"Paragraph-style Flying Tigers Campaign; good or bad?" Topic

All,

Yesterday we play-tested a Flying Tigers Campaign for Watch Your Six (by Mark Fastoso) that is driven by paragraph-based decisions. Basically, players read a set of paragraphs and are asked to make decisions that were historically faced by both sides. When decisions are made, they may have an impact on the following scenario forces or set-up etc.

The Flying Tigers mini-campaign will have four scenarios with about 50 possible paragraphs of decisions for each side. The mini-campaign will be included as part of the Watch Your Six! rules (www.skirmishcampaigns.com).

Since this sort of thing has really never been done – what are your opinions about it? We are in the process of doing the same sort of thing for Guadalcanal and are considering it for Midway.

Cheers,
Scott Fisher (and Mark Fastoso)

It sounds like a blast. 50 paragraphs is a lot of work, should make for some interesting decisions.

Love to know how it goes.

Yes – 50 paragraphs per side is a LOT of work (just ask Mark…). This is one of the reasons why I was hoping that we might have a discussion to see how many folks might actually be interested in a campaign like this.

However, it makes for a fun and realistic game that almost is never the same. In our recent game, it was especially fun as we played since Mark was able to add some extra color to the paragraphs by explaining the historical details behind each decision that the players were being asked to make. We finished all four scenarios in about 5-6 hours so it makes a great campaign for the day.

Cheers,
Scott

While I'm not particularly interested in gaming this conflict, the general concept of running a campaign in this way does interest me.

I wonder if it could be applied to future land-based Skirmish Campaign books? That might be cool.

Sounds interesting,but my question is what scale will the paragraphs be at for the campaign?

Judging from the little info I assume the paragraphs will be at tactical or operational level since WYS! is a tactical aerial game.

Thanks,
MD

Hey Scott,

Getting back to last month's discussion on the WYS! campaign supplements,which ones do you think will be published first? Still looking at summer release date?

Thanks,
MD

MD-

The paragraphs focus on decisions made by the squadron and wing commanders – these decisions then influence how the scenario is set up. Also, over the course of the campaign, aircraft losses and bombing successes might influence starting forces.

As of right now, the Battle of Britain scenario book will be published with the rules in June 2007 with the Guadalcanal or Italian Med Ace book soon after. Summer release date still a "go" as I need to get it done by then! Actually, playtesting and editing this vacation period has pretty much wrapped up the rules, now we are just doing final edits.

Cheers,
Scott

Thanks,Scott for the update.Looking forward to picking these up in summertime.Hope to see the Italian Med Ace book soon after myself.

MD

What is Whatch your six? Any preview out there?. Despite that it seems quite interesting.

Crusher100-

See skirmishcampaigns.com

for details about WY6!

Scott

Hey looks great.

How would you differentiate your rules from Bah the Hun rules or Luftwaffe 1946?. When they are going to be released? Any preview or demo rules?

Crusher –

They are a bit more involved than Bag the Hun (a fun game by the way). I have not played Luftwaffe 1946 so I can't comment on that. However, they were written because I was not fully satisfied with the Blue Sky series.

The biggest difference is probably that players must note their moves in advance (ala Blue Max or Wooden Ships and Iron Men) then are moved nearly simultaniously on the table. The other big difference is probably the ease of the firing system, though I will say that it was the biggest single challenge to get it right!

Cheers,
Scott

PS -- Sorry. The rules will be released this summer, most likely late June.

I played this campaign on a vist to Scott's. I took control of the Allies, with a subordinate, and we tried to make decisions based on what we thought was reasonable and historical.

We had a great time (the players of both sides were familiar with the rules), and we tried to play using proper historical tactics. This left a frustrated Japanese player, as we refused to dogfight. Something the Flying Tigers learned quite quickly. Dive in, shoot a bomber (hopefully), zoom climb, repeat dive through the bombers and down to safety. Usually just as the Jap fighters got into position.

We noted that with the context of the campaign, players naturally made much more historical decisions, because of the impact their choices made on future games. It also gave each air battle real tension, because of the possible consequences of a poor decision or an un/lucky shot.

Nick

Nick,can you give some details about the actual mechanics of the campaign game please?

Thanks,
MD

Hi MD,

Both commanders were given a campaign booklet (I think that is the best way to describe it). This set out the basic context, which was based on the Japanese raids on Rangoon in and around Christmas, 1941.

The next section explained what the mission was, and what forces were available to us (or not). We were also provided with the rough paramaters of what was required to win the game too.

As commander, my job was to read the first paragraph, and then make one of the choices on offer. Typically: patrol over home base, try to intercept, dealy and wait for help, etc.

Each choice had a relevant paragraph number that then needed to be read. The key was to not read ahead, as this would have spoilt the game.

The new paragraph might have another choice to be made, or might send you right to the scenario. The scenario set up and special conditions would be altereted depending on the choice of the two sides.

For example; in two of the four games we got the jump on the Japanese (once with the aid of some British aircraft). In one game, I held on too long waiting for help and had to take on bombers with a large fighter escort (one pass and dive away was the only sensible option).

We had a limited amount of casualties we could take, and we knew roughly what we had to do to the Japanese to gain a victory. This was great because it got rid of the problem (that frequently occurs in air games without a context ), of everyone fighting until there is no more ammo and/or no more planes.

The scenarios were linked, in that, if we had copped a packet in one, we would have to be very much more cagey in the next. Etc.

Hope this helps,

Nick

Nick,

Very helpful,thank you so much.Plan on getting these when they are released.Sounds like exactly what I am looking for.

MD

MD,

No problem. I have to admit I have had a very limited input into the rules design, so I do not want to appear as though I am pushing something I am benefitting from. I am not.

Except for the odd shared bottle of east european booze and some weird kung fu card games…

Nick

Nick,

The Kung Fu game was NOT weird…

Scott