end, but i think it's at least worth a peek…

personal definition (for the purposes of this discussion): if an aircombat game has players controlling the position/facing of the models (no matter how precisely or simply or effortlessly) and relies on the resultant physical relationships of the models to determine if an attack can be made, then that game is what i would term a flight-sim-type game.

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

my POV is to consider the aircraft as a weapon similar to a rifle or sword: its positioning is assumed by most rules to be controlled by the little tin soldier to match/reflect the orders given by the player --whether they be to reload/parry, aim/thrust…whatever. in that regard, current aircombat games are more nitpicky, and deal to a much greater degree with the details of positioning the weapon-at-hand than other games/genres. there are some (En Garde! comes to mind) that do so: but they work best in a one-on-one duel, not the sort of fast-and-furious action of a multi-figure barroom brawl or streetfight that compares better to a dogfight.

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

an aircombat game-designer that i respect raised the critical question: "who would want it?" …it's pretty much that that i am asking here.

so, the question i have for all the non-aircombat-game-playing, lead-pushing gamers: would you be interested in trying an aircombat game if the details of flying were left to the little guy in the model, or is having your hand on the stick an essential appeal/factor of the genre? ie: if you were required to use your imagination to picture the specific position/posture of the aircraft (in the same way it is done in other 1:1 miniatures games --the recent AAR for "Larger Than Life" is a good example) would the genre still hold any interest?

as always, i very much appreciate the time/consideration given in composing responses to my (usually odd) queries.

don

Interesting thought. However I think that air combat games are somehow "different" from a mass-combat game in that each player usually controls a couple of planes at most, and therefore identifies much more with the little guy at the stick.

Your post also put me in mind of the very abstract booklet based games of the past, where each player selected a maneuver from a list and compared the result to his opponent's (this was done for air combat with Ace of Aces). However this is not miniatures-oriented whatsoever so probably would not appeal to a mini wargamer.

>my POV is to consider the aircraft as a weapon similar to a rifle or sword: its positioning is assumed by most rules to be controlled by the little tin soldier to match/reflect the orders given by the player

Interesting thought, but at a macro-level, this is how "mainstream" air combat games treat the subject matter too. For example, in "Check Your 6!" a player doesn't plot the position of the throttle in the aircraft, or whether flaps are up or down, or rudder pedal position… a player determines that a certain maneuver will be made by the aircraft at a certain speed, and the "little guy in the cockpit" determines how much throttle, rudder and flap it takes to make it happen.

Perhaps your thoughts might have more application in a different genre, like sci-fi space combat. This often involves masses of fighters and capital ships and it wouldn't be feasible for a player to be "in the cockpit" with each pilot. So if you're thinking a ruleset would provide for squadron vs. squadron or squadron vs. capital ship battles, this would be a genre where that would be accepted.

I just think that a) the "Knights of the Air" romance of the fighter pilot wouldn't be conducive to this type of abstraction, and b) the relatively small numbers of planes in the air in historical air combat doesn't make this kind of extreme abstraction necessary.

Cheers,

w.

Interesting post.

I think the most important questions you can ask about any game approach are (1) what are the major decisions a player needs to make, and (2) are they interesting?

If the answer to both is yes, then maybe you have a good idea. Can you provide a bit more of a concrete sketch of what you're considering?

I also wonder if the nature of flying does not require at least some mechanism (whether players do it or it is built into the game) to reflect the limitations of flight. So with Wings of War, the card deck you play with limits your options.

Well Don,

Since my game, Watch Your Six!, begins with the presumption that the player is not the pilot, I guess I would have to say I find this approach acceptable.

After years of play testing it is my opinion that this approach is also the only way you are going to do a big dog fight in a reasonable amount of time.

mjc

Just curious did Don G. take your WWI game to Mage Con to run some play tests? This concept sounds very similar to a game I observed there.

It seemed to follow your abstaction concept and used alot of dice pool mechanics. After observing I could see what was trying to be achieved but in the end my preference would be with what you describe as flight sim oriented air games.

The only 2 perspectives that appeal to me from an air game standpoint are either "in the cockpit" or "Grand strategic". Anything in between doesn't hold much appeal for me personally.

wermacht wrote:
"…air combat games are somehow "different" from a mass-combat game in that each player usually controls a couple of planes at most, and therefore identifies much more with the little guy at the stick."

agreed. the comparison to other genres should be restricted to 1:1 ratio games …i was going to say "skirmish" games, but after seeing that thread i don't wish to open that can of worms here ; ) …that have players controlling anywhere from one to perhaps a half-dozen or so units (where a unit = one figure).

it's also been pointed out to me that airplanes also possess a special sexiness or "wow!" facet (the "knights of the air" you mentioned) that makes taking away the control stick a perceived threat to enjoying the vicarious thrill of going "zoom!" or "takka takka takka…" --though i think that such enjoyment is had on a regular basis with other games (again: the LTL example), and i think it's possible to obtain in an aircombat game that leaves it to players' imaginations.

"…in "Check Your 6!" a player doesn't plot the position of the throttle in the aircraft, or whether flaps are up or down, or rudder pedal position…"

i would equate that level of detail with a soldier switching from semi to full auto or shifting his grip on the battleaxe: i beleive that the basic positioning/facing of aircraft in flight-sim games is simlar to the positioning/facing of the rifle or axe --something that is rarely handled in games using rifles/axes.

"…the relatively small numbers of planes in the air in historical air combat doesn't make this kind of extreme abstraction necessary."

perhaps true: but i think that the "we can do it so let's do it" attitude towards specific model positioning in aircombat(not possible with the usual "frozen-pose" figures used in other genres) has led to a concentration/emphasis in game design on the mechanical (and i would say: tedious, boring) aspect of flight simulation which is not conducive to the exciting/perilous mood of dogfighting --the "move fist to contact face" example i first posted…as opposed to the "bash him!" that would be the order/game-mechanic used in a typical hand-to-hand game. simpler, certainly: but i think paying a bit in the way of detailed mechanics can be made up for in speedy play and better "mood"….maybe?

Bob in E wrote:
…"important questions…(1) what are the major decisions a player needs to make, and (2) are they interesting?"

agreed. the type of question i'm looking to ask player/pilots is "what do you want to do?", not "how do you want to do it?" the latter sort --that result in answers of a dry, technical nature dealing with the physical positioning of the aircraft-- are the usual ones of flight-sim games, and are not very interesting, imho.

"…provide a bit more of a concrete sketch of what you're considering?"

in a turn you are asked: where do you want to go? and: how hard will you try to get there? or, if within combat range: who (if anyone) are you after? and again: how hard will you try to line up a shot? (or evade one?). players provide basic, tactical objectives/goals and a risk level to be used in obtaining them. think of a barroom brawl with fists and bottles and the thinking/mood desired and that's sort of what i'm after.

"…the nature of flying does…require at least some mechanism…to reflect the limitations of flight."

agreed. instead of specific effect, however (as in having a roll rate determine a turn radius) the capabilities/limitations of the aircraft (and pilot) are factored into the results in much the same way other weapon's characteristics would influence another game (the weight/length of a sword, for example, or the reload speed of a rifle).

Terrement wrote:
"…the equation of your game…"

sounds about right --in a turn that represents five seconds of real time, players would weigh all that and then decide what they want to do: but the question/answer format is not one of physical positioning/maneuver but of abstract risk/reward --maybe more like craps: each turn a player is faced with a situation that is represented by odds and a gamble must be made. all the factors of the equation you mentioned are there, and you have to choose an action: fight (who?) or flee (where?), along with how hard you'll stress both yourself and the aircraft to obtain your goal.

again: think barroom brawl, and the sort of questions/answers that would be appropriate in that type of environment.

leidang wrote:
"…Just curious did Don G. take your WWI game to Mage Con…?"

i'm that don, and no: this is a different game.

"The only 2 perspectives that appeal to me from an air game standpoint are either "in the cockpit" or "Grand strategic"."

this is definately an "in the cockpit" game --the player just doesn't have his hand so tightly on the stick…just as a knight could still be "in the armor" without having to dictate the detailed grip/position of the sword.

Don,

I'd be very interested if you can pull it off. I'm not sure that it can be done, in that finding a level where interesting tactical decisions are made might not be possible at the scale you're describing – but all power to you for trying.

Regards

thanks to all for the comments so far.

off to work, now (to make money so i can buy more little planes…) so won't be online for a bit.

Perhaps your thoughts might have more application in a different genre, like sci-fi space combat. This often involves masses of fighters and capital ships and it wouldn't be feasible for a player to be "in the cockpit" with each pilot. So if you're thinking a ruleset would provide for squadron vs. squadron or squadron vs. capital ship battles, this would be a genre where that would be accepted.

This philosophy is exactly the one that is behind G.O.B.S.!— Generic Outlandishly Big Spacefleets!. The player is neither the pilot nor the captain, but the admiral. Essentially, he tells the ships to "fly there and attack that." The details of how they perform these actions are assumed to be handled by the ships' crews, not the admiral. Like an admiral, a player moves his forces around, sees (or suffers) what happens, and adapts accordingly (or not). Take a look if you need inspiration.

thegobspage.com

--- Howard Shirley, creator of Generic Outlandishly Big Spacefleets!

>sounds about right --in a turn that represents five seconds of real time, players would weigh all that and then decide what they want to do: but the question/answer format is not one of physical positioning/maneuver but of abstract risk/reward --maybe more like craps: each turn a player is faced with a situation that is represented by odds and a gamble must be made. all the factors of the equation you mentioned are there, and you have to choose an action: fight (who?) or flee (where?), along with how hard you'll stress both yourself and the aircraft to obtain your goal.

Ahh… "Frei-Luftkriegsspiel"!

w.

I wasn't completely clear on what it was that you were doing to make your game different from others currently available, such as Blue Skies, Check Your 6!, and for WWI, Wings of War. In all of these, you move your plane according to a simplified movement scheme (in none of them do you make decisions that real pilots make) and fire if you're in a position to do so. Relative position drives the decision making of the players as to where/how to move within the constraints of their capabilities and the rules. Are you trying to model something like the old NOVA flight books where relative position was all that mattered? How would you calculate relative movement simply on the gameboard?

Out of the three, I like Check Your 6!'s combat system, but I'm torn between Blue Skies and CY6!'s movement – both have pros and cons. Of course each game is modeling something different, though. Blue skies is specifically looking at formations of a/c while CY6! is looking at individual a/c combat, although it works with formations. WoW is in completely different ballgame as it is done with cards rather than hexes and I love it for its simplicity of rules, yet sophisticated tactics.

How does this differ from the "Down in Flames" card games? (Boring as dust, IMNSHO.)

Alternately, how does this differ from Lee Brimmicombe-Wood's "Downtown" and "The Burning Blue" games?

Is this to be a game about fighter tactics or not? If so, then performance differences are an important input to deciding tactics (see Shaw as the oft-cited example).

Sounds like an operational game to me.

Losses to be determined by die roll, with appropriate modifiers for positioning, aircrew experience, etc.

okay, back from drug-dealing…time to tackle the evening posts…

wehrmacht wrote:
"Frei-Luftkriegsspiel"!

translation?…(for a poor, ignorant bohemian)

Sundance wrote:
"…what it was that you were doing to make your game different…Are you trying to model something like the old NOVA flight books where relative position was all that mattered?"

the NOVA games (which i like…still have my tattered t-shirt that i won as top allied ace at origins '83…) are really flight-sim games insofar as players control the movement/position of the aircraft which determines attack possibility/effectiveness.

Sundance: "How would you calculate relative movement simply on the gameboard?"

two things: the table is set off (with hexes) into engagement zones within which combat is effective, and by assigning an abstract numerical rating that describes the attack possibility/effectiveness of the relative positions within those zones: no physical display is made with the miniatures on the tabletop to show the actual positions --just the relative combat values (ie: who can shoot at whom and how good a shot it is). not as sexy as placing your model plane on someone's six, i admit --but the same sacrifice in specific representation by the miniatures on the tabletop is made in other genres without much loss in their popularity or success.

emckinney wrote:
"How does this differ from the "Down in Flames"…"Downtown" and "The Burning Blue" games?"

i confess to being unfamiliar with these…are descriptions available online?

"Is this to be a game about fighter tactics or not? If so, then performance differences are an important input to deciding tactics"

agreed. such factors are included and play a vital part in the game mechanics: as much as the personal equipment/capabilities of martial-artists would play a role in a hand-to-hand combat game.

Top Gun Ace wrote:
"Sounds like an operational game to me."

nope --it's very much a split-second sort of rapid decision making venture. in fact, since i use model positioning to display both facing and maneuver/stress level, your stands would be the ideal thing for players to use…if they weren't as poor/cheap as me, that is! : )

"Can you provide a bit more of a concrete sketch of what you're considering?"

here is (i hope…if i pushed the right buttons…) a slideshow of a sample game:

link

this may give you an idea of how a game would look/play out.
edit: hmmm…looks like you have to click on/view an image for the description/text to display.

a few notes on the nuts and bolts:
--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 merely "passing through" anywhere 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.

--models that are adjacent/facing another indicate the level of combat advantage held: at front = least through at rear = most.

--the pink "rings of shame" for spinning are holdovers from my skating penguins game…

Sounds like an interesting concept. I think I'd have to see it in action to really get it, but I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

I am not sure I would like your game.

When I play an air-to-air game I imagine that I am controlling the aircraft, so I would determine how fast I go and what maneuver to perform to get into my opponents six. I want to roll the dice to shoot my guns, and feel satisfaction when I do get into a bogies six. Or feel tension as my opponent gets me into his sights. What I am saying is that most players and I want to feel in control of their aircraft.

I am not sure I would want enter a combat zone or a ZOC (Zone of Control) and have one roll of the dice to determine if I win or lose a combat engagement.

Also to be honest with you WWI has been done to death in Air Combat games.

BUT if you can adapt your idea to a maybe VSF or maybe SteamPowered air combat game with unique features it just might work …….just a weird thought.

………..Doug

Inari7 wrote:
"…enter a combat zone…and have one roll of the dice…"

with a turn representing approximately 5 seconds, the results of a single dice roll would not be so fatal (unlucky shots aside, of course). i'm not looking to lump an entire engagement into a single venture, but instead to have pilot/players face moment-by-moment challenges: the results of one will certainly affect those that follow, but everything doesn't ride on a single throw.

"…I would determine how fast I go and what maneuver to perform to get into my opponents six….roll the dice to shoot my guns, and feel satisfaction when I do get into a bogies six. Or feel tension as my opponent gets me into his sights."

aside from having a say in the specific maneuver done --you would instead choose the level of difficulty/stress to place the aircraft/yourself under to gain an advantage and leave the details to the imagination-- all of what you look for can/would be present in the game i propose.

i admit that the appeal of being a fighter jockey goes a long way in driving the participation in the genre: but i don't see it as too far above/removed from the desire to be sgt.rock or indiana jones or dwight the knight --and the abstract representation made by the frozen-pose figures used in games where our heroic alter-egos perform all sorts of derring-do seems to satisfy enough to make those games popular/successful. i'm just looking at using the same sort of game-mechanic/miniatures'-representation in aircombat, and wondering/hoping if dumping the fiddly-bit flying parts (and keeping the heroic zooming parts) will serve to open up the genre a bit…? dunno.

The game you propose sounds like it would be well suited more for squardern level type game, that is if you can keep the paperwork down to a minimum or none. I envision your game could have each player in control of a dozen aircarft. This is an area that has not been explored very much in miniature games.

I'd urge interested parties to look at Don's link above to the slideshow of a game in progress. I have read the rules and still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the concepts, but must say the play by play description looked interesting.

This may be the type of game that is far more interesting to play than to read…kind of like Shakespeare.

Jim

"…the slideshow of a game…a hard time wrapping my brain around the concepts…"

suggestion: view the AAR as if it were a ground action instead of aerial --something similar to the AAR that was linked in another recent forum (the "10mm…" in Basing -though there are, i'm sure, many other examples). instead of orcs and dwarves and elves, think spads and albatros and camels. the action being represented on the table is certainly more dynamic than what we can show with the frozen-pose miniatures --our imaginations fill in the "zoom!" and "takka takka takka!" bits…at least they do so in other genres: why not aircombat?

"…interested parties…"
that's the purpose of this thread (those wishing to discuss the game itself are invited over to the Biplane forum) --to get a feel for the level of interest (if any) by non-aircombat devotees for this sort of approach to the genre.

my thanks to those who've "voted" so far --hope i get a few more responses…

>wehrmacht wrote:
>"Frei-Luftkriegsspiel"!

>translation?…(for a poor, ignorant bohemian)

Sorry! I was referring to the free-form umpire-moderated "Frie Kriegsspiel" (literally, "free wargame") that was a forerunner of our current buckets of dice games… players describe what they want to do and the umpire evaluates probabilities and describes success or failure. see also the "Wargames Developments" group in the UK and some of their ideas.

w.

The latter description sound lot like Dreadnaught 3000 that Kallistra wrote to suppory their spaceships. I couldn't get my gead round your initial description, but I think I have it now. No, just realised I don't- the planes have individual bankings.

As was said above 1:1 plane equivalent scale is effectively a skirmish. Sure you don't dictate how the knight holds the sword etc, but you do decide which way he heads, and who he hits. Dogfighting is all about heading, height and throttle- you trade fuel for height, height for speed.

Can you tell us who you see the player being? If he's in the air then its a 1:1 game. If he is a ground controller, then once he has vectored the in the fighters its out of his hands.

It looks like a individual in between, which doesn't exist. Not saying this is not right for a game, but pilots in a dogfight are too busy to say- Hmmm looks like I'm needed over there, those planes can hold this part, while the re-inforcements come up.

The other thing is how are you handling height. I can see the 'put 4 planes in this hex vs 3 of his' working, but remember whiole that furball is going on, it will be loosing height all the time, and the remaining planes will be significantly lower than uncommitted planes.

In my Battle of Britain rules Pilot skill makes them better shots/better in dangerous situations.

Last Hussar wrote
"…the planes have individual bankings."

not really. the MODELS are banked, but it's done to indicate the difficulty/stress-level of the current maneuvering being done --it has nothing to do with what the aircraft itself is doing in the way of specific positioning: those details are left to the little guy in the cockpit (who is assumed to know how to fly --just like the little knight is assumed to know how to swing a sword).

"…1:1 plane equivalent scale is effectively a skirmish. Sure you don't dictate how the knight holds the sword etc, but you do decide which way he heads, and who he hits."

right. that's exactly the level of detail/control i'm aiming for.

scale is, i think, the biggest barrier for people who are trying to understand my POV: the movement details of the knight that are left to abstraction (ie: not represented in the frozen-pose of the figure or determined/covered in the rules) are those that are done while in effective combat range of his foe --perhaps 5-feet?-- within which area furious action occurs that is handled in most games by some sort of die roll (modified by all sorts of factors) that answers the question of "what happened during this turn that the knight chose to fight this foe?"

substitute pilot for knight, and you're there. the area covered may be greater (and certainly up for debate: i use 500' for my WW1 stuff) but the principle is the same --and more importantly: so is the decision-process/thinking done by the player, who chooses each turn whether to fight --and who? or whether to move --and where? (but the "where?" is asked/answered in a general airspace framework and not the nit-picky --and unrealistic-- pinpoint positioning done in flight-sim games. --the "fog of movement" i inject in the game is another point of contention i have with most existing rules…i'm a real bag-o-fun!)

"…who you see the player being?"

the pilot in the cockpit --but i'm aiming to have the player be in the pilot's head (making tactical decisions) as opposed to gripping the stick (dealing with the fiddly-bits of flying that a)are handled poorly by flight-sim games and b)not a concern of the real pilots anyway: why should players get bogged down during gameplay with something real pilots don't concern themselves with?)

"…how are you handling height. I can see the 'put 4 planes in this hex vs 3 of his' working, but remember while that furball is going on, it will be losing height all the time…"

height is important for the very reason you mention. trading altitude is the only sure way of gaining/recovering speed, and maneuvering costs speed -and harder/more stressful maneuvering costs more speed…but it also gains you a better chance for a firing opportunity, so: do you risk pulling hard and holding altitude? if you succeed you'll be on top…or maybe just break even if your opponent does the same --in which case if you play it safe and he succeeds you'll end up eating lead…but maybe your engine will come through and you'll handle the plane cleanly and not lose too much speed and then you'll really have him…but what if the motor goes "phhllpt!" or your foot slips on the cold rudder-pedal and boy you'll be in trouble then…and do you really need to be here?…while you've been duking it out here the bomber stream is gone way over there and that's really why you're up here but if you turn your back on this guy he'll have you for sure but maybe you can dive away from him sure hope that merlin works… so: what are you going to do?

it's that sort of thinking in an incertain, perilous environment that i'm looking to immerse players in directly via the decisions they make in a game --as opposed to having them communicate their intentions indirectly via pointing the models (which to me is a dull exercise that serves to defeat the "wow!" factor of the moment).

speaking of wow --can anyone guess who's had too much coffee this morning…? ; ) maybe it's time for a bit of a liedown…

I don't know of a game that does the 'fiddly' bits of flying- The player decides height, facing speed, but doesn't worry about the flaps rudder setting. If the player is 'is sitting in the cockpit' EVERY decision he is making is about facing- dogfights are maneuver. If they are not 'pointing the models' (I assume this means deciding facing then they are Fighter Control, not pilots.

A bit of self promotion (1940s game)

link

Player picks the maneuvers, sets the throttle (to change speed). Doesn't worry about how the physics works

"Player picks the maneuvers…"

in my (odd) POV, that's a fiddly bit --equivalent to a knight/player picking a parry (like "circle six").

pilots don't pick maneuvers anymore than martial artists pick arm/leg motions: they just do them. why should players deal with things their alter-ego-characters don't bother with?

strange, i know: but i'm exploring why aircombat plays by a different set of expectations regarding abstraction in gaming.

Hi

Circle 6 gets you killed by a disengagement.

Again, G, I think you are overstating the concept of "fiddly".

R

R-
i think that there are a number of maneuvers that would equally counter any particular aerial move and would produce the same results.

i agree that i am pushing the envelope --but figure that's a good way to discover the limits and to challenge the status quo. my wording is obviously sloppy, but i think there's a core of truth that deserves exploring.

the more i think of how flight-sim games don't reflect any of the thinking/intent of the pilots the players are supposed to be in the shoes of, the stronger my desire to find out if there's another way to game the genre. the success of other genres in leaving the details to the little tin soldiers makes me believe the same is possible for aircombat…or not…maybe… ; )

gweirda- thats fine. Just don't want this to turn bad tempered, so please see any criticism from me as a positive thing not me having a go.

I think you are wrong in comparing choosing aircraft facing to the knight picking limb motions. Pilots do pick maneuvers- if not them then who? You don't need to know how he got the plane pointing that way- that's the limb movement.

You can take it as given that a pilot is jinking, maybe give a bonus for shooting at a green pilot who will forget (the little metal man that is) to do this. You don't need to build this in otherwise.

You agreed with my point about deciding where the knight moves- thats it. Air to air Gun combat is all about maneuver. You can not compare it to a hand to hand fight in that way. The arm/leg motions are the control surfaces and caels. You don't worry about them- you just knw when you dictate Go Left LMM knows how to get the aircraft pointing left. You deciding which way to move the knight, you decide which way to face the aircraft.

confession: i'm cheating a tad by crossposting from the Biplanes board…the same post seems to apply to this discussion as well, and i'm lazy…

re: "…comparing choosing aircraft facing to the knight picking limb motions."

again: it's the scale of one's POV that must shift out. a meaningful distance in aircombat is expressed in hundreds of feet --anything less than that is not worth tracking/displaying, since its benefit doesn't make up for the cost (gamewise). yes, the stick-and-rudder movements are too small to display: but so are the specific flight-paths they create.

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

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

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

i'll repeat a disclaimer i made in the Biplanes forum: like Last Hussar, my intentions are not mean-spirited. i hold no personal stake in this (like everyone else, i have lots of projects, and can move on to another!), and i will strongly defend/attack a position (not the person presenting it) only in the spirit of debate in order to arrive at the best ideas.

Hi

But you keep missing the point that I have done sims for the USAF and "fooled" those pilots into thinking the sim reflects their tactics and concerns. Even better, though not a serving combat pilot, I have lectured on the tactics.

I gotta tell you guy, that the decision are how to fly the high yo-yo, but when and how to place it. The sim isn't pull stick 12degrees, roll left 22degrees, climb for 12 seconds, roll right 30 degreez, slide into a modified wing over, while turing 15degrees a second….yadda yadda, which WOULD be your equivilent.

Just as in fencing you dont conciously say "circle six is dont by sweeping the tip……

You see attack in 4 you are in six, you.. all unconsciously.

Clever ac sim design doesn't get into the minutia of HOW do do a Yo yo, you see the mig turn, you respond with a high yo yo, or you disengage or several other things based on the situation.

So, again, I expect you are responding to either ideas in your mind about what air combat games do (this is called a proactive inhibition), or you have been scarred by the wrong game. But aren't sure what you want because your understanding of what a pilot does in air combat is limited.

R

"…understanding of what a pilot does in air combat…"

that's really a good way to frame the discussion. how does one answer that question? in the AAR you reported (in the Biplanes forum) you did not describe what they did in the form the game took, ie: the specific positioning/movement. rather, you described what the pilots did in terms that would flow directly from a "bash him" style of abstract combat game (that i am exploring).

you can, certainly, lean in close to the picture and see that "what a pilot did" was a high yo yo…you could even get closer and see that "what a pilot did" was to face and move the airplane in a pattern/sequence of motion that --once completed-- would comprise that high yo yo…or you could do what i suggest and step back and see that "what a pilot did" was to succeed in a maneuver (doesn't matter what, does it?) that allowed him to gain a firing position (of such-and-such a quality) on his target.

the picture is the same. the action is the same. what the pilot did was the same. the issue is: can the player (representing the pilot) be placed at the "farther back" viewpoint and still gain enjoyment from the game, or is holding the stick a required facet of the genre?

like the "process…" thread: is going through the motions something that aircombat gaming requires, no matter how unnecessary it is in determining the outcome? (ie: the results are the same with of without the input of the players), or can the tools of abstraction used in other genres be utilized in aircombat?

Hi

Sorry, greg, position and energy is everything in aircombat. "the what" does matter.

R

"…position and energy is everything…"

the same could be said for swordfighting: but those things aren't detailed/controlled/displayed in hand-to-hand games, just considered/factored into the choices/actions/results --there is no significant difference in the two genres. why not use the "distant" perspective (that abstracts those qualities) in aircombat?

oh: and it's don, not Greg. i don't really mind, but i'm sure there's more than a few Gregs out there who don't want to be associated with my postings! ; )

i wonder if there are any regular "lead pushers" out there following this? i'm afraid i've sidetracked my own thread by getting too deeply into the specifics of the design-theory.

the point of the thread is to ask gamers: do you need to control the movement/position/facing of the model in an aircombat game for it to hold interest for you? or, can those attributes be abstracted (as they are in pretty much every other genre) and the game still have appeal?

put another way: is the flight-sim part of the genre the main attraction (or possibly the main obstacle?) to your involvment/interest in an aircombat game?