"C21 and Altitude" Topic

Has anyone here thought of adding a simple set of altitude bands to C21. Bearing in mind that the game itself works well, I enjoy playing it immensely, but the lack of altitude just seems wrong.
I have been toying, not to hard mind you, with adding altitude bands of 5000ft or so.
E.g.
Low Power aircraft may be allowed to climb/dive one band
Medium power 2 bands
high power 3 bands
gun fire only within the current altitude band
Missiles, operating from 1-4 bands or more depending on the missile.

Like I said just toying with the idea. After all I'm a gamer and no rules ever really last long before the true gamer starts tweaking them to his/her liking them.

Ray

Hi Ray,

I have thought of it, but never done it.

5,000 – 6,000 feet sounds reasonable, and you could use the thrust ratings for the climb rates, in levels.

Gravity could be added, with a force of 1 to 2, or more, as needed to overcome the thrust of the aircraft, in the vertical.

Give it a try, and let us know how it works out.

Best regards,

Rob

Hi Rob,
Like I said, I've given it some serious(?) thought. However the fellow who I game with cheats. He actually reads all of the rules, :-(!!!! Tim, keeps throwing obstructions out to slow me down. Ah well, maybe one day after I finish off the current project for Enfilade.

Ray

Nope, it works for me just the way it is.

That said, test it out and let us know. As optional "slow play" rules they might add chrome that some desire. I say "slow play" becasue of the development mantra for the rules. I paraphrase as follows, "Teach in 15 minutes, play in an hour or two."

Altitude rules implementation should cause the time factor to increase a minimum of 50% to possibly 150% in my SWAG. Whether that is a plus or minus is a "taste" element for most gamers.

Good luck and hope to see some AARs as a result of your efforts.

Gracias,

Glenn

Must admit that I had similar thoughts. Four altitude bands, dive or climb maneuver changes your position by one band. Power rating wasnt considered for climbs/dives since we imagined the bands to be quite broad. We played it that you had to be in the same band for guns and missiles unless you have a lookdown/shootdown type of missile which in the 60's (my gaming era) wasnt all that common. Stalls in the lowest band are an automatic crash. Stalls in other bands drop you 1 altitude band. We played it once and it doesnt add that much time to the gamea but I am not sure there is any real advantage to it since the rules work so well as presented.

I thought about something like this when we were developing the rules in 2003, but decided against it. I'd be really keen to hear how it turns out though. Unlike some authors I'm not "precious" about my rules and I'm keen for players to tinker if they think there's a better way of doing things, or something that is worth adding (or just plain wrong!) :)

Thanks for the go ahead David.

If, or when, I go ahead with this project I will let the group know the results. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I have a couple of major projects which are at the head of the list at this point in time.

Ray

I think the rules are just great, perhaps combining the air Air War C21 and Flight Leader might be do-able. But that might be too much work for not much payback. The game works well the way it is.

…………Doug

I agree but I say Let him try. He might…might…find an elegant additional set of optional rules.

Gracias,

Glenn

Altitude per se isn't the problem. The problem is being able to represent maneuvering in three dimensions and how that translates into energy advantages and disadvantages. Not necessarily that important for the modern all-aspect missile era, but critical for dogfighting era. At the same time, I don't think you have to turn it into a true simulation like Birds of Prey. I think you could do something that relies primarily on maneuvers and some way of tracking relative altitude and energy differences. (Note that if you have only two planes, only the energy difference is important.)