Indy 2 Seat Defense rule

[albpilot]

I just watched the clip for Flyboys. I'm going to follow this up with another message after I've seen the movie. But I want to through this up now:

If ANYONE watches this movie and says the Indy Squadron 2 seat defense rule is bogus, I say they are full of c**p. This movie illustrates EXACTLY what the 2 seat rule was put in place to simulate. Tell me ONE point in this movie where a rear gunner waited while a plane came up under the belly of his plane before he tried to fire at it.

I think we should start a grassroots movement to have this rule adopted as official in the 8th edition (due to pubish early in 2026 if rumors are true...) ;D

[Stephen]

I used to try to "sell" the idea to people at conventions but I don't anymore. You always get (variations of) the same two objections, neither of which hold water...

OBJECTION 1: They don't understand it and don't want to learn it. That covers most of them, really. And you can't argue someone into accepting something that they are ignorant of and don't even want to learn about.

OBJECTION 2: They say that phased movement fundamentally violates the game premise... which I say is a load of rubbish because the exact same method of checking for damage and criticals before shooting has been used in 7th edition AA fire for twenty years. Why is the same thing so hard with two-seaters?

The Two Seater Defense Rule deliberately - intentionally - like, on purpose - utilized only elements that were already included elsewhere in the game. For instance, all the firing angles and fields of fire are unchanged... the critical check prior to shooting already existed for use in AA fire during balloon attacks.

Further, I have stringently resisted "flight by legislation" rules that would require an observer to only "track" a single opponent or mandate that the player make decisions at a certain point in the game. I say let the observer observe and let the player play. We don't need to fly someone's plane for them via legislation. Let people play the game.

I am on a Holy Crusade Against Flight By Legislation. Join our cause. Become a brother. ;D

[albpilot]

Having now seen the movie, it is quite apparent that the observers start firing at extreme range and continue to do so until they no longer have shots and/or are wounded or out of ammo.

If AA can fire when a plane is attacking a balloon before the plane fires at the balloon, why can't an observer fire at a plane coming toward his aircraft. This is not consistant and needs to be addressed.

[Stephen]

albpilot said:

Having now seen the movie, it is quite apparent that the observers start firing at extreme range and continue to do so until they no longer have shots and/or are wounded or out of ammo.

In many cases, yes they did. In the late '80's - before they all passed away - I spent several years writing to some sixty surviving WWI pilots throughout Germany, France, Britain, Australia, NZ and the USA. At times I had ten or more pen pals at once. I also traveled around to all the aviation events I could find to interview many more in person.

Doing so I ran across a number of two-seater pilots... I contacted three Bristol crewmen (2 pilots and one observer) from RAF 20 alone... plus another DH 9 pilot in Florida, a Bristol pilot in Canada and an RE 8 pilot in England and several more. From all their experiences I learned several things: first, that ammunition expenditure was not a major consideration during a fight. Observers used their ammo when they had to in order to survive. Secondly, that observers knew very little (and cared even less) about the results of a fight, i.e., victories, etc. What they cared about was staying alive. The Gotha segment in Flyboys was pretty realistic - probably the most realistic of all the flying sequences in the film and far more true to life than the fighter-versus-fighter segments.

I've got a file cabinet full of their letters and some good book recommendations with first hand accounts that should make a case for our Observer's Defense Rule. I'm not sure if MC will seriously consider it, but for the sake of the game we should try.