|
Post by kirkh on Apr 24, 2007 18:54:14 GMT -5
At a VDP game recently an opposing player took a head-on shot at me. I seem to remember from various message strings years ago that head-ons are verboten and frowned upon. I'm just wondering if the DP community still thinks that way or if any shot is now a good shot. I asked the person that shot at me about it and he explained that he had more to lose since his was a more veteran pilot and mine wasn't. Personally, I don't understand how the number of missions a pilot has flown should enter into the equation. If head-ons are a taboo then they should be a taboo regardless of the circumstances. If I had taken that same shot with my newbie pilot would I have been frowned upon? If so, that just seems blatantly unfair.
I ask because as we start playing more and more VDP, many of us may understand the rules, but may not know what's considered acceptable tactics and what's not.
Personally, I think the damage and hit charts should be radically changed to reflect reality, which is that the vast majority of damage was done from the rear. Closure rates and deflection play a huge role in air to air combat and that just doesn't seem to be reflected here. In the game we played Sunday it seemed everyone was going for top and bottom shots and ignoring tail shots. I'd think the games rules should naturally draw one to do what was historically advantageous, thus eliminating the whole taboo aspect of head-ons simply because it would no longer be a desirable shot. Just the opinon of a relative newbie - for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on Apr 24, 2007 22:19:47 GMT -5
The only thing I remember about my first game of Dawn Patrol, well more than a decade ago, is that at one point I decided to go for a 100' head-on attack. I believe I learned the hard way that this is a dangerous gamble. I've never played DP at tournaments, etc, so I can't speak to any sort of "generally accepted" code of conduct, but I see them as a risk that may, occasionally, be worth it.
I've always thought that top and bottom attacks should be subject to the same deflection penalty as side shots.
I found it very interesting to read the recent (I believe it was Stephen's) article on the experiment with simultaneous movement. The current rules do tend to present some strange situations, due to the fact that each turn represents a period of time, and not just a snapshot. I think that simultaneous movement would really be the solution, creating a much more realistic simulation where pilots maneuvre to stay on each others' tails more often. However, it would likely be a much more complex game.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 24, 2007 22:48:50 GMT -5
Yeah, there are basically two types of aircraft related wargames; ones that have sequential movement such as DP, and ones that have plotted simultaneous movement such as Air Force/Dauntless. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. If you switch, you just trade one set of problems for another.
Head-ons though present an entirely different sort of issue. I've never seen a game before where they give you a tool to win the game, but then tell you it's not "chivalrous" to win that way. That would be akin to putting a square on a Monopoly board that says you get Boardwalk and Park Place for free - but don't do it because it's not nice to do. I just think the rules should take away the advantage of a head-on attack and make it so maneuvering onto your opponents tail is the first and foremost goal to be able to shoot somebody down. I mentioned Air Force/Dauntless because it suffered from the same sort of issue in that it wasn't the best plane/pilot that won the game, it was usually the one with the most guns. It was that way because there weren't enough negative effects of deflection and/or closure rate. I remember the HE-219 Uhu fitted with "Schrage Musik" was the deadliest plane in the game. It didn't handle very well, but if anybody made the mistake of flying in front of its guns it was dead. Unfortunately in DP it appears the tail shot is the least attractive alternative. If you take a tail shot you stand the greatest chance of getting the relatively harmless wing hits. The only advantage is that of being able to tail, but even that isn't so much of an incentive since if one is willing to just roll for initiative normally one stands roughly a 50/50 chance of moving after the guy he's tailing anyway.
In a nutshell all I'm saying is that if the head-on is verboten, then it shouldn't be provided as an attractive possibility. With two planes closing at roughly 200mph and both giving each other the least amount of frontal area to hit, head-on shots should be a very low percentage shot. Granted if hits are made from the front they're probably more devastating than hits from the rear, however the likelihood of attaining those hits should probably be much lower than if one is attacking from the rear.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 25, 2007 7:19:18 GMT -5
That would be akin to putting a square on a Monopoly board that says you get Boardwalk and Park Place for free - but don't do it because it's not nice to do. Although its not very realistic, this must be considered from the standpoint of game playability. First, (although people look at this issue differently) there are no taboos against head on shots. There ARE taboos against deliberately taking low level pilots head on against more experienced pilots, or taking head ons routinely and frivolously, and for good reason. Secondly, think about this... if there were no taboos against the above, you would never get a pilot roster built. Ever. No matter how long you played the game. I would personally guarantee it. Because every time you started to build a pilot who was worthwhile I would immediately take one of my rookies and head-on you from 100 feet with a long burst. Yes, I would die, but I would only lose my 0 mission rookie. You would lose your ace and I would never have to face him again. You could play this game for ten years and I could prevent you from ever having any worthwhile pilot at all, let alone a decent roster of them. So the general guideline is - and other players will have their own take on this - that you don't head on someone lightly. You head on someone only if the game situation calls for desperate measures and you have a pilot up who is truly valuable to your roster, or if you're trying to save the valuable pilot of a wingman, so if you and your target are wiped out you cannot be accused of cheaply trying to commit double suicide. It didn't make sense to me when I started playing either, but once you're at it for a while you understand it. And unfortunately, until the head on rules are changed, this is the only way that any of us will ever fly anything but 1/0 pilots.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 8:39:28 GMT -5
Then I think the rules should be changed because a player shouldn't have to try and guess how many missions his opponent has flown before he decides how to attack him. I guess it all comes down to what the main premise of the game is. Is it a role playing game that has the WWI air war as its backdrop, or is it a WWI air war simulator with the role playing aspect being secondary?
I guess one question I have is this: Am I supposed to know who's flying what in order to determine whether a particular attack is a "good" attack or not? As far as I'm concerned, who is in the other cockpit is immaterial. I know in our particular case you made the decision my guy was a rookie pilot and based your decision on whether to attack on that assumption. Not that your assumption was wrong, but you also have to remember a 1/0 or 2/0 guy is just as (if not more) valuable to a person that's played only a few games as a 15 or 20 mission pilot is to a person that's played the game hundreds (if not thousands) of times.
Be that as it may, I just don't think a player should have to think to himself "Who's pilot is more valuable?" before deciding how to attack. It's a concept very foreign to those of us that have spent countless hours as wargamers.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Apr 25, 2007 9:35:59 GMT -5
Head-On shots- In our MN circle of players and with 95% of players I have ever played with, head-on shots are normally considered unchivalrous and an atrocity- and the pilots experience level has nothing to do with it. It is even more frowned upon when the initiator has more guns than the receiver. Yes, it’s a deadly shot, but it is not an honorable way of achieving victory in a game that centers around the ‘Knights of the Air’. A ‘desperate’ situation must truly be desperate as well. An example- In the team tourney a few years back there was a horrible scenario that pitted Camels against Alb DIII’s. Late in the game there were 4 four Camels still and only 2 Albs. A Camel moved its max turn away from the fight & then snapped right so it was facing the battle again. The Albs, being outclassed & outgunned, took the desperate measure of the Head On attack. OR if your wingman is in trouble and being ‘doubled teamed’, then you may choose to fly in for the HO to attempt to save them…but again this is rare. So yes, its not illegal, but it is frowned upon by most. Also to note, in 95% of the circles I have played in with long time experienced players, if you take a voluntary HO you become a ‘marked man’. That is, your enemies will go after to no avail and do whatever they can to knock you out of the sky. This can carry over to future games as well, so in general its just not a good practice if you want to make friends at the table!
Tailing- Although it may not seem so at first, actually is the deadliest attack in the game.. Yes, the engine is the ‘weakest’ point in the plane & many go for the quick kill w/ the top or bottom shot. In the long run though, tailing is the most strategically advantageous option. #1, your opponent automatically moves before you next turn. That’s 1 less person shooting at you guaranteed. #2, if you successfully tail them, (which odds are usually BETTER than beating them in numbers, even at 50ft its still a 50/50 w/ 8 cards) you move up 1 table in hit factors. Those wing hits add up quick!! With an experienced pilot the advantages get almost scary, adding extra tailing cards and going up additional HF tables…
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Apr 25, 2007 9:50:05 GMT -5
I've always thought that top and bottom attacks should be subject to the same deflection penalty as side shots. I found it very interesting to read the recent (I believe it was Stephen's) article on the experiment with simultaneous movement. The current rules do tend to present some strange situations, due to the fact that each turn represents a period of time, and not just a snapshot. I think that simultaneous movement would really be the solution, creating a much more realistic simulation where pilots maneuvre to stay on each others' tails more often. However, it would likely be a much more complex game. Yes, simultaneous movement solved a LOT of problems that are inherent to the way the game flows currently (but caused some others in how certain manuevers and diving played), and yes, it was a MUCH more complicated game. In preparing to run it, I did change the HO chart to better reflect what I thought a deflection shot should be from that angle. If I recall correctly, it was: 1 - LW 2 - FF * 3 - E 4 - CW 5 - E 6 - RW and I made the pilot chance a possible instead of a probable.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 10:16:50 GMT -5
AP - OK, that's what I seem to remember from the discussions years ago. I ask because as VDP becomes more prevalant, we'll have groups of people playing together that may have not played together before. One may do something and think it perfectly acceptable while the person on the other end may feel they've been taken advantage of. I'd hate to have people turn away from playing the game due to things like that. Personally, I think the rules should be changed so that "atrocities" aren't even an issue, but that's a different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 10:27:49 GMT -5
In my perfect DP world the hit chart for head-ons would look like albpilot's and the to hit roll would have 2 added to it to represent the closure rates. That way if a player had a choice, he'd choose another shot simply because a head-on wouldn't have a high percentage chance of being successful.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on Apr 25, 2007 11:58:12 GMT -5
I much prefer albpilot's HO chart. I think it's realistic to decrease the chance of an engine hit, especially considering HO attacks can come from anywhere in the forward firing arc. The engine is a desirable and central target, but the first-hand accounts I've read of WW1 dogfights lead me to believe that most pilots would take a shot at any part of the opponent's plane that came into their sights, and the wings and FF occupy alot more space than the engine does.
I prefer solutions that move away from "chivalry" arguments. Those same first-hand accounts lead me to believe that the average pilot gave little thought to chivalry and very much thought to: 1) staying alive. 2) making enemy pilots as thoroughly and completely dead as possible, through whatever means available.
Seriously, in an era when picking off pilots in parachutes was acceptable, going head-on because you have more guns or your opponent is chewed up and spilling smoke isn't much of a stretch; just a bit more ballsy. That being said, I can't honestly recall a specific example from memory of a pilot consciously choosing to close heads-on, maybe someone with a better memory or handy reference material could offer a comment.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 12:39:54 GMT -5
That's my argument. The head-on shouldn't be an attractive, "forbidden fruit" type of alternative. It should be a low percentage, desperation move. If that were the case, all the debates about chivalry would be moot because nobody would be tempted to take a head-on over other shots.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Apr 25, 2007 14:10:53 GMT -5
In my perfect DP world the hit chart for head-ons would look like albpilot's and the to hit roll would have 2 added to it to represent the closure rates. That way if a player had a choice, he'd choose another shot simply because a head-on wouldn't have a high percentage chance of being successful. That might work nicely. Generally, a deflection shot is handled by a shift down a table on damage though, so perhaps keep the same hit roll but shift down 1 or 2 tables to illustrate the closure rate?
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 18:08:24 GMT -5
I just don't think that would be enough. If a head-on offers the same chance of a hit as other shots (even if shifted down a table or two) it would still be an attractive option considering the type of hits one gets. I'd think if a 100' head-on had only a 50% chance of hitting (the +2 modifier to the to hit roll) due to the rapid closure rates and low frontal area of the target it would be more realistic. Not that I'm any sort of expert, but I'd guess a head-on was something a pilot found himself in rather than something he strove to obtain. He'd get off a quick burst before having to turn away and do something else. The amount of time to setup and take the shot would be extremely short compared to a tail shot. I just think a head-on should have a very small chance for success compared to the standard attack from the rear.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 25, 2007 20:33:32 GMT -5
I just don't think a player should have to think to himself "Who's pilot is more valuable?" before deciding how to attack. The question would be better phrased "How valuable is MY pilot?" I also agree that head ons should be less deadly, but that horse has been beaten to death. The rule isn't changing and we're all going to have to live with it. And since that's the case, no one will ever agree on how to live with a rule they don't like. And since no one will ever agree on it, the best way to use head ons is as I mentioned earlier... make sure your pilot is a top notch guy on your roster and that you're not using head ons frivolously or without good reason. And even then, people will still get mad about it.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Apr 25, 2007 22:51:13 GMT -5
But that's the problem. Are you saying only a good pilot can take a head-on? The number of missions a guy has flown should never enter into it. I agree with AP's assessment. A head-on should only be an option in a desperate situation and in 95% of cases should be considered an "atrocity". It shouldn't be a case of "My pilot is better than yours so I can do it." On the other hand, if as you say "make sure your pilot is a top notch guy on your roster" and my best pilots are 1/0's...
|
|