"What do you look for in a WWII Air miniatures game?" Topic

I am working on designing a WWII air war miniatures game, probably 1/300th or 1/600th scale. What do you look for in a game like that?

The goal here is accuracy, playability, and a true impression of the scope of the air war, in that order.

I'm really up for getting into a WW2 Air Miniatures game – but my priorities would be different:

1. Really simple mechanisms and fast play – for me, the atmosphere is killed by slow-moving air wargames. The rules would have to be simple enough to be learnt by heart.

2. Be able to deal with 30-40 planes altogether. Lots of WW2 Air Combat involved these sort of numbers. The experience of the individual pilot is probably the forte of the computer flight sim.

3. No outright destructions of the laws of space and time (simplification – yes; allowing one plane flying at the same speed as an other the chance to move twice as far – no)

4. Air-to-Ground/Sea rules

Regards

This is great stuff, thanks. That's the type of feedback I'm looking for.

A friend of mine put it best. We had just finished playing some incarnation of dogfighting or another from AH, puzzling through the rules and eventually getting the steps right. At the end of it, he said "it just doesn't feel much like pulling back on the joystick to get your opponent in your sights, does it?"

Since then, I think Wings of War has come closest to that sort of experience, but then it gets hung up in rules that end up being too simple.

I don't know the balance.

Whirlwind hits it well. For me less charts and logs and paperwork is very attractive. Simple yet fun is what attracts me. Also stats and information that covers many of the aircraft that was used. Even the minor air forces. Robert

My 1/600 Miniature Aircraft Wargaming Yahoo Group.
link

Already found what I'm looking for in 'Check Your 6'.

I want good differentiation of aircraft performance. I don't want all the biplanes to be "move 3, shoot one, defense 2" and all the early wars to be "move 4, shoot 2, defense 3" etc.

I want to see a gladiator distinct from a CR-42, and both of them very distinct from a P-51N.

Playability with a reasonable nod to realism. I've played a lot of WWII air games from the Blue Sky series to the Achtung, Spitfire! series of board games. I like them all, but for miniatures, I lean towards the Blue Sky style.

Everything that Whirlwind said is spot on for me, too. I don't want to play at being an aerodynamicist, or a tactics instructor doing a second-by-second analysis of a 2v2 enagagement; I want to lead a squadron at least, if not a wing. I'm not interested in the one-on-one gladiatorial struggle so much as I am n the tactical handling of formations.

I would like the game to capture what I think are the major deciding factors in air-to-air combat; the advantage of height, the advantage of spotting the enemy first, and, consequentially, the importance of attacking from up-sun or having a good steer from your fighter controller. The performance differences of aircraft types should decide whether it is best to fight in the vertical or the horizontal, and whether it is practicable to escape in a shallow dive, but I see little value in modelling marginal differences in perfomance, especially in turning, where I suspect most WW2 fighters would easily have the ability to black out their pilots if turned sharply at high speed. Risking black-out by extreme maneouvring may make for a nice "how far can you push it" game mechanism.

I would like the game to have weather in it. Cloud, sun, and vis all matter a great deal, but are hard to capture in a game, and most air games I have seen do not do a great job of it.

I would like the game to include some model of command control. I have no idea how many frequencies one needs to control a wing, but I suspect that there are an awful lot of stations on each net. Certainly R/T discipine matters, and it would be nice to show that in the game somehow.

Finally, a general point on all wargames rules -- use the language of the real thing. Lets have heights expressed in angels, not in inches, and distances in miles, not inches. There is a rich vocabulary of Bigglespeak to be mined, so have game mechanisms that let the players mean something in game terms when they say "Tally-ho", "Red leader, bandits at four o'clock", or "Harlequin squadron, vector nine zero, saunter".

All the best,

John.

The player controls a squadron rather than one plane. Pilot quality is a key factor. Not hugely technical and easy to play. Damage effects rather than hit points.

Mike

I would certainly look at what the other rule sets out there use . Especially the "Home made" ones. Usually those are made from what an individual thinks would appeal to others. Robert

My 1/600 Miniature Aircraft Wargaming Yahoo Group.
link

Something simple like the Blue Max or Wings of War systems for me.

Depends upon the engagement. For lower numbers of A/C,
or fighter versus fighter duels, probably CY6.

For bigger games (Midway; 8th AF bomber raids over
Europe; Luftwaffe '40 raids on RAF airfields) then
Blue Sky.

Take a look at the Wings at War rules offered by Tumbling Dice

link

and AirWar C21 by Wessex Games (available from Wargames Vault). There is a free short version available

link

Lots of folks hate the lack of altitude in AirWarC21 as too great an abstraction but between these two rules sets are lots of good ideas for simple playable aircombat games.

Al

Well, I want to fly the plane, and I want the planes to behave differently. I also want it very 3-D. So, I probably want more detail than most. I'd like to be able to control several planes at once, so elaborate recording keeping will be a problem. I suspect that I want the impossible, but I'd settle for detailed, somewhat realistic, and complete.

I don't want another mostly 2-D, mostly boardgame, using miniatures as markers, that give a fast game with bunches of aircraft using simple rules. If the rules can be described as easy, fast, and/or innovative, you've probably lost me.

I would like to see rules that use the doctrine for various air forces (at least as an optional rule) so that a pilot (or group) flies like the historical counterpart and not just a bunch of guys racing around the play area.

"The goal here is accuracy…"

Of what?
Flight mechanics? Aircraft mechanical ability? Pilot flying skill? Pilot shooting skill? Pilot time-motion skill? A generalized pilot combat skill? A pilot's 'mood' or temperment?

Not trying to be combative, but an objective seems in order or else the effort has no direction? Too broad/vague a goal has little chance, imo, of reaching a meaningful result.

I definitely agree with John that there is a niche (over which I have wasted many a vacant and pensive mood) for a higher level raid, or even day game where you manouvre formations to achieve a list of objectives.

However, whilst I think that it is always going to be a second best to what you can do in real time on a PC, the one man one plane flight sim is here to stay. Almost every set of rules I have looked at sits on a one dimensional continuum ranging from something which requires a dual degree in physics / aeronautical engineering to Mustangs which is a boardgame with pretty counters. Although I am not sure that I agree with everything he say, I take my hat off to Gweirda for trying to move out of the box on this.

By the way John – was Saunter the opposite to Buster?

My house set, Five Down and Glory, is a detailed set where the aircraft "fly" on 6' posts, banking, etc., as appropriate. Each player can handle 2 planes easily, up to 4 easily with a little familiarity.

I try to place players in different cockpits, like with 2 players running 4 planes, each will be lead in one element and wingie in the other. That lets players keep playing after being shot down once, and removes the "perfect wingman".

The nice thing is that tactics of the time work well. The down side is that huge battles are unplayable.

Grizzlymc wrote:

Although I am not sure that I agree with everything he say, I take my hat off to Gweirda for trying to move out of the box on this.

Indeed. Did we ever see any rules proposals out of that discussion? I am currently thinking of trying to produce some sort of vaguely poker-like bidding game between formations for advantage points, which you can cash in for an attack once you have two or more, and with the option to split a formation, thus drawing more cards, as in splitting on two aces in pontoon, but inviting the problem of re-assembling the formation once combat is over.

By the way John – was Saunter the opposite to Buster?

Pretty much. As I undertsand it, "saunter" was speed for maximum endurance; "liner" was what I suppose we would call "point speed" these days; "buster" was full throttle; and "gate" means using combat boost (reheat these days).

All the best,

John.

"Did we ever see any rules proposals out of that discussion?"

*pokes head up meekly and raises hand…*

My (odd) ideas are there for the looking. I've tried really hard (no, really!) to keep my mouth shut hereabouts and only invite any interested in a discussion to post on the dedicated forum created over on 'miniature wargaming' so as to keep TMP unsullied as much as possible.

The complete dearth of comments on said forum leads me to believe either a)interest is low-to-nonexistent, or b)people (rightly) think me crazy and avoid me like the plague. ; )

"…poker-like bidding game…"

I've adopted the idea of betting as core to the concept. Though I've named it 'aerial craps' poker is a better analogy.

Gweirda

You probably are crazy, but I wouldn't let a little matter like that keep you down. I like the concept, and John's too, my half arsed idea goes like this:

It takes two to make a fight, but each can try to maximise kills (or disruption to formation) or minimise losses (or disruption to formation). Didn't get much further than that really.

gweirda poked his head up and raised his hand:

My (odd) ideas are there for the looking. I've tried really hard (no, really!) to keep my mouth shut hereabouts and only invite any interested in a discussion to post on the dedicated forum created over on 'miniature wargaming' so as to keep TMP unsullied as much as possible.

The complete dearth of comments on said forum leads me to believe either a)interest is low-to-nonexistent, or b)people (rightly) think me crazy and avoid me like the plague. ; )

Can you provide a link to the forum you're using? I can't find it, with a small amount of looking.

If other people can't find it, that might account for the dearth of comments. Certainly I have not in the past noticed any marked disinclination for wargamers to respond to things posted by the very barkingest of barking moonbats, so I don't think that b.) can be the reason.

"…poker-like bidding game…"

I've adopted the idea of betting as core to the concept. Though I've named it 'aerial craps' poker is a better analogy.

Having checked the rules on wikipedia, I have no better idea of how to play craps now than I did before. Mind, I have never understood the rules of poker, either.

The element that seems to me to be a good one to show in air combat wargames rules is not so much betting as it is bluffing, and calling the opponent's bluff. I was also thinking, by analogy with pontoon -- a game I do at least understand the rules for -- that there might be some way of making the size and number of bets placed correspond to the cohesiveness of the formation in action. For example, keeping a finger-four together might get you one card, on which four chips are bet, whereas a defensive split into two pairs gets you two cards each with two chips bet on each of them. Things should be rigged to show a strong tendency for formations to break up in a furball, with the need to waste time and effort forming up afterwards.

All the best,

John.

Whirlwind's list is pretty good.

Even the WW2 pilots talked about managing energy, not speed or maneuverability. Bob Hoover was famous for it.

Now, I personally don't know enough to tell you what that is other than in very general terms. Height=potential energy. Throttle=potential energy. Any maneuver costs energy.

My problem is that I don't know how to translate this truth of physics into a game.

In response to John D Salt:

"Can you provide a link to the forum you're using?"

link

Admittedly (and embarrassingly), the emphasis of my concept-exploration has been centered on the WW1 era, so specific application to WW2 stuff is minimal -though I believe completely appropriate.

That said, my concept/aim is still in the realm of single-pilot control (as opposed to squadron level) where the decisions made by players are representative of those made by individual pilots – so it may not meet your needs / desires. Still – the rules are meant to see players controlling multiple aircraft (or even solo-play), so it might come close to what you're aiming for?

Anyway…I'm in the middle of a 2200-mile move, so my ability to contribute/participate in any discussions (whether here or on the linked site) in the near future is limited.

To LitS:
I use numbers (instead of model position) to rate energy.

I would like a set that is well supported by it's creators and not dropped due to another project.

Also one that doesn't release addons where all you really get is some scenario's but no new aircraft stats….

gweirda--thanks for the link. Just starting reading, but your approach is looking appealing. Nice work.

lapatrie88 – thanks. Still packing/prepping/fretting for the move, so my earlier 'can't do much now' statement still stands, but I'd be more than happy to see/respond to any comments you wish to make either here or there once I settle in.

Lion in the Stars,
Sorry for the massive necropost, but I'm fiddling with a project that's very relevant to your mention of energy management.

Basically, I've been combing the interwebs for climb rate/horsepower/combat weight data to model energy as an exchange of potential-kinetic energy. I ran some ΔPE calcs to determine a rough factor of propulsive efficiency, and threw the whole mess into an Excel spreadsheet. End result is something that at least seems to model the vertical energy fight with maximum climb potential and its effect on speed, as well as the extant sustained climb rate. Effectively, the sustained rate can be supplemented by burning airspeed, at a rate determined by my physics/engineering-fu for each aircraft and notably different variants. Turning mechanics are rather sketchy at the moment, and are mostly based on historical turn-radius data and roughly shoehorned into the whole thing. The aim is for each player to command a flight to a squadron of planes. Bombers will come later.