"Perfect Pilots" Topic

This is a subject imported from another thread --thought it was tangental enough to warrant its own place…

Top Gun Ace wrote:
"Even some of the best pilots make mistakes."

The question I have is: are those only mental mistakes of chosen moves/actions (about which I agree should have no place in a game --that's what the player is representing) or physical mistakes of the execution of those moves/actions?

Is thinking of the idea the only/best test/challenge to present to players? Or: Is some allowance for the fact that things don't always go the way you want a good thing to include in a game? If included, what's the minimum-occurance that would create your own personal cut-off line of inclusion? (ie: if something only happens one-in-a-million, is it worth having a rule/roll for?)

Firing/shooting seems to be commonly treated as a "not-always-perfect" action --should other things (like spotting? maneuvering? …?) be included as well?

How perfect do you want your pilot alter-egos to be?

Interesting question….one thing that bothers me about a lot of aircombat simulations is the certainty of knowing exactly where one's manuever will put your aircraft at the end of a turn. Manuevering in three dimensions is really as much a form of aiming as shooting is and most games introduce some chance into that. Games with wheeled trollies like M&M have some uncertainty in the horizontal plane. You don't know if you can turn tight enough to strafe that AA gun until you try it, but with the marked sticks you do know if you have enough altitude to pull up from a dive. If your playing on a hex grid you will never missjudge a distance. I don't know how to introduce this uncertainty into hex-based games that would make sense at the scales that most games use.

"…the certainty of knowing exactly where one's manuever will put your aircraft…"

I categorize this as "aerial chess" v. "aerial craps".

A lot has to do with the game's objective: is it the mental challenge or the (for lack of a better term) emotional one --ie: is the pilot's "cool" unflusterable?

"…how to introduce this uncertainty into hex-based games…"

I do it by making players roll for how far they will move/turn: technically unrealistic (from a physics standpoint) but effective from a "can I get there?" standpoint that is the basis for my game wherein I try to create a mood of risk/peril/opportunity for players. Admittedly frustrating for those who "need to know" but an element of challenge for those who approach the situation as a crap-shoot instead of a chess match…

Hi

paul, we have very different experiences with the marked sticks. I regularly see people fly into the ground, and the opposite, people spending energy like crazy and falling out of the sky.

As an aside, G, in M&M all your variable conscerns with spotting and so on are in the system.

Part of the game was derived from my doing analysis on gunnery effects with real pilots. The really short version is that all guns, all weapons, are accurate within a cone that projects out from the shooter. It doesn't matter What the system is.

A close example, lets say you are a kid with a .22 rifle for plinking, or bringing home a couple rabbits for dinner(common where I live in the rural west). Such a rifle, clamped in a vice can be expected to put all the rounds inside a cone of fire abut 3 or 4 minutes of arc across. At a hundred yards, this means 3/4 inches. A perfect shot, a "boxcars roll" if you will, would still have a good chance of not hitting the rabbit at 100 yards.

What I did was push the optimum accuracy for every gun system I could find for aircraft from 1914 to the present. and since I had done this, I produced differning gun tables for era and aircraft. It turned out that, within game scale, you could group a lot of systems together. For example, a given gun table might be a specific system, say 8 wing mounted .50s on a P-51B, but a number of other systems produced the same cone within statistical margins to group. Thus, 12 tables to cover the 400 combat aircraft systems in WW2.

Flying individual aircraft, the real issue is placement. It is like our putative kid shooting at the rabbit. These kids can be trusted to lay on the ground, resting the .22 on a solid object and squeeze the trigger and hit within 6 inches of aimpoint or whatever at 100 yards. A better shot won't take a shot with bad odds. A better, better kid can hit the rabbit if it moves, and a really good one can hit it as it runs and Dodges rocks and the like.

So, the "tactic" isn't the weapon, but the ability of the shooter to "lead" the target.

Similarly, with pilots, they come out of flight school, vaires, with a set of flying skills. Which is what the game does. But few of them can anticipate where everyone is going to be to get the shot. Hard maneuvering is rarely the issue.

A recent example in a game involved one player starting a mile out in a WW1 situation where the target was a two seater calling in arty fire. The escort saw incoming, turned hard to engage, and got everything wrong and wasn't in position to actually shoot at anyone. ONE of the incoming observed to a spectator…"gee this guy seems predictable, I just go straight on THIS line, and in a few minutes he will fly in front of me. And it happened. The TARGET who couldn't see that he was actually flying in a predictable arc, thought the other guy cheated to get such an easy shot by flying in a straight line!

NONE of the half dozen aircraft involved needed a perfect turn. It was all where things were going to be.

Now, I know you would prefer to do other than a pure skirmish here, but we have discussed this. The point being that the issue between successful and unsuccessful pilots is a time/motion sense.

Rocky

"… the issue between successful and unsuccessful pilots is a time/motion sense."

Which is, unless I'm misinterpreting your post (which I will admit is a good possibility!), an endorsement of the idea that flying/piloting skill (the execution of the idea/action) has no meaningful place in a game/representation of aircombat.

I just don't agree that the variation in piloting skill is so narrow (especially in the WW1 era) as to be meaningless under the stress (and possible damage taken) in a combat environment.

My bona fides for this position amount to no more than my own opinion, so are certainly open to rebuke/disproval!

Mustangs uses a hidden marker simultaneous movement type system that allow for a certain uncertainty about what your opponent is doing and the shoot only when you complete a manuver that can span multiple phases means timing is important, it may not simulate the manuver going wrong but it creates the right feel of the pilot going "drat not quite right".

Robert

Air War C21 has a die roll to succesfully execute the planned manuver – blow the roll and certain results can be merely frustrating or deadly. Pilot skill is one of the factors that affects the roll but, IIRC, a "1" always is failure?? The rules are boxed while the Library gets a new floor Wednesday through Friday but maybe I can find the rules Monday.

Gracias,

Glenn

Hi

Well, in my opinion a 1 makes failure way too common for modern pilots!

WW1, errr, perhaps. The question again is in game scale. Is the difference enough to show up in your game?

And what ARE you gaming? If the game is gamer skill against gamer skill, then it would be inappropriate to have a "maneuver failure" roll. If you are doing some sort of operational thing where flights are being commanded, the individual maneuvers aren't important, but the success roll for "combat" is.

Dunno, it depends on what you game.

In the past, lecturing on known dogfights to illustrate points, I cannot think of one where the pilot fluffing his flying decided the combat. At least not the way you mean G.

The "fluffs" are more like the one mentioned about Toon versus Cunningham, where Big C(despite the press a Nice guy), just goofed. Not his flying, but forgetting the mig had guns…and then forgetting again, flying tactics that made sense if he were dogfighting another phantom, but stupid against a mig.

the one exception, might be in the Battle of Britain. The technogeek part, the elliptical wing of the spit didn't give good warning on when it was about to stall. The nature of the wing including washout ment that when the pilot pulled too much in a turn, the stall would snap the plane inverted and spin. Took 5000' to recover. Anyway, the pilots FEAR ment they wouldn't approach minimum turn radius…SOMETIMES.

In contrast, the 109s "deHavelland" leading edge slots ment that the pilot always knew the initial turn limit.

The problem I have is that the exception proves the rule. There are some 300 general combat types in WW2 and doing a special rule for a couple exceptions might not add to the game.

Rocky

Pilot error was common in WWI and is common today.

When a plane goes down today, what is the cause, 9 times out of 10? PILOT ERROR.

More pilots died flying Camels than any other aircraft. It was tricky and a fatigues pilot or a damaged aircraft could spell disaster when landing -- or taking off for that matter.

Blame it on the plane if you want -- I say it was the pilot.

Also take a look at Willie Coppen's book. Coppen had a morbid fixation on the demise of other pilots in the Belgian flying service. Over and over he ascribes the deaths to pilot error.

Oh, yeah

And look at Biddle's book – he makes no bones about it -- inadequate pilot training results in unnecessary losses -- Here too, he is talking about a pilot operating in a less than optimal fashion.

mjc

I think your solution of a "manuever roll" for lack of a better term is a good start. Let's face it: even though these aircraft can jink and jive they still don't have the ability to teleport 15 or 20 feet out of the line of travel to avoid bullets or missiles. They do operate in certain predictable paths and as such "experienced" pilots can better read the movements of enemy aircraft. Still these guys goof. The Cunningham/Toon fight is an excellent example of a good pilot who almost lost his backside because he underestimated a great opponent in a good platform.

What you might want to do instead is to have a "deviation" roll based on pilot skill or experience. For a good portion of the time the pilot will be able to perform the chosen maneuver. In the other cases (based upon his skill/experience) he will either under or over perform what his plane can do. Depending on which way he goes bad things might happen.

One other thing about physical vs. mental mistakes. Fatigue and tenseness can lead to physical errors as well as mental ones and given the modern cockpit environment it's surprising that these guys don't make more mistakes. In many instances modern fighter pilots are in better shape than most professional athletes. Given their work environment it's not surprising.

The way I would suggest doing it is some form of roll with a set number of maneuver points per turn or maneuver period. This would be based on the plane's performance characteristics and could be varied by damage, repair status etc.

R wrote: "…it depends on what you game."

That's really the key. One-size-fits-all is not a laudable (or practical) goal, imo. Injecting failure/flubbs is possible along a scale ranging from no chance of error (ie: thinking of the move/action is all that's required of a player --it'll be done as desired) to no chance of control (ie: thinking/choice by the player means nothing--fate decides what will happen). Games that stray too far towards the latter end of the scale can be very frustrating when players realize that their input (and very presence) has little-to-no effect on what's going on: a GM better have a good spread of munchies and beer on hand (and comfy chairs as well) to justify taking a group of gamers' time in that manner…

The gaming goal I'm exploring is more of mood than mechanics --thus the play is aimed at getting into the player/pilot's head and leaving most of the mechanical flying bits to the little guy in the model.

The threat of failure (and its associated uncertainty regarding the future) is the tool used. A better, more-experienced pilot will face a very small failure threat --oftentimes non-existent-- thus the player will have little to fear and can more easily "keep his cool" knowing that he can (usually) control his aircraft and not worry too much about getting into trouble. The rookie, however, (or the fellow in the damaged and/or poor-performance aircraft) will face the threat of failure more often and must worry about getting in over his head and/or dealing with riskier options of action if/when he's already in a situation.

There can be, of course, pilots/aircraft of varying degrees* between these examples --in no case do I feel that they should exist on the extreme edges: playing either as a superman or a hopeless dolt is no fun, imo, since the degree of challenge faced is either too low or too high to make the game interesting. The various eras/airforces would have, of course, different standards/scales: the 10-hour pilot of WW1 would not even be allowed to touch (much less fly) an F-16!

Dominating the game with chaos is not, imo, a good idea. The failure threat I'm imagining/using is meant to be a factor only in those situations where the player/pilot wishes to do something near the edge of the envelope in order to gain a greater/quicker advantage --"routine" flying should pretty much proceed as planned/desired (unless wounds/damage become a modifier, then even the simplest of turns becomes risky: did one of those previous hits crack a spar…?). It is possible in my game for players to do a slow dance of no-risk flying and, perhaps, reach a conclusion --but all that's required to break the spell is for one to take a risk and succeed and the advantage (and most likely the game) will go to him.

A little dash of uncertainty…a little fear of the gremlins waiting in the clouds…Dunno if that is a "correct" interpretation/representation of the sort of thinking/feeling done in a fighter cockpit, but the spirit/mood it creates makes for a fun game, imo.

or not… ; )

*the inclusion of varying skill-levels is not new, of course, nor is it a game-killer for 1:1 ratio skirmish games where the player is the one figure (and therefore quite attached to its persona/performance) and must pass various skill tests/rolls in order to succeed at this or that action/task. It is by no means called the failure of a "stupid roll" when a knight flubbs a swordstroke (ie: fails to land a killing blow) --walking straight up to face the dragon is the stupid part, and that is left to the player to decide/control --no dice roll required!

Where possible, simultaneous movement plotting is probably best.

However, I like the chance of failures to spice up a game. No pilot is perfect, and the 10% occurrence sounds about right to me – possibly a greater chance for lesser opponents, and less chance for well-trained ones, e.g. 15%, and 5% respectively.

It doesn't always have to result in a catastrophic failure, but could mean the maneuver wasn't pulled off quite right as anticipated, the pilot is overconfident, under-trained, fatigued, forgot to take the safety off the guns/missiles, etc.

"…doesn't always have to result in a catastrophic failure…"

Agreed. I have most failures result in only a "one notch" lessening of the desired maneuver. Other bad stuff (speed loss, stress test, etc…) only occurs if you roll really low (ie: -5 to 4 on 2d6) on the results/effects roll --and you can only reach those nasty negatives by rolling well below your original target (ie: two really bad rolls are needed for something extraordinary to occur in a game).

I like the idea of spice, but it shouldn't dominate the meal.

In my opinion any "average" combat pilot should be able to pull "normal" maneuvers without any roll – these are basic moves that fall well within the ability of the pilot and aircraft. Only if a pilot is going to "push the envelope" should a roll be made.

For instance, a more experienced Spitfire pilot may actually have a better feel for when it will stall than a regular pilot, particularly if he is very familiar with the specific plane (i.e it is assigned to him or he regularly gets it in rotation) vs. joe normal who is flying a particular plane for the first time. Thus the more experienced pilot can fly closer to "the edge" and hold a turn harder and longer than a regular pilot, or at least not stall it as often, thus gaining a tactical advantage (i.e. a German pilot might think he could momentarily out turn a normal pilot, but be surprised when the experienced pilot keeps turning hard.)

Veteran pilots, particularly aces are known for pulling "amazing maneuvers" or unbelievable stunts – its not that the airplane is suddenly teleporting or moving faster than physically possible, it is that the aircraft is doing something that the observing pilots assumed an average aircraft not could do – i.e. its doing something above "normal".

In a similar vein, just because a plane has a listed top speed of 440 mph, in actuality, most combat use planes would not reach that speed due to defects in workmanship of the airframe, skin or engines. Additional factors such as fuel quality, how clean the airplane was or air temp/pressure that day could also affect the top speed. So on a normal day, such planes might top out at 400, but on a good day, might be 20 mph faster. Are the planes and pilots "cheating"? Day to day variation on aircraft status can have a larger impact than the differences of how a pilot flies.

If you are going to add a mechanism for pilot error or skill, then you should also add variations in aircraft quality or maintenance. There are hundreds of examples of aircraft failure which meant the difference in an air combat – guns jamming, oil leak, engine overheat, fuel line clogged, top speed diminished, missing gear covers, radio broken, oxygen mask failure, etc.

-Binhan

Binhan Lin,

"guns jamming, oil leak, engine overheat, fuel line clogged, top speed diminished, missing gear covers, radio broken, oxygen mask failure"

I couldn't agree with you more!

mjc

"…any "average" combat pilot should be able to pull "normal" maneuvers without any roll."

I agree --though in my testbed in WW1 "normal" is (imo) not so hot, so I have set the scale a bit more difficult (a roll of 4 or better on 2d6 is req'd for success…what's that…92% ?). A good pilot in a good aircraft needs a 2 or better (+2 modifier). "Combat" flying is tougher, needing a 6 or better: that's a ~28% failure rate for normal pilots and 8% for the good pilot/aircraft.

Two things to keep in mind. One: the numbers I use to test the concept are just pulled from my…er…the air, and can be changed with the stroke of a pen upon serious examination. Two: exact mechanical/technical accuracy is not the objective in including the failure chance --it's there primarily as a mood-creator (though I believe the concept has some validity to it).

"…variations in aircraft quality or maintenance."

Agreed --obviously a top-of-the-line plane in an elite (and/or well-funded) unit won't suffer troubles, but the "grunt"-level equipment of a resource-strapped (or ill-trained) force will certainly not perform up to textbook standards each and every time.

As with the pilot skill: machine/weapon quality should be a spice, not the meal, imo.

ps- having players run more than one pilot helps to spread the pain of the occassional failure. Since the system doesn't allow for perfect player control such practice won't create a too-unrealistic level of coordination between the individual aircraft.

pps- Mike's WYS! solution to this idea is, imo, an excellent one. Anyone doing WW1 should check it out.

In the rules I'm working on, I'll have the pilots roll to see whether they perform the maneuver instantly or have to add a partial prep move – to show that poorer pilots both don't react as well or perform maneuvers as efficiently. I also want an interrupt mechanism to show that better pilots can take the initiative.

Hi

All those quibbles are correct, but perhaps not.

Let me use an extreme example. In 44 a B17 blew up and the tail gunner, in the midst of bailing out, was blown out of the airplane, fell 5 miles vertically and another 5 horizontally, and landed in a haystack to walk away without harm.

In the middle of a game, a gamer got his plane blown up and wanted to know what his ODDS were.

If you treat things that happen less than 1% of the time, most of those quibbles being such, just what do you do? Have a massive die rolling game? Or do you just fly the planes and have tactics determine the outcome?

How much difference does it make to do the airplane stuff. Are you guessing or just making stuff up for feel?

For example. It is known that if you strip a mustang down, it looses a couple hundred pounds of weight and would, thus be faster, accelerate better and turn better.

NOT.

See, these airplanes would all slow down. The joints in the panels generate turbulence and drag and…

A "bare metal mustang" is no such thing. The seams on the wings are sealed with puttied dope and the entire wing doped in silver!

You can toss in all this stuff, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

If you are playing a game where the minimum speed differential is 10 or 20 mph AND you are flying 4 pilots, none of these quibbles make any sense at all. As none of these details would show up in your game scale.

Rocky

"…things that happen less than 1% of the time, most of those quibbles being such…"

Dunno…I've nothing to go on but armchair ruminations (and paltry flying experience), but I think that, say, an average WW2 fighter pilot could not do 100 6g turns and have only one of them not be perfect --especially under the stress of combat. Having the average WW1 pilot pull 4g turns would, I think, be just as challenging and nowhere near a sure thing much less a 99+% success rate.

These numbers (max g's and success rates) can, of course, be debated: but certainly there is a point where pushing the edge of the aircraft's (conceivable) performance rubs hard against the capabilities of the pilots of the time. Modern stuff --now the small numbers (and higher level of training/washout) would perhaps make your 1% failure accurate.

The bottom line for me, however, is that I wish to create an aircombat gaming experience that is far from the calm, predictable assurance of a chess match where "tactics determine the outcome" --there are plenty (and plenty more) games like that around. How about a little uncertainty? How about a little risk? How about a little fear? Surely these things have a history that can be represented in a game? Not to the extent of putting someone in a hole and shooting at them --but at least putting the player in a place of not-quite-knowing…that can be fun, too, maybe?

or not… ; )

In combat, you never just "turn" – you turn when you perceive a threat or an advantage to be gained, and you combine your turn with other maneuvers. A poorer pilot isn't going to "fail" a turn, but he might not recognize the situation as quickly or be able to link multiple maneuvers together as seamlessly.

agreed.

in my game, individual maneuvers/movements aren't detailed/displayed, so such a "he didn't succeed overall -the specifics of the failure can be any number of combinations" description of the event is more valid, perhaps, than what would be required in a flight-sim game.

"How about a little uncertainty?"

How well do you know your opponent? How well do you know your own machine? How bad is the setup? And the pilot's worst nightmare: "where's the bandit?!"

That's uncertainty. Uncertainty that is not decided by arbitrary factors. It's training, preparation, and attention to detail.

"How about a little risk?"

Tactics imply risk. The more aggressive the pilot, the riskier his maneuvering. Too much risk taken, the pilot goes fangs, talons, tail, and kitchen sink out, and becomes a low speed cheerleader while his target circles back and sends him home on silk.

"How about a little fear?"

Again, implied by the maneuvering of the combatant. A hesitant opponent will make mistakes. He won't go for the jugular when it is offered. He will knowingly choose to not push advantages. Mental states are exemplified in combat, the ACM environment being no exception. What the pilot is thinking is played out by his maneuvering.

"Surely these things have a history that can be represented in a game?"

Certainly they do. And the history of air combat says time and again that it's not the machine, but the man. The "man" in an air combat game is the player. The "man" exudes all the traits you speak of, and more. That is what defines winner or loser.

You can force arbitrary limitations on the player, tie one hand behind his back, but the outcome of a game that looks to present the spirit of aerial engagements by allowing the players to be the deciding factor.

"Not to the extent of putting someone in a hole and shooting at them --but at least putting the player in a place of not-quite-knowing…that can be fun, too, maybe?"

It's one thing to say:

"Well, I fought you tooth and nail, a minute and thirty seconds in I got the pipper-on, but the bullets didn't connect based on the 7G defense you put on. But I scared the jeebus out of you and you ran home knowing you were bested".

It's entirely another to say:

"Hey, my *ace* pilot has been pulling 7, 8, and 9 G turns all day long, because he's got his jeans on and his grunts working overtime! There's the bandit- now for the shot! Two G turn to get a solution.

*rolls percentile for "success"*

"FAIL?!"

*pilot takes a micronap, proceeded by a dirt nap*

That's not fun. That's stupid.

I think that you choose not to believe the mental and emotional factors that, both in the combat environment and on the gaming table, come through to decide the fight, and instead feel that the arbitrary becomes the primary factor. This is false. List off the great dogfighters; they didn't become who they were because their opponent was consistently getting the sun in their eyes arbitrarily, or because the opponent's fighter decided to have a structural failure at the worst possible moment.

They were the best because they wanted it. Because they trained for it. They lived and breathed it. The old fighter pilot line "I'd rather be lucky than good" is only half right- the best made (and make) their own luck.

Getting into the fight is fraught with uncertainty. Whether you will survive is uncertainty.
Whether or not your pilot will survive a routine 4G turn isn't uncertainty; it's below the resolution of a rightful game of air combat.

"Random" happens enough as it is- remember, the world is full of amateurs.

Lunatic: lots to think about, thanks for the post. I'll certainly get 'round to a more thoughtful response, but wanted to put this in before climbing under the covers…

"Whether or not your pilot will survive a routine 4G turn isn't uncertainty…"

A 4g turn is routine? Really…Ever done one?

"…it's below the resolution of a rightful game of air combat."

Certainly for a (well-trained) modern fighter-jockey (but what about 9+gs?), and perhaps for a (got-his--together, under-no-stress) WW2 pilot (though the 6+g turn may be a bit tricky…), but doubtful for a 10- or 20-hour WW1 pilot whose held-together-with-spit-and-baling-wire aircraft could maybe handle 4g's on the best of days.

If the sky in your world is bright blue all the time: sure, but if you want to explore / game in the world of greys, then a bit of tolerance for both human and machine fallibilty is required.

as with all my posts: I'm not interested in winning/losing a debate -only in presenting ideas and seeing what works.

Hi

First, no one does a 4 g turn. It is not like a dial that says "mine goes to eleven" on the dash.

Pilots know how to fly the airplane. They pull what they can in an emergency….but it isn't a set 4 g or anything like that.

Instead, as I keep trying to tell you, they know how to fly within a tiny range that will not show up in any game scale I can think of.

And a bigger factor there is the airframe limits rather than the pilots.

For instance, At 40mph, a Camel CANNOT turn 4 gs. Not enough lift at that speed to make that tight a corner.

Where pilots do matter somewhat is in energy managment. All maneuvers cost energy, and a cleaner flying pilot might lose a little less at a given turn. I think it was Doug Bader in a spit v who was said to be able to turn an extra 45 degrees before stalling versus most pilots….over a set of turns involving some 1200 degrees of turn.

Again, not something that would show up in a game.

R

A lot of details can't be realistically included in a game. Changing aircraft for one: McCudden's death was arguably a brain-fade moment taking off in a strange machine (he forgot momentarily that he was NOT flying one of his "pet" machines that he knew to the "nth" degree what it was capable of), when the engine faltered and he turned back toward the field, he didn't allow for the lack of familiarity, and in an instant he was stalled and spinning in. How do you convince a player that his ace pilot could do the same thing? Again, as a game, we don't concern ourselves with these kinds of random factors: there are too many of them, and considering a handful and ignoring the rest would be unrealistic. So we let the player's failures center on bungled tactical sense rather than mechanical failures or pilot's not being "in tune" with the particular machine that they are flying. Affinity with the machine in a game is a given, or should be, imho….

Doug,
To some extent I disagree. For instance if a pilot knows that he is going into battle with half his ammo load, he will be much more judicious in firing – his behavior changes with the knowledge of his aircraft.

I don't think its necessary to incorporate a bunch of random rolls to determine if an aircraft suddenly has a critical failure, but simple rules such as starting the game with minor damage or difficulty can add variety to the game.

For instance, for my BoB campaign, due to the short amount of time that the Brits had to turn around their planes, often planes with minor damage (some holes in the wing or fuselage) would be refueled, rearmed and sent back up in 20 or 30 minutes to catch the next wave. The pilots really didn't have much choice in waiting for the plane to be fully repaired before taking it up and it was reflected in how they flew their "damaged" planes. Tail damage or engine damage carried over would definitely cause a player to fly more conservatively than if they had a fresh plane (i.e. not letting anyone get on their six or avoiding head on shots).

Ace pilots usually had their pick of planes and usually better maintenance on them, so in the campaign, an ace can acquire the perq of having an assigned plane, thus he knows what condition his plane will be for every mission (damaged or not).

How pilots react to adversity is usually a good sign of how they will fly overall (if they panic and run, they are probably meat on the wing, if they adapt and overcome the problem, then they will probably survive for another day). Something similar to the Kobayashi Maru scenario to determine character, except that most people don't run a no-win scenario.

-Binhan

I suppose it boils down to preference: as a GAME I prefer to just leave a lot of that random stuff out. The dice make the game random enough for me!

Back in the early days of our design work/play, I suggested a number of these kinds of random factors -- including placing limits on raw pilots. They all tanked, and rightly so, from a game standpoint. KISS has become my constant watchword and battlecry….

Hi

In my opinion, this idea of carry over engine damage isn't on offer. or control damage, or similar that would affect the performance. And even if you are convinced that it is true, without a statistical real world base to link it to, it is called "gigo".

If it happens less than 1 in 100 missions, you have no reasonable way to put it into a game.

As for low ammo, I cannot think of even an anacdote for that one.

R

Rocky,
By that reasoning, planes shouldn't be shot down. Plane loss due to enemy action are often less than 1 in 100 sorties, so by your reasoning, planes being shot down have no reasonable way of being put into the game.

If air combat games are going to focus on air combat and ignore the hundreds of sorties, take off and landings that occur in real life then it should be possible to add details that occur "less than 1 in 100 missions". For instance, engine failure on take off is a highly documented occurrence, particularly with certain unreliable engine types, but most air combat games ignore this for convenience. Engine failure on an Me-262 is not an insignificant cause of aircraft loss and yet according to you, it shouldn't be modeled.

Early installation of HS 20mm cannon in British planes were so problematic that an entire squadron preferred to fly the "used and worn" aircraft given to their training squad rather than fly with the "new" planes equipped with the cannon.

In WW2, US Navy pilots would often use only 4 out of the 6 guns on Wildcats to "keep a reserve" of ammo as the switch from 4 guns to 6 reduced the ammo per gun by about 30%, a significant reduction in firing time. In game play, most players would just go ahead and fire all 6 guns and not even consider holding any portion of their firepower back.

Limited ammo, limited fuel, gun jams etc. are all elements that are already modeled in most air combat games. So are such elements as variable engine or structural damage (i.e. inline engines can suffer from coolant problems vs. a radial engine which does not have coolant.) Having carry over or initial damage is not that great a leap, nor difficult to implement.

If your preference is for a perfect plane to start with every time that is factory fresh and fully fueled, armed and already starting at optimal altitude, that is a personal preference on how to play but shouldn't limit someone from creating a rule set that allows initial damage or non-optimal aircraft or pilot conditions.

-Binhan

"If it happens less than 1 in 100 missions, you have no reasonable way to put it into a game."

agreed. but (there has to be a butt…er…but…to continue the debate, right?) the percentage of occurances of non-perfect flying for edge-of-the-envelope maneuvers can't be assumed to be less than or equal to one out of hand, can it? You ask for a statistical real world base link for failure: what similar reference do you have for success?

To keep this all in perspective: it all has to do with how much randomization one wants. Chess or craps?

Doug said: "…The dice make the game random enough for me"

Okay, but dice for what? Only shooting? What makes the random nature of firing a gun different from that of moving a piece of machinery?

Having an airplane/pilot behave like a chess piece has no historical/realistic base, IMO --whether it is regarding firing a machinegun (or missiles) or moving within the bounds of theoretical physics.

It all boils down, as Rocky posited (iirc): what do you want to game? Is the mental challenge/error factor the key, or do you want to include a bit of physical fallibility?

Hi

Yup, it got arugmentative.

Binhan, let me be clear. Yup, I have never seen an airgame that games all the missions where nothing happened. Statistically, about 1 in 7 involve actual enemy encounters, say , in euriope in WW2. Thus, one games by limiting a pilots assigned 25 missions to 3 or 4 missions for a "tour". The problem with your example of bad engine is that, statistically, it is more likely just a mission abort rather than a problem IN COMBAT.

I always was facinated by early Traveller rules where one threw dice to roll up the non-game career of the characters. And i suppose we could play games with lots of die rolls for the 6 out of 7 that has no contact…and oh by the way, your motor failed on take off and you died.

Or NOT.

One way to approach your problem is what we call a "continious scenario". This is a mission played where, pilots that previously fled, bailed or whatever, are replaced by later entries of the player using a different pilot/plane cominatin.

But I am afraid that starting a game with "by the way, you are all shot up on your way home in this scenario, and I get to jump you for a cheap kill", might be a way to make sure no one shows up to game with YOU again.

As for "in combat" I did this sim stuff professionally for the USAF, and found no statistical way to reflect some of these things. That is if something was wrong, pilot abort. They don't discover the problem in combat, except for guns that jam. How often guns, like the Hispano 404 in your example jams, is a matter of easy statistics. Most of these problems, however, aren't really gamable except by being arbitrary.

Rocky

I don't see any real difference between putting WW2 pilot in a damaged Me-109E or a fully operational Hs-123. The game master sets the initial conditions and the players choose to play or not.

We're run Blue Max scenarios with a single "Red Baron" with umpteen skills vs. 6 Allied pilots with no skills and most players had fun with the scenario – sometimes the Baron won, sometimes the Allies won, but most didn't feel that the game was unbalanced because the starting parameters were tilted too far to one side or another.

Same argument for initial damage – if the starting parameters are correct it will produce a balanced game – i.e. an Me-109G that has engine damage is trying to get home while pursued by 2 I-16's. Normally the Me-109G would just blaze home, but if engine damage (oil cooler or coolant) limited the pilot to speeds under 250 mph, then he has to decide how and when to fight as the I-16 will catch up with him.

Your example of a heavily damaged fighter being jumped by some enemy and shot down is just poor scenario design, not a problem with the rules. For instance, making a pilot fly an unarmed recon plane against enemy fighters is essentially the same thing. Probably happened in real-life but boring to game, unless you put it in a larger context such as a campaign (i.e. if the recon plane makes an escape, your side gains campaign victory points).

Players may prefer to use the "best" equipment possible (i.e. brand-new, undamaged aircraft) but that is no different than most players wanting to fly Me-262's, Fw-190's or P-51's rather than Hs-123's, Macchi C-200's and Gloster Gladiators. Again, just because a system offers such planes doesn't mean its a poor system even if players don't use those aircraft, and in fact a game system that allows such aircraft is probably better than one that merely focuses on "the best" aircraft because no one plays with those "inferior" ones.

-Binhan

dunno where the old post went…oh well.

I agree with R that a glaring mechanical difficulty would most likely not end up getting as far as combat --but perhaps a little one that would only reveal itself under sress? dunno.

My inclusion of mechanical contributions to failed maneuvers is reflected mainly via the unknown effect of the majority of damage taken under fire --ie: lots of hits don't affect performance, per se, but do increase the risks of failure so that a player/pilot faces the uncertainty/fear of not being sure if his wings will stay on if he pulls that high-g maneuver.

The objective is to include some of that "not sure what will happen" factor of uncertainty into the game so that the mood is less like chess. Including chances for physical flubbs/goofs by the pilot is a way to do that, as well.

Variable performance regarding skills/actions is a common facet of many/most RPG-style games, and people seem to have fun playing those even though their characters are not always "at their best" as pilots are in most aircombat games. How often such mistakes occur is, obviously, left to personal taste --and game numbers can be easily altered to reflect what each individual thinks feels right to make it fun for them. The 0-error-chance robot/superman at the controls seems to dominate the current game crop so that the game (like chess) is a test of mental skill only. I'm just looking at the possibility of putting a (fallible) human at the controls --one who doesn't know for sure what will happen and is therefore a tad uneasy, perhaps-- and creating a game whose mood reflects that facet of fear and uncertainty for the player/pilot.

Different eras (and level of training) will, obviously, affect the degree desired: A current-day F22 pilot may have little cause to "loose his cool", but certainly the WW1 pilot in a collection of sticks and cloth has every reason to be worried, and maybe the Spitfire pilot in the heat of a furball might not do everything exctly as he would want to parade-ground standards.

The point that gaming such "inferior" troops is no fun has, IMO, no real support since poor-quality units are fielded all the time --and even skirmish/RPG-level games (in which players are more individually attached to the minis) are chock full of characters who aren't always picture-perfect in their attempted actions. Dice are rolled = mistakes are made: not every shot is a bullseye, not every wall is leapt with gazelle-like grace --shots miss and men trip, the gremlins are always out there.

As I said earlier: too much and players become spectators at a chaos festival. Not fun. A little bit of "who knows?"…maybe fun?

Hi

For decades, the Triplane/M&M system has used scenario generators that generally assure the at the fights between "the best planes" are unlikely.

Doug Larsen actually had the idea about 35 years ago with a campaign to do flying as an RPG and have NPC rolls.

And as an RPG, we all have pilots whose career consists of successful photo recon, arty and so on without actually shooting anyone down.

The thing I would object to is not that I have pilots flying LVG C.Vs and trying to survive in a world of SE5s, but rather the concept that the crew would just suddenly discover a dud engine on a mission while in combat.

Statistical study, or just gessing on how common?

As for "in combat". I don't know what your rules do. But aircraft in our system don't just fall down one day. Rather, hits produce a likelyhood of damage happening that can impair the aircraft. This was based on a set of studies in the "8th Air Force Strategic Bombing Survey" of 1948 that looked at what happened to in combat and why.

In last weeks game, for instance, Doug trying to escape from a failed photo mission over spain in 1937 doug flying a captured Hawker Demon dodging more modern airplanes like I-16s got in up close problem with an equally obsoslecent He 51….. the hit each other did damage both resulting in structural damage limiting them to not diving and not turning more than a couple Gs…and they decided to fly away from each other before more healthy planes could get free of their fights and pick them off.

role playing? Absolutely. So, I would think that what you guys are thinking about are on offer, I just don't like pre-game arbitrary.

R

"…hits produce a likelyhood of damage…"
"…resulting in structural damage limiting them to not diving and not turning more than a couple Gs…"

I guess I'm with you on the first statement, but differ on the game effect shown in the latter. I'm probably misunderstanding how it works (I do that more often than not!), but the impression given is that the effect of damage is black-white instead of "likely", ie: once a set number of hits/damage is taken (in a particular area?) a move/maneuver is crossed off a player/pilot's list of options --this lacks the uncertainty I'm interested in exploring/including.

If, instead of limiting moves outright, the chances of a structural failure are made greater by those accumulated hits --and the player/pilot avoids those moves because of that, not because they are impossible-- then the risk of the unknown that I seek is there.

That's the mechanical side of failures. The pilot-error side (goofs/flubbs made in attempting difficult moves/maneuvers) is the can-o-worms that I'm mostly curious about learning what other players would like to see (or not see) included in games --not all games, of course: but having the option of playing something besides aerial chess.

or not… ; )

Hi

You are correct, G, you got it backwards. The observation in the industry is that the first hit can kill, but is unlikely. And as hits accumulate it becomes increasingly likely that a critical system will be damaged or destroyed.

and with a complete lack of imagination, I merely translated that into a game mechanism!

As for the pilot fluffs. Again, we are back to what you are doing in the game. If YOU are the pilot, "stupid mistakes" are unnecessary as players do that all on their own. If the Pilot is part of a flight or group or something, then the abstraction makes your idea valid. But that is part of the game's "combat" role.

Rocky

The only weakness in our way of reflecting air combat is that the good players are soon known to be such, while the less stellar players are also: this produces a non random factor of expertise or fecklessness that is carried into each game: the good player is therefore always an expert, top of the pile pilot: the other end of the club spectrum is always a dud pilot and is constantly getting killed. As our club is probably like most, in that our gamer "pool" is fairly static over the years, the players know each others capabilities and react accordingly: this information would NOT be available in the real world!

As I mentioned a while back on another thread, I tried to design a system where we rolled up pilots starting out: the most common PC pilot would be average; the rotten or dud pilot would be rare; but the ring-tailed killer with a dead eye for shooting would be the rarest of all. Some pilots would therefore be limited in their maneuvers until or unless they got the skill through experience; while a lucky player who rolled up ace material would start out with all the maneuvers the game allows plus shooting bonuses. This system was supposed to give the poorer players a chance to start sometimes with an advantage, and conversely the good players would start sometimes with a disadvantage.

This approach tanked faster probably than any other of my "brilliant" ideas. The reason was simply that artificial limits or bonuses do not alter a player's ability to play a game well or badly: such artificial, random factors merely frustrate both kinds of players, making them not want to fly with that PC again who has less than impressive creds starting his career (like all those D&D or T&T 3d6 statted PC's that you rolled up and shelved/canned until you finally rolled up an impressive character)….

"You are correct, G, you got it backwards."

yay, I was wrong! no…wait a minute… ; )

"…pilot fluffs…If YOU are the pilot, "stupid mistakes" are unnecessary…"

Agreed: I've tried to reiterate (on this and other threads) that I believe forcing stupidity (or intelligence) on a player is out-of-bounds in game design. Having said that, an example will most likely surface where I have to change my mind, but at least for now…

What I'm talking about are not mental (stupid) mistakes, but physical ones that have to do with a pilot's ability to perform tasks/actions at the theoretical peak each and every time. Some other 1:1 games don't do that (and hardly any RPGs)-- the warrior-alter-ego has a rating of a particular physical skill (be it dodging or leaping or …?) that must be tested against for the action to succeed as desired by the player. Firing some sort of missile weapon or hitting with a hand-to-hand weapon are commonly treated as such "dice-rolling" actions by pretty much every game. To me, the handling of an aircraft in a stress-filled combat situation at the edges of its performance envelope is also one of those things: surety of success just doesn't sound right, imo.

As stipulated in prior posts: the training/money behind a particular pilot may be so great as to make such fluffs so uncommon as to be disposable in a game. There are, however, enough examples in history (especially in the world wars) where not-so-well-trained pilots of not-so-well-supported air forces took to the air, aren't there? Other genres field the less-than-perfect forces of their particular era all the time: why do aircombat games have to play with only the "best of the best" ?

dunno…getting by with a peasant wielding a notched copper short-sword is a challenge that can be, on occasion anyway, fun for an evening.

or not…?

any opinions?

as much as I enjoy debating with Rocky, I'd really like to hear from other players…What do you think of uncertainty in a game?

I just noticed Doug's post…I'd write it off to old age, but since I hope to live a lot longer that doesn't work…can we agree on "spatial anomoly" ? ; )

anyway…

"…artificial limits or bonuses do not alter a player's ability to play a game well or badly…"

I don't see the reasoning here. This implies that a good player (in whatever genre) should only be given the best troops to command, and that if, say, a present-day Napoleon is provided with anything less than the Old Guard to run it is a waste of his/her time to play the game?

i know this is another of those "I'm not seeing it" cases…

Gweirda,
A good player will always make the best of the resources at hand – i.e. if given lemons, he will make lemonade. A poor player, even with the best equipment will fail to use it properly and will usually lose.

For instance, in several of our games we have given less experienced players the choice of aircraft to use use in attacking a B-17 formation. Most would choose an Me-262. While having excellent firepower and speed, if you choose to fly an Me-262 slowly through the middle of a flight of B-17's, your life expectancy is short.

Most inexperienced players have this odd habit of flying slowly up to the formation or just past it, shoot, then turn slowly away, all the time coming under a hail of bullets. An experienced player knows that speed is life and would come zooming in at max speed, even if it decreases their chance of hitting something, and then zooming out, because it also decreases the chance of being hit.

If we give the experienced players a lesser plane, such as an Me-109G/K, they will know how to use the strengths of the planes (heavier cannon at longer ranges, increased maneuverability) to stay alive and score some hits, not as many as they would with a Me-262, but certainly more than a lesser pilot.

Part of the problem with "experience" is that there are two learning curves – brand new beginners first need to learn the rule set(particularly the exceptions and special cases) before they can become "competent" players.

The second curve is the overall perception and thinking of the player. Novice chess players often do not look more than 1 or two moves ahead, while chess masters are often able to see 4-5 moves and certain ones 6-8 moves ahead – basically they can calculate the most probably outcome of the game before their opponent has moved. In airplane games, it is similar, by knowing the abilities of the aircraft and pilots, an experienced pilot knows that moves will bring the highest probability of a kill or best chance to escape being fired on and thus is able to maneuver out of trouble or into firing position before the opponent has even moved.

--Binhan

"…beginners first need to learn the rule set…second curve is the overall perception and thinking…"

Agreed. Relative to this topic, a question may be: How difficult is the idea of "I may not succeed" as far as exceptions/special cases go?

To me, the common practice of rolling dice for success (modified in many cases by troop quality and/or situation) is one that should, imo, be easily/quickly grasped by most players moving up that first curve.

In playtests of my game, "normal" gamers (ie: not aircombat devotees) pick up on the concept right away and are able to use their non-aircombat-gaming-experience to quickly move up the second curve since the principles of risk/gain involved are things they're already familiar with. Aircombat players, on the other hand, struggle with the idea that their aircraft is not a chess piece that will go exactly where they want it to all the time and end up in a high-risk blind alley where the only way out is a difficult-to-perform maneuver --while the "ground-pounder" player sees the risk/threat of the situation and doesn't go there in the first place.

Hi

The issue that you struggle with is the concept that of, again, time and motion.

Try this analogy. Any one can quickly learn t throw a ball. The issue isn't if you throw like a major league pitcher, but you can throw. In any combat game, however, you aren't throwing at a catcher crounching and waiting to be HIT, but at a guy running across a field. SOME people instinctively throw WHERE the runner is going to be, some never do.

With air combat, the same issue is true. Stunt pilots have no more success than ordinary pilots in combat. The issue isn't flying the perfect hammerhead. The issue is putting your plane where the enemy plane is going to be to get the shot, or putting your airplane where you cannot be hit.

Really good pilots, say a Galland, have a sort of situational awareness that they track every plane in the sky in their head at a sub conscious level and KNOW where everyone is going to be….and put their plane in the right place. There is a famous to me story about Galland on leave with magnums of champaign in the rear access panel of his 109 that was often used as a cargo bin for pilots in back areas. By surprise, jumped by a raid, he couldn't maneuver with the bottles pressing on his cables (this is once out of a thousand missions). AND he didn't want to do radical maneuvers or even do full speed because of risk to the champaigne! So, he stooged around, never gave the brits a shot, got his own, all the while not performing "to the limit".

That is the point doug is making. On a one to one level, there is no set of rules that will make an ordinary gamer McCudden, or make a gamer version of McCudden into an idiot. The criteria being time/motion sense.

R

Yep, that's it exactly.

"…artificial limits or bonuses do not alter a player's ability to play a game well or badly…"

I don't see the reasoning here.

Like Rocky said, time-motion SENSE cannot be eradicated or given; either you have it or you don't. Sometimes when a person doesn't have it they can still learn it (not in the real world though, because not knowing it means they would be dead right quick). It becomes a learned skill that can be applied in recognized situations….

I missed this one earlier:

Doug said: "…The dice make the game random enough for me"

Okay, but dice for what? Only shooting? What makes the random nature of firing a gun different from that of moving a piece of machinery?

Again, time-motion is the kicker in combat. I can do all the right moves in a sword routine, but if not applied in the right way during the "dance" I am a dead man. In an airplane, same thing. This translates in any combat into knowing how to score a killing hit: and especially in shooting you have to have a sense of time-motion in order to place the bullets where the target area is going to BE, not where it is.

I know that my shooting ability is better than that given to me with 2d6 in the game. Even the players who can't get the time-motion down can still shoot as well as I or anyone else when they line up a shot: that's the leveler in the game: everyone has the same capability (a statistical averaging probability) to shoot in the game. Equally, sighting other aircraft: we all have equal vision and attention capacity; only the dice are the modifier. And finally, no amount of space-time savvy is going to make you lucky or unlucky when bullets touch your "bus": either they pass relatively harmlessly through your wings, or they turn you into a torch or burst your head; again, dice are the "gods" of fate in this kind of war. That's enough randomness….

"…the concept that of, again, time and motion…Really good pilots…KNOW where everyone is going to be…"

Agreed, and (again) I'm in no way looking to impact the KNOWING part --it's the…

"…put their plane in the right place…."

…part that I'm curious about inserting a sense of imperfection into, ie: you may KNOW what the right thing to do is but can you DO it?

Using dice for shooting is enough for Doug: no argument there, as it's all personal taste, right? However, his statement regarding swordfighting:

"I can do all the right moves in a sword routine, but if not applied in the right way during the "dance" I am a dead man."

…is really the point I'm exploring: performance in the heat/stress of battle is not a sure thing. The idea of physical-task-failure (as found in pretty much every RPG) can, I think, find a place in aircombat --as Doug said:

"In an airplane, same thing."

I think it makes sense. After all: the idea that you can't maneuver an aircraft perfectly is no more odd than the one that you can't shoot a gun perfectly. In both cases, a player/pilot can KNOW what he wants to do (and understand/grasp all the time-motion stuff), but the actual execution of the action can be left to the dice by the same lack of perfection in the human holding the stick/pulling the trigger.

How much uncertainty to include is a matter of individual preference. Chess is fun…sometimes, and sometimes a challenge that involves some risk is fun, too.

You've already made it clear (at least three threads running :)) that simulating the time-motion in air combat games is not something you want to bother the players with: and the majority response (including yours truly) has been the other way: we want to "fly" our aircraft in dogfighting games….

This topic has nothing to do with the inclusion of the time-motion sense (at least I don't think it does…?) or in how it is represented in a game.

The subject I'm trying to explore/discuss here has to do with whether (and/or how much) imperfection in the physical execution of the desired movement/maneuvering should/could be included in an aircombat game.

Hi

G. as I said, I have lectured pilots on these subjects and been working for the USAF on the subject. While as a college level fencer, I might not physically be able to get where I knew I wanted to by falling physically short, this is not the issue to pilots. The plane might not be capable, but the pilot wont try (despite those anacdotes of I did things with the plane the designer never thought of. As Kartevelli famously said "if you did something I didn't think of, you would be dead"). You insist on beating on non issues.

The pilots who fall short, fail by not seeing they needed to make that turn 2 seconds sooner than they thought of it, not that they just couldn't fly the plane.

So, to me, the answer to your question is "none".

With dice and guns…the reason I insisted on dice is simple. The fact is related to other threads of where I discuss gun accuracy. The really short version of the story is that all weapons systems can be desscribed as a cone of effect. The pilot has no control over where the bullets land, just where they place the "cone". If the cone is over the target area, the bullets hit randomly in the base of that cone. As an example, in WW2 a P38 with a gun grouping in the nose, with vibration and all, all the bullets will arrive in a cone some 30' across at 150 yards. But the bullets arrive in a random distribution. That ONE might kill the pilot, or that all might harmlessly pass through empty space or meaningless bits of the plan is fact.

Rocky

The subject I'm trying to explore/discuss here has to do with whether (and/or how much) imperfection in the physical execution of the desired movement/maneuvering should/could be included in an aircombat game.

The player/pilot should be responsible for the physical movement in air combat gaming: that's why I addressed your earlier topic about level of abstraction. Anything less than a flight sim of some kind leaves a complete disconnect to the feel of the wargame AS air combat. And trying to assign probability for screwing up -- or just not doing the best you could have -- leaves all players feeling gyped by the dice when their knowledge is subverted by the odds. Better to just allow players to "fly" their own aircraft and do the best that they can, and learn to do better, or not, depending….

"I might not physically be able to get where I knew I wanted to by falling physically short, this is not the issue to pilots."

How so? How does sitting in a cockpit make one perform tasks/actions with a greater degree of success? I'm not sure, but if the point is that the occurance/size of any probable errors is so slight as to be negligable, then I think I understand --but I can't wrap my head around the idea that pilots (apart from every other human on the planet) are able to translate their intentions/tactics to physical action with near-perfect fidelity. Some? -yes, of course, but all?

Choosing to play aircombat like chess is an option: I have no dispute with the fun of a game of chess. Adding a bit of spice (a human fallibility factor) seems to me to be an equally valid option.

"…the feel of the wargame AS air combat."

Right. For me, the "feel" of the game can (possibly) contain more threat/risk/fear/uncertainty --the mechanical movement of the aircraft is not the core of air combat…at least not the "feel", imo.

"…trying to assign probability for screwing up -- or just not doing the best you could have -- leaves all players feeling gyped by the dice when their knowledge is subverted by the odds."

I don't agree. Dice are used all the time in gaming to "subvert" the plans/intentions of players, and they don't complain that they've been gyped (well, they can complain, of course: but without any grounds if the rules/risks are known). Making the little pilots in aircombat games perfect is, imo, a choice/option --not the default position that best represents the action. Having a measure of uncertainty(subversion) injected into the game system via dice/probability is normal, isn't it? As I said earlier: regular grounder-pounder gamers grasp the idea of things not always going perfectly easily/quickly --it's only aircombat players that balk at the idea of making mistakes, and I would guess that that simply comes from the preponderance/dominance of chess-like systems within the genre? dunno…