"In defence of Air Wargaming" Topic

link

Some thoughts on why WW2 Air isnt more popular and solutions!

In our group we have a couple of diehard air gamers in our group – one WWII guy and a couple of Wings of Glory WWI guys – I have a small biplane collection and it is a great game to play with the grandkids

Yeah, I think once you have the bug and the right game for the group, it leads to some very memorable games.

I recently was taking a He117 Grief to bomb Dover. Now the Grief is well known for being very difficult to handle and today was no exception as it drifted closer and closer to the He111 if was in formation with.

After failing to manage it three turns in a row, it came within inches of colliding and I had to split the formation up. Then the engines set on fire and it was time to go home!

Aerodrome 2.0 offers a cockpit-like control panel, where players plot their maneuvers by adjusting speed and picking a specific maneuver type. The player must also commit ammunition to be fired as well, taking a risk at either making a single, aimed shot (with less potential damage) or a full burst (less accurate, more damage if it hits, uses more ammo), or not shooting at all. From my experience, differences among aircraft are fairly well represented, but I'm not an expert on that by any means.

Wings of Glory is accessible to anyone, quick to learn and play, and is grandly entertaining.It captures the differences among aircraft through general maneuverability, speed, and durability in a satisfying way. You can do altitude, if you want, but I think the 2D play is just as fulfilling. I get the concern that it feels "top down" rather than "in the cockpit," but if you don't have your virtual cockpit view in mind, you'll wind up making the opposite maneuver from what you intend.

I think the problem (if there is one) is complexity. If the rules are too complex with two many points of decision to make, then the game doesn't "feel like flying," it feels like accounting. It becomes slow and boring, and the planes themselves don't wind up "feeling" as if they're zipping around at hundreds of miles per hour, but become like static points that "jump" position rather than smoothly fly about. Complexity may promise to recreate the smooth, continuous process which is flight, but for me it does the opposite.

I see it as a conflict between the artistic aspect of the hobby— the desire to put on a spectacle of model planes in a massive dog-fight— and the reality of translating any sort of "real time" experience into that artistic display. The models themselves simply can't be moved in a manner that captures the frantic reality and risks of aerial combat— the mere fact of a plane stuck on an antenna or pole itself stuck in a heavy, broad base, is just solid and slow. And of course, since most rules assume a significant game-time gap with maneuvers effectively "jumping" a plane and its orientation from one place to another, you don't end up with something that feels like the chaos that is a highly opportunistic aerial battle. The most one can hope for is an entertaining and satisfying distant approximation, with the spectacle coming in snapshot moments.

My suggestion is to honor that snapshot reality on the tabletop, and accept the limitations of static models, and for an actual dogfight experience, pull out computers and monitors with a full joystick and rudder petal array of controls, and connect them on a LAN, and go real-time, and forget about the models.

I see value in both, if one respects the limitations of each. The greater the spectacle of models, the lesser the reality. The greater the reality, the lesser the spectacle. And I don't think the two can meet.

I don't play aerial games for all the reasons you mention in your post. And here's one more: a lot of games don't include altitude. So right away a plane that wins by climbing and diving is at a disadvantage to a tight turning plane.

It's the same reason I don't play space combat games – no 3D.

If I wanted to play either, I would just play on a computer.

I think it is maybe a combination of potentially complicated rules, special stands, and movement templates. Some will not find the 3D aspect appealing. That said, I see a fair number of air games at conventions. There are certainly plenty of land wars that get less table time than airpower games.

I'm a big fan of Tumbling Dice's Wings At War series of rules. Simple and fast play but include just enough feel and differentiation of aircraft for me.

Tumbling dice definatly have the market for 1/300 and 1/600 and they paint up nicely.

I concur with Parzivals assessment that a heavy base and telescopic pole can feel clunky, but I do find that if you yell "Eyyyyoooowwwwww" as you move the models and "Dakka Dakka Dakka" as you throw the dice, it does add to the ambiance!

The bulk of aircraft games we play use Check your 6. We have 2 players who have large collections of aircraft.

We used to play Wings of War/Glory but have not pulled that out for years.

Our group uses CY6 and has great fun with it. We use it for WW I, II and jet age games. I've seen Aerodrome played and it looks very cool.

Trust me, 3D combat in space is overblown. I find that it's not really worth the effort, adding needless complication without increasing the "reality" of it at all.

The only game I know of which attempts it effectively are Ad Astra Games' board games, which use an oddly angled "tilt block" on which "box" minis are placed. The tilt blocks can be stacked to produce the 3D element.
link
I've never played it, but it exists.

We do dabble in air cpmbatgames of varying degrees of complexity. Funnily enough we are playing America Bomber this week (a Nazi version of B17) and for some odd reason nweve been revisiting SPIs 'Air War', supposedly one of the most complicated boardgames ever published. And yes,the planes do operate in three dimensions, with 2.5 second turns!

I agree with Parzival as to the simplicity of Wings of War makes it a great beer and pretzels (or soda and pretzels with the grandkids) game – we use it at the local gaming group because there are only a couple of air aces in the group and the rest of us grunts can pick it up quickly

I am a huge air combat fan but find it nearly impossible to find regular gamers to play with. Even within air combat gamers, it is hard to find players with similar tastes. Some will only play with telescoping rods with funky attachments to capture a nearly 3d feel and some will only play simplistic games that devolve to turning games where you guess where the opponent might be.

I also play computer flight combat simulations and have yet to find a tabletop game that really captures the decision making and feel of play that a computer sim gives where you are constantly adjusting your aircraft to anticipate the actions of an opponent while using your aircraft's strengths against an opponent's weaknesses. There are real tactical decisions to air combat and these are usually lost in air combat tabletop games in favor of simply executing maneuvers and hoping an enemy will end up in front of you.

Ironically, the more complex a tabletop game is, I find the less it seems to capture the feel of air combat and feels more like a chore. Birds of Prey is probably the most like flying a plane, but takes hours of play to recreate seconds of real world time. At that point, you might as well just stick to computer sims.

I have been experimenting with my own rules for years but haven't yet cracked the code to finding something that blends skill and fast paced movement successfully without a lot of complexity. I am now looking outside air combat games to see if I can glean interesting maneuver methods from other types of games that could be re-applied to air combat.

I enjoy Check Your 6 probably the most since it is the game I have found that best reflects the impact of pilot skill. For moderns I have enjoyed Air War C21 for it's relative simplicity, but it eschews altitude, which keeps it simple, but removes a big part of air combat.

For World War One I enjoy both Aerodrome and Wings of Glory as they are simple and fun, but a game that really does come close to capturing that frenetic feel of maneuver is Dawn Patrol/ Fight in the Skies. There is something about that game that blends movement and combat in a way other games do not.

The biggest turn off I see from most players is lack of spectacle combined with perceived complexity of rules. You just won't find an air combat table as lovingly laid out as a grand Napoleonic, ACW or WW2 land combat gaming table. You have to find players for whom being an aircraft gear head and imagining the roar of the engines is enough to want to play. This is also why Naval Gaming (especially WWI and later naval gaming) is so often less popular (with the exception of larger games like Blood and Plunder which are all about spectacle).

In my own games I find my scale changes as the period increases. World War One games I play in 1/144. I feel 1/300 is best for World War Two and for moderns and Cold War I have an enormormous 1/600 collection. I feel the later you go, the faster you go and you need smaller aircraft to properly capture that scale or speed and movement. However, this also severely cuts back on the spectacle in favor of play.

This is all just my 1.02.

Interesting discussion. Agree with pretty much everything everyone has said. I think the complexity of the rules and the pace of play not "feeling like air combat" are the two biggest things.
The one new thing I would add is we have a visual hobby and air games are hard to make look as good as land games.
I took a unique approach to the "problem" of air combat games. It had to be:
easy and approachable
fast paced
but I wanted much of the chrome that Atkins speaks about
I wanted actual tactics to matter,
The solution?
Give the players the various characteristics of the aircraft with their good and bad points but keep it under the hood so it doesn't bog the player down.
Give the players the decisions of how to attack the enemy but abstract the actual execution of those decisions to speed play.
link
I suspect Mr Atkins would find it too abstract but a P-47 C flies different than a P-47 D which is different than an ME 109 and altitude certainly matters!
A different way to approach the topic. It depends on what one is looking for in an air combat game.

Cheers

Joe

Air wargaming suffers from several shortcomings (but still can be fun).
1 space as planes can be under each other, even several of them, so "hexes" must be way larger than models.

2 unless you can manage one player per plane, too much coordination.
3 players have too much knowledge of the surroundings compared to the real ones. goes with 2.
4 far too lethal compared to history.

Other games:

Above the Clouds: link

PDF link

Table Air Combat: link

boardgamegeek.com/image/3010725

Duel of Eagles: link

GMT air combat games: link

Blood Red Skies: blood-red-skies.com

Blue Max/Canvas Eagles: maxeagles.com

Wolfhag

JF,
Great observations but most of these can be mitigated/eliminated. Your fourth one, lethality is an interesting one. As wolf and I discussed over a year ago when I was designing, 80% of the kills went to few pilots and most kills were surprised. Realistic but not the most entertaining. So you need surprise to keep it realistic but you have to tone down the lethality of the surprise to keep it a game. No one wants their planes shot down before they had a chance to play!
Wolf, thanks for the first link. Had never seen that game before. Looks like we both pinched the same cover from the library of Congress! Next time you are up in DC maybe we can give this a go. I appreciate the discussions we had .

Joe

Joe,
My son lives in N. VA and I should be in the DC area before the end of the year.

I prefer the CY6 and Canvas Eagles systems myself. I'll have to check out yours. I've played too many AtA games that were more like playing chess. Players could take their time to plot out every conceivable move. One game with 10+ planes using an IGYG system the two planes I had fired a total of three times in a 3 hour game and usually 15-30 minutes between moving. Painful!

Lethality: I've spoken to JD Webster, the designer of the "Fighting Wings" system and a former USAF fighter pilot. He said if he designed his damage and gunnery system for reality hardly anyone would get shot down in the game. He also tweaked the altitude system too to make it playable. I'm kind of a gunnery nut so my gunnery and damage system will be more historical with minimal die rolling.

When I lived in California we had a group called, "Friends of the Aces" who sponsored speaking engagements for former WWII Aces. I was honored to meet Gabby Gabreski, Bud Anderson, Jim Swett, Jeff DeBlanc, Alex Varciau, Besby Holmes (Yamamoto Raid) and many others, including German and British. One time a question was asked which was the best plane in WWII. They huddled together for a few moments and announced with a grin on their face, "It's not the plane but the pilot that matters."

In regards to that, what should be built into the rules is to reflect pilot differences is Situational Awareness (and eye sight) and reaction time (OODA) as Col Boyd stated.

The si-move system I use for Treadheads works the same way for any other type of low level combat, including air combat. Right now speed and turn rates work just fine. However, I need to get on a computer flight simulator to get the timing for maneuvers such as a barrel roll.

I'll be using a simplified version of the Fight Wings System aircraft data cards: link

Pilot factors: Ace pilots can do a control input on any turn. Veteran pilots it takes 1-2 turns delay, Green pilots 2-3 turns delay. This is modified by the aircraft aerodynamic ability to change direction by banking and elevator control. So all of the player decisions use the OODA Loop concept (maneuvers are not executed immediately), not IGYG. In a turning dog fight you need to have a greater turn rate to pull lead to shoot at a target.

Game set up: To have a fair game it starts with both sides in a neutral position, normally head on to each other. We all know that's not really historically correct. I use a version of the Tactical Maneuvering Grid on page 9: link

I think there are to different ways to simulate air combat. You can have a detailed version where the players "fly" the aircraft in a detailed aerodynamic manner with one game taking up the entire evening or a more abstracted multiple engagements that can be fought in minutes having multiple games during the evening or a campaign version. That would be similar to the card game Down in Flames. So if you are caught in a bad tactical situation or damaged you can attempt to dive away and fight again as pilots did historically. In games I see planes flying around with critical damage or smoking with pilots wounded which did not happen.

To get the players more immersed into the game you need an instrument panel game aid like Aerodrome uses. Ideally it should show the control stick position (potentially nine), bank position, speed, altitude and ammo remaining.

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Hope your son is well. Agree there are various ways to simulate air combat. Your game sounds similar to treadheads which we have discussed in the past. How is that progressing? I am between DIF and FWs. Biased opinion but I think it is the sweet spot where you get much of the chrome from more detailed games but it plays fast, is accessable to more people and you can simulate fighter tactics. Maybe it is just me but whenever I played detailed games the concept of "wingman" was never important.
Cheers
Joe

Our group has 4 or 5 guys playing "Check Your Six" mainly modern stuff Korea, Vietnam, Cold War. We used to play "Canvas Eagles" but it kinda died out. I don't play air games because I suck at it.

Joe,
My son is doing fine. He has a one year old boy and is working for a company supporting the same type of SigInt equipment he used in the Marines. He's also been doing training, lectures and pod casts on Lessons Learned and drone warfare tactics from Ukraine to Marine and Army units. Did I ever send you any links to them?

I should have the intro version of Treadheads armored warfare version ready for Historicon, maybe before that. I'm using AI to get my rules written more clearly and finish the videos.

The AtA version uses the same one second time increments. The players do their control inputs, adjust throttle, place turn rate markers (5-25 degrees) and then everyone executes their move according to their stick position/turn rate and adjusts speed for accel/decel. Then attempt to track a target to shoot a .5 or 1 second burst or a snap shot at a passing target, determine hits (use a modified binomial table that determines the number of bullet strikes) and damage (each hit has a % chance of a critical hit based on the plane type, no damage points).

By looking at your data card you can determine how to adjust your speed to get the turn rate you need for an instantaneous or sustained turn. I'm still working on how to do the altitude changes.

There is no initiative rules needed and players are not waiting for their turn as other IGYG games. You do have to think a few turns in advance.
So turn by turn you'll increase your position to shoot. Poor pilots will have a delay in responding giving better pilots an advantage by getting inside your opponents OODA Loop. Hopefully, Col. Boyd would approve <grin>.

Why one second turns? FW uses an IGYG four second turn but a plane turning at 20 degrees per second can almost turn around at you. For me, it's hard to realistically tail the plane because you are responding to his final location and not really tracking/tailing him through his turn. Maybe I'm missing something from the rules?

I think the idea of a wingman is for a newbie to stick with the leader to enhance his chance of survival and be a look out for the leader while he concentrates on shooting down the enemy. Also, it's better to lose a wingman than an Ace.

Wolfhag

OC, sorry you stink at aerial games. Sounds like the games you have tried are very detail oriented were you need to fly the plane. Mine isn't like that. You concentrate on the strategy of how to fight your opponent. Send me an email at the_legans4@msn.com and I will send you a copy. If you like it please donate to a charity since that is what I do with the money anyway.
Wolf,
Your game is definitely detail oriented! You will be giving Webster a run for his money. : ) a leader and wingman form a team but you got the gist of it. I never see wingmen protecting tails in detail oriented games. They fly as two separate planes with no coordination.
Glad to hear about your son, grandpa!

Joe

Joe,
Quite awhile ago I wrote a computer program to track everything for JDs games so I'm pretty familiar with it. The tracking and math is easier if you do it as a miniatures game without hexes.

I also did an Excel program for the WWI version of the FW system. I'll try to find it and send you a copy after I get back to the US next month.

Wolfgang

I don't think you need to defend it. It is a legit part of the hobby.

What is being defended?

Wolfhag

Wolf,
A computer program would make tracking everything in fighting wing easier. Pilots spend months learning how to fly as a full time job and we try to pick it up three times a year.
So you made a WW I version? You have a lot of talent. Would love to see what you have come up with. Your land game is impressive and the concept is novel.
OC,
agree air gaming doesn't need to be defended but it clearly isn't as popular as land warfare.

Cheers

Joe

Joe,
Here is the Canvas Wings website.
link

The developer, Steve Pancrazio, was an aeronautical engineer who developed the game with the permission of JD Webster. It was originally published by Clash of Arms games but he had a fall out with them and is now download PDF. He also did WWII and Korea/AIW games too. I was a play tester for the WWI game.

The game has an excellent detailed flight model which I am converting from turns of 4.5 seconds to a turn to 1.0 second. So I'm not really "creating" anything, just modifying another game with the goal of simplifying the system, less math and less waiting for your turn. I'll be using data cards too.

What I want to reflect on the data cards for the players is the sustained turn rate without losing altitude. Eventually, I'd like to have an AI program a player can inquire over his cell phone what he wants to do and the program will give him the options and risk-reward tactical decisions generated from the data card. Certain aspects will have to be abstracted.

Don't hold your breath on getting a game out soon.

Wolfhag

Thanks for the link. That is a lot of detail. On second thought you might not like Boom and Zoom. It really is about teamwork and strategy. Each turn is a minute so the flying is abstract. You say"I have a zero so I will try to get in close and maneuver.". An opposed die roll let's you know if and how well it worked. The wildcat opposing the zero is slower and less maneuverable. His only hope is to work as a pair or flight and look for an opportunity to attack the frail zero.
Your concept looks fascinating and should work well!

Joe

I'll check it out and buy a copy, Platoon Forward too. I hope you don't mind if I "borrow" some of your ideas. Hopefully, I can get our club to play them.

Wolfhag

Joe writes "I suspect Mr Atkins would find it too abstract but a P-47 C flies different than a P-47 D which is different than an ME 109 and altitude certainly matters!
A different way to approach the topic. It depends on what one is looking for in an air combat game."

I very much agree with you! Blazing Skies is pretty granular, but the differences in game , between the C and the D is a slightly stronger structure to represent the D's extra cockpit armour..although both models have the Heavy Armour Plate trait. As there was fifteen odd models of the D ,there is not much in game terms I can do for small differences, but a Bubble Canopy for instance is a significant advantage in awareness and I can reflect that.

Wolf,
Thank you for the donations! I think I have mentioned before this is a hobby for me so 100% of monies I receive go to the various food banks in the Hampton Roads area. They are all busy right now.
I would be interested in your feedback on the products as you are a thoughtful person. Feel free to poach some ideas.
Tommy A,
As my game focuses on tactics and teamwork the main difference between the P47 C and D is the rate of climb. The bubble canopy certainly increases awareness but I thought to include that detail would complicate the game for little gain.
I remember talking with you about your game here about 10+ years ago. I am glad you finally published it!

Joe

Birds of Prey was mentioned. I posted an event they are having in another group: TMP link

Wolfhag

Joe Legan how can i get a hold of your rules? I like rules collecting and donating to good causes.

FM

FM,
Why thank you. I don't think Bill would appreciate if I posted a link as I am not an advertiser on this site. They are on Wargame Vault. Look for "Boom and Zoom".
Please let me know what you think if you give them a try.

I dropped off the largest check in a while to food bank near our town for the first 6 months of this year; $250. USD Boom and Zoom was a large chunk of that.
Thanks to all for your support!

Joe

I found it on wargame vault and bought. I am in hospital with acute appendicitis so I have some time to have good read!

FM

Thanks! Am guessing you are being observed with antibiotics. Hope all goes well.
Any comments my email is the_legans4@msn.com. Put boom and zoom in the title so I will know to open it.

I'm now minus my appendix and on the mend. I do have some questions but I will collate them in my mind and email you.

FM

So much for observation and antibiotics. : ). Glad you are mending. Look forward to your questions.

Joe

I was a big fan of SPI's "Air War" Cold War jet combat game, back in the day (with one house rule modifying lateral rudder roll).

It was considered complex, but once we learned the rules well, that didn't detract from the illusion of realism for us. I think that some people just don't want to invest in complex rules.

We played on a flat hex map, using miniatures instead of game counters to better illustrate the various aircraft and their attitudes. For altitudes we had to use our imaginations. FWIW, I've never been a fan of those games where the aircraft models are on large obtrusive stands, as that did detract from the illusion of realism for me.

We used 1/1200 aircraft, on home-made stands, which showed attitudes as depicted in the game, but not altitude (imagination needed).

MH

That looks cool! I cut my teeth on Foxbat and Phantom; the precursor to Air War. I was in middle school so couldn't afford miniatures. The biggest problem was you really couldn't play solo and my friends weren't interested in air combat.
Still fun at the time.
I have jet rules for Boom and Zoom. The scenarios with ME 262s aren't that fun. ( Bomber vrs jet or shoot the jet down as it lands) At some point I will take the system into the modern age.

Cheers

Joe