freeze-frame movement

[noski]

A key point to any discusion about observers gets lost many times. The original rules for observers were written with an actual player in the observer's nacelle. Therefore, if Stephen is my pilot, he can shoot at whomever he wants at the end of the turn and I will shoot at whomever I want as long as my target meets the criteria for my shot. If it turns out to be the same target as Stephen's, so be it.
Two-seats are used the way they are (one player, 2 characters) because otherwise they are rarely used.

As far as the wing gun situation , a quote from James McCudden sums up my feelings...(...The pilot could also incline the Lewis gun upwards in such away that he could shoot vertically upwards at a target that presented itself. As a matter of fact,these guns were rarely used this way,as it was quite a work of art to pull this gun down and shoot upwards , and at the same time manage one's machine accurately" .
The Kalamazoo Friekorps does not allow defensive shots of any kind with a wing mounted Lewis.


Dan

[albpilot]

So Dan, based on that, how do you feel about Indy's house rule for observer fire? I'd say that it comes the closest in play to what you describe above.

[noski]

On the face of it, there really is nothing wrong with the Indy observer rule. It's implementation with groups that don't use the 'no backward move' rule usually doesn't work. Simply because most players aren't paying attention to how a plane moves.
Strictly from a game mechanics POV it doesn't work. All other rules of engagement require shots be taken after all movement is finished.
The Freikorps allows a shot by an observer at a target in the six-low posistion if the observer can roll a one just as if the target were attacking through the the wings from the side.
This house rule fits the game mechanics.

[Stephen]

noski said:

All other rules of engagement require shots be taken after all movement is finished.

In many cases that's true. But both defensive anti-aircraft fire and defensive onion fire have always shot during the game turn, and they even require a special critical hit check prior to finishing the turn. There is solid precedent to allow defensive fire from two-seaters on the same basis. In fact, that's where the two-seater defense idea came from. The mechanics of it were already built into the game.

[noski]

Except you are comparing A-A fire with aircraft fire. A-A fire must have a chance to have an effect on targeting aircraft before they shoot at a balloon to have any reason to exist in the game,hence the special shooting rules. I know I'm splitting hairs and there are other aircombat games that use tracking rules like the Indy observer fire rule. So I don't think it's a horrible rule.

[albpilot]

Aha, thus the specific item that creates a somewhat valid theory. If something DEFENDING gets a chance to fire before the attacker can attack, why does something else specifically tasked with DEFENDING not get the same opportunity.

If one want to argue about the weapon type, I'd like to point out it would be much more realistic for MGs defending a balloon to get a shot off at an attacking aircraft than an AA gun, which is much bigger and slower to move. Why not make MG's defending fire first and AA fire simul with the attacker? That would be kinda interesting really.

[Stephen]

noski said:

Except you are comparing A-A fire with aircraft fire. A-A fire must have a chance to have an effect on targeting aircraft before they shoot at a balloon to have any reason to exist in the game,hence the special shooting rules.

Yes, that's a good point. We're borrowing a pre-existing defensive rule from AA fire and adapting it to aircraft.

But consider this: AA could still be included in the game even if they fired after aircraft. So why don't we do that? Because they would never truly have a chance to actually defend the balloon... they could only hope to inflict some parting damage after the attack was completed. They could not truly defend what they are suppoed to be defending. That would cripple their effectiveness and destroy the reason for their existence.

The same holds true for observer fire.

So it is true that we've transferred the precedent from AA fire to (two seater) aircraft, but the rule was good, effective and desirable with AA guns and we think its had the same result with two seaters. It was a good way to use standard, pre-existing game rules to help another aspect of the game.