joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 23, 2007 17:13:38 GMT -5
Hi guys,
Ok this is my next house rules subject. I know that some use it and some don't. I'd also love to hear if this is in VDP.
Who utilizes this rule and if your group uses it do you know why?
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 24, 2007 9:32:18 GMT -5
We allow defense if the attacker comes in from the front three squares.
|
|
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 May 24, 2007 10:32:04 GMT -5
We allow it regardless of entry direction (there is nothing in the 7ed rules that says front 3 squares and there is no logical reason from our point of view to limit it to that). I'm sure Stephen can expand upon that if you would like more detail.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 24, 2007 12:11:37 GMT -5
I'd love more detail Please.
I'd like to try and get us all on the same page with these house rules. It may not happen but I still think its worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 24, 2007 13:30:41 GMT -5
Well, I guess we have the 'front three' rule because it was not a simple task to swing the gun upwards and target, it took thought and effort. You cant really shoot what you cant see either, so our logic is you have to see a target before you can shoot at it.
|
|
|
Post by bergovoy on May 24, 2007 17:15:43 GMT -5
Front 3 is the standard in Wisconsin as well, and Mike has discussed maybe having it the new edition.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 24, 2007 23:22:01 GMT -5
|
|
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 May 25, 2007 13:13:38 GMT -5
Front 3 is the standard in Wisconsin as well, and Mike has discussed maybe having it the new edition. See, that's the thing that gets me started. Front three is standard in Wisconsin, so it must be RIGHT, no discussion. There is no explanation of how such a rule came to be and no attempt to defend why it is thought to be a good idea. I love it when proponents of the 'freeze frame' try to use a 20-second continuous mind set to explain why one arbitary rule is good yet use a freeze frame approach to explain why another rule is bad. If there were any sort of reasoned logical approach to determining if a rule is suitable or not and was applied to ALL such rules, we might not have the bunch of wacky house rules we have now. Finally, a question. How do you determine 'front 3' in a nose up or nose down plane. If Ken flies an se5a to take a top shot on Stephen and I come in from the side to take a top shot on Ken, did I come in from the first 3 squares? In my play with people who use the front 3 square rule, they just automatically assume they have a HO shot, whether I came in from the 'front 3' squares or not. Convenient for them to have that ruling, isn't it? Sorry, I get a bit fired up at things that don't make a lot of sense to me but are presented as laws of nature.
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 25, 2007 14:01:28 GMT -5
A nose up or nose down aircraft would be irrelevant. You cannot fly nose up or nose down unless you are attacking a target. You cannot switch targets unless a H-O is initiated. So this is not an issue. For the MN group it doesnt matter if you 'freeze frame' it or not its simply a matter of you cannot defend against something you dont see, unless you have eyes in the back of your head!
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 25, 2007 14:16:50 GMT -5
If WWI pilots could not look to the rear, every last one of them would have died.
Odd thing is, the term you used is exactly the same term used in WWI. Young pilots were told that if they didn't "have eyes in the back of their head" that they'd be dead in a week.
Many pilots were coached to look to the rear every ten seconds... consider for a moment that such a pilot would have checked his "six" three times in every game turn under those circumstances. And some pilots actually developed spinal problems from looking behind to the left and the right constantly... not even waiting ten seconds.
I really believe that the "front three square" thing is a faulty concept built on incorrect assumptions and the very foundation of the rule crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.
If return fire from wing guns is to be allowed, it must be allowed from any angle. If it is to be disallowed, it must be disallowed on the far more realistic premise that moving the Lewis gun up or down required most of the twenty seconds allotted in each game turn.
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 25, 2007 14:46:24 GMT -5
Yes, on a long patrol while in formation this was SOP. In a dogfight its a different story. Dogfights are a completely situational occurance, so its silly to try and argue the right and wrong of it, but the avg. fighter would MOST of the time be paying attention to getting on someones tail and not colliding with others in the fray. It would take quite the calm, collected reaction of a pilot in a tight battle to recognize that another aircraft in this 'web' was moving in from behind and above for an attack and have the presence of mind to position themselves to attack, all the while not colliding with others in front of you AND flying your plane.
I think the real arguement for the front 3 is that the Lewis gun could not be pulled back any further than a 90 degree angle, so it makes more logical sense that it would be used in defense at aircraft attacking form the front, and angle which the gun could actually get to. If you cant point the gun at the plane you cant shoot at it.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 25, 2007 14:47:50 GMT -5
Hey guys,
Ok I've read through the freeze framing post. It seems to me to come down to the same thing. realism VS. playability.
I'm sure that pilots did rotate thier guns to try for the shot straight up, I'm just unconvinced about how effective it was.
Ok that being said I do not see how the physics work unless you come in from the front three squares.
I'll say right now before I start my argument that I am not an aviation historian. I find DP to be just a game I enjoy. So feel free to correct any assumptions I make about anything. Chuckles.
Ok here we go. I'm quite sure that any surviving pilot did check his six on a regular basis. But that gun only rotates up 90 degrees. So in the 20 seconds that I dive on the attacking plane and fire upon it my opponant rotates his gun up. But I am still behind him. Unless he pulls back on the stick to rotate his firing platform (the plane) to a more advantagous angle he still can't shoot at me, I am out of his firing arc. I personally can not walk and chew gum at the same time. And for those of you who have met me you know this to be true. (Grins) This would be true if I came in from the side as well. Whereas if I came in from the front the gun rotates to track my movement and if I'm to the right or left of my target I see it being easier for him to adjust his firing platform to get me within his arc of fire.
I believe it would be a freeze frame argument to declare a top attack a straight 90 degree angle. Actually I'm not even sure its possable. Don't think I've ever seen anything but an F14 fly staight up or straight down.
Everybody please chiime in on this argument. I would like to see a game wide consensus.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on May 25, 2007 15:43:08 GMT -5
Can anyone point to a recorded example of a Lewis gun being rotated on the fly, in the middle of a fight? The examples I can think of required that the Lewis gun be pre-elevated, in anticipation of using it at that angle in the fight, but I won't pretend to be particularly well-read on the subject.
Personally, I would rather see the top defense and normal Lewis attacks be made mutually exclusive. I would prefer that it take a turn to rotate the gun up or down (and, like jamming or changing a drum, this preventing an attack on the same turn). If the gun is rotated up, it could be used for top attacks/defense. If the gun is rotated forward, it could be used for normal attacks.
Maybe there could be a special rule for aces or experienced pilots to adjust the gun and attack on the same turn.
|
|
alien01
Lieutenant
"Talk is cheap. Let's go play." Johnny Unitas
Posts: 123
|
Post by alien01 on May 25, 2007 15:57:53 GMT -5
When discussing top defense the concensus of the Madison group was that it never happened in WW I. However, it is a neat feature to have in a game, to differentiate some planes and require different tactics. So our playing group decided to restrict top defense to cases where the attacker entered from the front three squares. This makes it less common, thus moving toward realism, while leaving it as a possibility, thus adding variety to game-play.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on May 25, 2007 16:11:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't the defense be more effective against planes overtaking you from behind? At a lower relative airspeed (compared to approaching aircraft), they could be raked from prop to tail as they pass over.
|
|