"Why Aerial Wargames Suck " Topic

I actually agree with a fair amount of the original post. You need a game that is fast and accurate. The only way I have solved it is to abstract the flying maneuvers.0 I use down in flames [ a card game] modified as to plane type and pilot skill plus a bucket of dice combat routine for combat. It won't be everyone's cup of tea but plays fast, forces you to use your planes strengths and is fun.

Joe

Joe I agree. Otherwise dogfighting is more of a slo-mo quasi simulation and the gaming is less fun for me. It requires a lot of compromise to game, too much for many here, but I dislike complexity as it relates to speed of play. Taking a long moment to contemplate the spatial outcomes of maneuver is likely fun for many folks, but I want the illusion of things happening faster, so less charts, outcome factors, adjusted to taste.

I kind of like Joe Legan's idea.

"Bloody April" board game has some good ideas.

Wolfhag

Tort,
Thanks
Wolf,
What are a couple of the good ideas? I haven't played it.

Joe

Joe,
BGG Link: link

Living Rules Link: link

Video of ATA Combat: YouTube link
The good stuff starts about 20 minutes into the video.

It's a campaign based game with a lot of (maybe too much) chrome. The ATA is what I think can be used.

Personally, I like "Fighting Wings" Tactical Maneuver Grid to determine spotting and getting jumped.

Once a dog fight started each plane is given an Aggressive or Defensive order. Units that are Aggressive then select their targets one at a time worst pilots going first. Units with a Defensive order attempt to disengage. Their Aggressor can attempt to follow or stay in the dogfight.

Each 1 on 1 dog fight is determined by a maneuver die roll and positioning the planes like "Down in Flames". Then determine the results of shooting. Then the planes left are assigned Defensive or Aggressive and go through maneuvering and shooting.

That's just a quick description of how I'd do it. There are many modifiers to determine the results of maneuvering using cards like Down in Flames but letting the player decide what maneuver to use with a chance of improving his position.

Wolfhag

Another problem I've encountered is unrealistic tailing tactics in an IGYG game. You can tail and shoot at a target even if your turn rate is smaller. Realistically, you need a turn rate greater then the target to pull lead and hit him.

You are tailing a plane and he does a loop or Immelman which you cannot follow after seeing his move. So you do some kind of climbing and skid maneuver to shoot at him from his front quarter. I find that almost impossible if you were on a planes tail in firing range.

I think you need some type of impulse movement like SFB.

Wolfhag

I am currently working on a set of rules that combines the speed of Wings of War with the detail (and altitude depiction) of CY6. Please take a look and give me guidance.

Please excuse the crude graphics, this is still in the Beta stage and they are strictly functional at this point.

Basic Rules link
data for the Clause A5m2 link
data book for the Polikarpov I-153 link
data book for the KI-27 Nate link

This seems like a group that knows a thing or two and I would greatly appreciate your input

One thing that I am considering is switching to an eight-point turning system, I started out adapting CY6 and until recently had never questioned the six-point turns. Using the movement discs frees the system from the constraints of 60 degree turns.

Wolf,
I enjoy fighting wings. Not to boast but I think I have a slicker system to determine initial set up for a dogfight in squadron forward. It uses opposed die rolls and gives you anything from head on to a bounce. I agree tailing is the bane of aerial combat. It is very difficult to do well.
Anton, your system looks interesting. How are you going to do tailing based on our discussion? Don't worry if you haven't solved it. No one has except in the abstract or painfully slow.

Thanks

Joe

Joe,
You'll have to show it to me.

I attended a lecture JD Webster gave and he said if he tried to develop a realistic air combat game it would be boring. It's because about 80% of the planes shot down never saw their attacker and deflection shooting was so inaccurate. Even tailing an opponent did not guarantee a shot.

Anton,
What ground and time scale are you using?

I think if you are going to tail an opponent you must perform the same maneuver he is performing and see if you can follow him.

Is bank rate going to influence maneuvering?

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Be happy to, I think you would like the whole system actually. Are you anywhere near Hampton roads, VA?

JOE

Joe,
I'm in Chattanooga, my son is in Spotsylvania, VA

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Next time you visit your son let's meet in Richmond at waterloo games. Should be about 45 minute drive for you. Pm me

Joe

Sounds good.

My son's wife is a Russian Linguist that works at Quantico. We're trying to get permission to put up my Tarawa war game display in the Marine Corps museum foyer for a weekend this summer when I'll be up there. I'll let you know if we get approval.

TMP link

She's Ukrainian and has relatives over there that are fighting and my son has applied to go over and join them.

I look forward to meeting up. Maybe Bismark and Just Jack can join us. Oh and Legion 4 is invited too.

Wolfhag

That is an excellent board! I would come up for that. It is an excellent museum. I like stepping out of the chopper at khe shan.
We could have a mini game convention as long as Jack doesn't come. : )

Joe

With all due respects and sans any sarcasm whatsoever, the immediate group would probably be happier playing a computer simulation against AI.

It reminds me of the time I considered developing a set of rules for an Underwater Demolition Team. After careful consideration, I gave up. I realized that if the operation went well, there would be nothing but a series of explosions on the table.

Same with air combat. If you're in a dogfight, something went wrong.

PC,
Nope. With computer games you are testing your reflexes not just your brain unless you go with Fighting wings. But then you don't get to roll dice and play with toys!
While true that a perfect bounce never sees the attacker I play the other 40%.

Joe

Fair enough.

I agree with Joe about the Flight Sims, especially since I'm terrible at them.

Let's break down air combat movement and maneuvering:

A plane traveling at 100 mph moves about 48 yards per second. A maneuverable plane can turn about 20 degrees per second. So where is the sweet spot in developing a game where you can get realistic interaction and movement?

If you have a 10 second game turn a plane can move almost 500 yards and turn about 180 degrees. If you have some type of IGYG turn system you are not really simulating split second reactions and actions. There is not real simulation of John Boyd's OODA Decision Loop.

The problem I see in game design for 1:1 games is that the realistic time frame is seconds. In real combat you don't get to see where your opponent will be in 10 seconds and then make the ideal move to counter him. Ideally, there is a way to do second-to-second scaled simultaneous movement but would it be playable?

There is a WWII miniatures game I've played that had great eye candy. It used a traditional IGYG and initiative type game turn and hex based movement. The problem was that you could spend as much time as you wanted to go over all of the permutations you can move and the options so it was like chess. There was no portrayal of reactions but it did portray different roll rates which I liked.

We had 8 players with two planes each. In three hours I fired my guns six times. I probably spent at the most 45 minutes actually moving, shooting and evaluating the situation. Overall it was OK because we had a great bunch of guys but we all spent most of our time sitting around and talking.

Then there is the issue of damaged and smoking planes sticking around to fight and why not, what does the player have to lose.

What I'm leaning towards is a game where two flights have a meeting engagement and one spots before the other and maneuvers for the attack, maybe out of the sun. If you are flying an Albatross DV bouncing a flight of Camels you are most likely going to make one pass and dive away as you don't want to get into a dog fight with a more maneuverable plane. The same for an SE5 bouncing a flight of Dr I's. But that's not much fun is it?

However, rather than spending 3 hours on an unrealistic dog fight you might be able to get through at least a half-dozen of these quick and abstracted engagements. Of course there will be situations where a dog fight develops that can be played out too. However, if you are in a bad situation you can dive or climb away (or go into a controlled spin) to fight another day which a player is not generally going to do if it's just a single game. Your pilot becomes more experienced and valuable so a player is not going to a waste him. Games like GMT's "Bloody April" is a good place to start, I'm sure there are others.

Wolfhag

These rules seem to have some potential:
link

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Bad link.

Joe

Joe,
Must have copied and pasted wrong.

Check this: link

Wolfhag

That does look promising. As far as campaigns go are you familiar with my squadron forward rules from too fat ladies?

Joe

No, I'm not, and could not find much on them.

Wolfhag

Wolf, you roll up your pilots then roll up your mission based on your front and year. It will tell you how many enemy you meet and what type of planes as well as their skill level. After each mission there are some rpg lite events that can happen and you roll for replacement pilots and aircraft if needed.

Also I have pretty much finished the rules for boom and zoom and should start looking for a publisher this month. : )

Cheers

Joe

OK, I saw the role-playing part but I was expecting flight and combat rules.

Wolfhag

Nope, it is a campaign system and scenario generator that bolts onto your tactical system.
Boom and zoom will be my tactical system.

Joe