"Miniatures rules?" Topic

Hello all,
I grew up playing FITS/Dawn Patrol(and loved it!) and after 30 years have recently become interested in gaming the period using miniatures so I'm looking for good miniatures rules. I am aware of WoW/WoG and the Blue Max versions, but what else is out there?

I think I still have Ragwing Warbirds.
I can let it go for $20 USD, including shipping in the USA.

There is a free set of rules on he internet based on the Blue Sky series of WWII rules that is pretty decent, called Blue Skies, Wood and Canvas. There is also another set of miniatures rules called Red Baron.

Algernon Pulls It Off from the TooFatLardies is undergoing a re-write at the moment. I have played the original many times and it is a brilliant set of rules for Great War air combat.

They do a World War II set as well called Bag the Hun!

Canvas Eagles.

Check out the Yahoo Group, for a free set of rules, which is quite good.

Canvas Eagles as mentioned above and Hostile Aircraft. I probably prefer Canvas Eagles on the playability side of things. We play CE here in San Antonio with 1/144th scale planes and used to play 1/300th scale for Hostile Aircraft.

Have heard good things about Wing of War/Glory though. I have some of the first generation planes that I bought to use for Canvas Eagles but have been contemplating Wings of Glory as well.

Aces at Dawn by Majestic Twelve games they have a demo on their website.

There's some free one's as recommended above on the WW1 page of my site:
link

Thanks you all for the suggestions, I'll have a look. I picked up WoG and will do a a trial but I'm a bit skeptical regarding the random card damage results and all the chits/tokens required to keep track of things. I've downloaded Canvas Eagles and it looks usable (except for the whole hex thing). I remember trying Blue Max as a board game and quickly went back to DP.
@OFM- I hadn't heard of this set, who and when was it produced.
@Sundance- Red Baron, by Emperors Press(out-of-print) is available from Amazon but can you tell me anything more about them? I'm looking for a set that has both realistic flight/combat as well as the role playing aspects of DP. If DP was a miniatures set I'd use it-hmmm, maybe with some modifications. "Baldric, I have a cunning plan"

There is also a quick play set in Tumbling Rice's Wings At War rules series. If they are like the other WAW sets, they are very good, 3D and based on "energy" levels (I.e. certain maneuvers require a minimum energy level for the plane to be at and leave you at a different energy and speed level) . Sounds complicated but its very simple to learn and makes handling the plane a little more difficult than pulling a card from a deck.

Another vote here for Algernon. I'm one of the play testers for the upcoming hexless version and it's a hoot, and is ready made for running campaigns or linking games together via character growth from sprog (rookie) to Top Ace (if you can get him that far).

"Watch Your Six" is made for roleplaying since pilot skill is the driving force of gameplay.

It's hard to answer a desire for realistic flight/combat without knowing what part(s) you want to have represented. WYS produces realistic choices/results but without a flight-sim style movement system (common to most/all other games), so it's perhaps difficult to get your head around.

In the same way, my (very strange and mostly unpopular) homemade game doesn't have players flying the aircraft (in the 'pick a movement/maneuver' way), but concentrates instead on the combat aspect (instead of flight) influenced by pilot skill (much as most/all RPGs treat, say, hand-to-hand combat).

Lots of choices out there, that's for sure – and that can't be anything but a good thing!

Don
(copy of FITS packed away somewhere…along with fond memories of a Sunday morning 'Dawn Patrol' at a GenCon in the 70's…)

Watch Your Six! and Dons ruleset as described above ( link is very good options if you want games that tells stories and where the focus is on combat and not flight simulation.

If you can get a copy of Hostile Aircraft this is a VERY solid and well researched set of rules (and the excellent scenario book…
TMP link

The new Algy if you can live with that odd and somewhat abstract mechanic that ace pilots get more movement cards (and thus flies much faster in the same machine) than lower ranked pilots.

Wings of War if you can live with that very simplistik representation of turn rates and energy and the 3 movement cards "pre-programmed" (aka no player influence) mechanic. – But gameplay is fast.

Shameless self plugging: If you want full 3d in a mix of focus on combat/piloting and simulation (including energy management) then download In Clouds of Glory (its free).. Downside: Preparing the game materials and the full 3d hexless environment takes some getting used to.
icog.dk/ICOG/Main_page.html

Bunches of picture rich AARs here: link

Canvas Eagles. A favorite in our group. Played a 2-year campaign using the rules in the book plus some house rules. I use the Axis and Allies hex maps (3"?) covered in plexiglass. Also use the telescoping mag pick-up tool with full rotate/tilt capability. Built clouds, etc.

We like the plot and simultaneous move aspect, as well as the narrow fire arc. Can play a whole game without firing a shot in anger, and still have a blast dodging all your enemies.

Temptation (ie: Tanqueray Rangpur gin) has defeated my better nature…

"We like the plot and simultaneous move aspect…"

How (if at all) does this correspond to the OP author's request for "a set that has…realistic flight/combat…" ??

What part of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock' encompasses the mood/decision-making point of a WW1 fighter pilot?

PS- No, really: I'm sincerely interested in opinions/reasonings on this subject. Is "guess where I'm going to be" the hide-and-seek end result of current/popular game design? How do the game mechanics of WoG (or CY6 or BM or CE or whatever) reflect/represent the decisions made by the pilots at the time?…and by extension: the players gaming the game?

Well…the only answer I have to that is we like it.

PS- No really, no game can adequately represent decisions made pilots in a life-or-death situation. The closest mechanic some systems have is a reaction based system if you are in a tailing position. Also, we have a house rule where more exeprienced pilots have several advantages over those less so. This entails moving last, slight order adjustments, etc.

And how does "guess where I'm going to be" NOT represent air combat decisions? It's not like the opposing pilots tell where they are going to be. Anticipation and the ability to guess correctly based on pilot experience (not to mention experience at effective aerial gunnery) makes all the difference.

In the end, its a game…just gave my opinion (like many here)on my favorite system.

It's not like the opposing pilots tell where they are going to be.

Canvas Eagles has a feature that does just that. Well, not completely like that, but close enough. If you play it then read the rules on Tailing. If you get successfully 'Tailed' then you have to inform (only) the tailing player whether you intend to turn right, left or fly straight ahead in the next move. Of course, if your aircraft is agile enough you will have several choices of right/left turns etc., so your opponent will not know exactly where you will end the turn.

"…the only answer I have to that is we like it."

Absolutely no argument with that – there is, imo, no greater value in judging a game. Fun is fun…case closed.

however… ; )

"…no game can adequately represent decisions made pilots in a life-or-death situation.

I agree…but games are (some of them, at least) determined attempts to do just that – at least to simulate some facet of the decisions made. The issue I question is how the answer to "guess where I'm going to be?" is treated in a game.

Is asking a player to pick a maneuver number (or card or whatever) a reflection of a pilot's thinking/decision-making? Is such a conscious, determined process occurring in the split-second environment of aircombat?

Put a timer on it and/or give him/her hints/clues as to the opponent's potential moves…it doesn't alter the fact that you've taken an almost instantaneous, instinctive, visceral (re)action based on training/experience/environment and made it a deliberate/conscious plot/move that (imo) has no equivalent in the real world, and so I put the question again:

What part of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock' encompasses the mood/decision-making point of a WW1 fighter pilot?

Fun in a game that involves moving model aircraft around a tabletop? Not a problem…and not the issue.

The issue/question concerns a reflection of how to "adequately represent decisions made pilots", and the specific answer "I'll go there" is not, imo, one a pilot makes.

Ornery? yeah…but it's the internets…and I really want to understand/learn, so perhaps a few rough edges will be forgiven? Or I'll just get more stifles…

Some time spent pondering.

"…how to "adequately represent decisions made pilots", and the specific answer "I'll go there"…"

I can see/understand that placing oneself into a particular position/facing is a goal of a pilot, and that 'choose a maneuver' game-mechanics address that decision, but…

I fail to see/understand how the specific choosing (picking of a maneuver number/card/whatever…or even the particular manipulation/movement of the miniature in a non-si-move game) reflects that decision in a way that resembles the one made by the pilot. Pilots don't (consciously) think 'wingover' or 'this card' or 'move #28' so why should gamers?

Because its great fun…and we do it just to you off….;^)

Not unless you are playing solo. You must find someone to play against. That someone must have the same or nearly same aptitude as yourself to play comlex rule sets.

That is why I play WOG.

You can always change some of the rules to met your requirement/to make the easier or more complex.

I do not like the automatic fixes/multitude chit system.

Changes:
1. Fires only go out if you draw a 0 when taking fire damage.
2. left/right turn damages. Randomly take a left or right turn out permanetly. Example: If you get a 2 damage no left turn shuffle your deck and the next 2 left arrows to out for the rest of the game.
3. smoke never goes away. If second one is drawn plane crashes.

Sincely

"You can always change some of the rules to met your requirement/to make the easier or more complex."

Agreed. Including a particular facet in a game is always, imo, up to the players and depends on whether they think it is worth the time to represent in the process of playing the game. Like fun, complexity is a matter of personal taste: one person's tedious drudgery dealing with arcane charts/die rolls/whateever is another's enjoyment of determining an essential element of the action.

In response to the earlier "Because its great fun…", I'd say that's an excellent (if the not the only real) answer to 'Why can gamers?(move/point the models)'. I was trying to ask 'Why should they?' in the sense of it being a requirement in the genre. I firmly believe you can have fun with such games (and have done so for many years) – I just don't think you have to do it to have fun gaming the genre, and am interested in exploring the idea with the goal of expanding the roads to fun that could be had.

Rather than add to the already huge 'point to shoot' pie (however tasty it may be), how about making a new pie – borrowing ingredients from other genres that seem to taste good when used in their kitchens? More pie…mmmm, pie…

Some people perfer apple and some perfer pumpkin and most times never the twan shall meet.

Because some people perfer apple and some perfer pumpkin and most times never the twan shall meet.

Agreed – but some may like both, and there may be some who like pumpkin but don't find it in the genre's only-apple-menu, and giving them the choice (that doesn't currently exist) can only be positive?