joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 5, 2007 10:58:31 GMT -5
[quote author=admin board=rules thread=1179958418 post= Making rules more realistic CAN make a game unplayable, but it doesn't HAVE to [shadow=red,left,300][glow=red,2,300] when they are thought out and well executed[/glow][/shadow]. [/quote] Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with your own argument. ;D Andrew help me out here my memory is not so good. What plane were we flying? We flew a mission at the minicon involving one of those interesting plane types that you don't see much. As I recall we didn't know where the engine was located. People would stop by and kibitz and in the end we decided the charts we were using had very little in common with the plane being flown. We don't even really have a tried and true set of rules for the bigger planes. Yet we have stats.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 5, 2007 11:25:44 GMT -5
Wanna go to impulse movement for all IndySqdn events then? I can dig the charts back out.... That's a very good point. It could be suggested that impulse movement is not simply a new rule; its essentially a new game. Impulse movement is already used as the foundational mechanism for several other games such as Knights of the Air. There's no real need to turn DP into another game that already exists. We could also mandate that Dawn Patrol actually be flown in the sky. You must purchase a full size reproduction airplane and fly actual combat missions (don't laugh... people do this!). In one sense we could all sit around on stools in the hangar (since we can't afford reproduction airplanes) and complain about how this new, realistic rule has made Dawn Patrol unplayable. But in reality, its not Dawn Patrol anymore at all because the "rule change" we made was so dramatic that the result no longer resembles the original game. So when I speak of realistic rules, I am not referring to changes that essentially create a new game, alter fundamental game mechanisms or use hexes instead of squares. I'm just talking about Dawn Patrol. Crafting realistic rules for DP does not necessarily mandate a less playable game. Its been done successfully many times.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 5, 2007 11:32:18 GMT -5
We don't even really have a tried and true set of rules for the bigger planes. Yet we have stats. If you are recommending that game rules be thought out and researched in advance, I agree entirely. I would also suggest that having a game containing two poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes is no better than a game having fifteen poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes. So what we're talking about really has nothing to do with the realism vs. playability debate; instead, it is an observation that rules (realistic or otherwise) should be researched and well executed... which we already agree on.
|
|
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 Jun 5, 2007 11:35:58 GMT -5
We don't even really have a tried and true set of rules for the bigger planes. Yet we have stats. If you are recommending that game rules be thought out and researched in advance, I agree entirely. I would also suggest that having a game containing two poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes is no better than a game having fifteen poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes. So what we're talking about really has nothing to do with the realism vs. playability debate; instead, it is an observation that rules (realistic or otherwise) should be researched and well executed... which we already agree on. True dat.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 6, 2007 10:32:10 GMT -5
We don't even really have a tried and true set of rules for the bigger planes. Yet we have stats. If you are recommending that game rules be thought out and researched in advance, I agree entirely. I would also suggest that having a game containing two poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes is no better than a game having fifteen poorly thought out and poorly researched airplanes. So what we're talking about really has nothing to do with the realism vs. playability debate; instead, it is an observation that rules (realistic or otherwise) should be researched and well executed... which we already agree on. Chuckles, Hey quit jacking my thread to support your dogma
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Jun 10, 2007 11:36:14 GMT -5
American ace George Vaughn said the Lewis gun was worthless, and he never fired it. I posted on another thread a quote by McCudden that trying to pull the Lewis up in a defensive shot was folly considering all the other things going on in the middle of the dogfight. Playability vs realism.... Rolling for a succesful take-off before every game is realistic. It's the ONLY way to re- create the death of McCudden in the game. I'm pretty sure Stephen would not be very happy to lose Foxxe before the game even started due to a failed takeoff attempt. But it is realistic. I have suggested a % roll before every game turn to see if your motor quits due to mechanical failure because it is realistic. Happened all the time. But I would hate to lose MacPherson to such a rule. Open damage is soo unrealistic it should not even be consider except for people who can't be trusted. If two a/c attack the same a/c there should be a roll for a collision. Happened all the time. Realistic, but fun? I have been in the war gaming hobby for nearly 40 years and I see Dp heading for the same demise as Squad Leader and Star Fleet Battles. It will collapse under the weight of the 'realistic rules and added Fronts. When will the Palestine Front become available? I have spent untold hours of my life(over 30 years) playing FITS because I have a great group of guys to play it with and it is very playable, not because it is 'realistic' to the point where we all have to build a repro a/c and fly it ourselves as Stephen suggested.
Dan
|
|
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 Jun 14, 2007 10:29:20 GMT -5
Hey Stephen, a question about top defense that is IndySqdn specific...Say you, me, Ken, and SD are in a 4 player game, you and SD in SE5a's and myself and Ken in Alb D-Va's. SD moves first, Ken second, you third, and me last. Ken targets SD with a 100' tail, you target Ken with a 100 ft tail, and then I come in and target you with a 50' top. Under the 7th ed rules, you could not retarget me since I didn't give you a HO, but I can't tell you the number of times I've seen this happen at IndySqdn games. Was there something in our house rule that allows a retarget in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 11:06:21 GMT -5
Not that I know of, and I think that's a good point. We may be playing this wrong. I don't think you can switch for defensive fire... as you say, it has to be HEAD ON defensive fire before you can switch.
There's never been anything in Indy house rules to alter that... we've used standard DP rules since day one for Lewis guns (except for Bart's fairly recent "Raking Rule," which is irrelevant to this issue).
|
|