|
Post by kirkh on May 28, 2007 11:01:50 GMT -5
At our VDP game last night this question came up but nobody was able to answer it. When tailing, the tailer is allowed to move up to two squares before executing his maneuver. The rules state: "The attacker also may move one or two spaces before starting the maneuver...". The question we had is that nowhere in the rules does it say those squares have to be in a straight line. Can the attacker turn during those two squares?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 28, 2007 17:22:13 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Jun 8, 2007 13:17:11 GMT -5
I have another tailing question. In our VDP game last night we used the optional tailing rules. When tailing at 100', the tailing pilot gets to choose one group five maneuvers while the defender gets to choose the usual 1 of 16 possible maneuvers. I'm just trying to understand the benefit to the person tailing of why he'd try to tail since he has only a 5 in 16 (31%) chance of being successful versus the 50% chance one has if he simply rolls numbers with everybody else. I know a successful tail means I get a one column shift on my next shot, but it seems to be offset by the fact my chances of being successful are so much less. I'm just hoping some of you experienced DPers can explain to me the benefits of tailing using the optional method versus just taking my chances and rolling numbers.
|
|
kazorm
Lieutenant
2005-06-07 Indy Squadron Champion
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi
Posts: 245
|
Post by kazorm on Jun 8, 2007 16:47:20 GMT -5
I usually won't tail under optional. The ONLY other benefit is you KNOW at least 1 enemy will move before you.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Jun 8, 2007 21:12:16 GMT -5
True, assuming you're successful, but that will only happen roughly 31% of the time. Of course the trick may be to hang back an extra hundred feet and get that extra card, then it actually becomes advantageous to do it.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 9, 2007 0:12:06 GMT -5
I have another tailing question. In our VDP game last night we used the optional tailing rules. When tailing at 100', the tailing pilot gets to choose one group five maneuvers while the defender gets to choose the usual 1 of 16 possible maneuvers. I'm just trying to understand the benefit to the person tailing of why he'd try to tail since he has only a 5 in 16 (31%) chance of being successful versus the 50% chance one has if he simply rolls numbers with everybody else. I know a successful tail means I get a one column shift on my next shot, but it seems to be offset by the fact my chances of being successful are so much less. I'm just hoping some of you experienced DPers can explain to me the benefits of tailing using the optional method versus just taking my chances and rolling numbers.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 9, 2007 0:19:47 GMT -5
Under optional tailing I would only tail if I didn't want my target shooting at me next turn, or if I was fairly confident about the manuever he is going to choose. If you know he's got a dive crit he will probably climb etc. And we all have tendencies. If you work an opponent enough you will begin to learn how he prefers to escape. Makes picking that card alot easier.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 9, 2007 22:35:56 GMT -5
Tailing, by its very nature and name, is an attempt to follow an airplane through a maneuver in an attempt to execute an offensive attack on that airplane.
Optional Tailing destroys that fundamental premise.
In OT, merely attempting to tail an enemy reduces your chances of tailing that enemy to around 30%... you'd have better odds flipping a coin. IOW, an effort to stay on your enemy's tail virtually assures you that you cannot stay on your enemy's tail.
The brilliance of this is self evident.
As a result, under OT, tailing is no longer an offensive tactic. When you attempt to tail an enemy, in reality you have no intent to stay on his tail at all... that's not the point. You real intent is to make sure he doesn't shoot you on the following turn.
So tailing is now reduced from a truly effective offensive WWI tactic to a defensive scheme that betrays the entire reason for the method's existence.
Further, when I move early in a turn, the best defensive tactic I can make is to use the worst defensive tactic in history... to offer you my tail. After all, I know I'm going to get shot anyway, so I might as well set up the next turn to be 70% in my favor. If I'm really lucky, maybe my opponent will even be dumb enough to actually try it.
Optional Tailing is, in reality, not a tailing system at all, but merely a new defensive maneuver to avoid being shot. If we do not want the traditional tailing system, we should just remove the entire concept of tailing from Dawn Patrol. The game would be better off.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 10, 2007 13:03:31 GMT -5
I don't want the traditional 16 card tailing system. The one house rule I truly enjoy is the Michael Jackson Revamp of the tailing system. I remember a similar system being published in the aerodrome, by Mr Cox. (I my be wrong about that name my memory sucks) And I liked it better as well. The traditional system is luck based, it was designed this way so that even a first time player could successfully tail. I prefer a system that favors a knowledge of the game and experience in flying.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on Jun 11, 2007 9:52:31 GMT -5
Joseki, could you explain the Michael Jackson Revamp for those of use who aren't familiar with it?
Was that Graham Cox who wrote the Aerodrome article?
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 11, 2007 20:58:46 GMT -5
Joseki, could you explain the Michael Jackson Revamp for those of use who aren't familiar with it? from the Apache Jagdstaffel House rules page Jacksonized tailing system Tailing: After initiative order is determined, tailing and tailed pilots select maneuver cards ‘The pilot being tailed selects a direction of maneuver, Down, Left, Right, Up- He then informs the tailing pilot and the tailing pilot only, of his choice. The pilot being tailed then selects his actual maneuver and makes note of it. The pilot attempting to tail selects a number of maneuver card(s) depending on range to target and experience; Range to Target Range 50’ 100’ 150-200’ 250-300’ 350-400’ Cards 1 2 3 4 3 The skill of the tailing pilot; Mission(s)/Kill(s) 0/0 1/0 3/0 12/5 24/10 48/20 Cards -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Attempting to tail a plane with an initiative penalty +1 card Successful in tailing attempt last turn +1 card The skill of the tailed pilot; Missions/Kills 6/15 60/25 Cards -l -2 All maneuvers are as normal in 16-card tailing with one additional card, the ignore card Ignore: The tailed pilot may choose to ignore the tailing plane. This allows normal movement at the penalty of allowing the tailing plane to target at either the beginning tailing position or the ending position, even if the ending position would not normally allow targeting. Going nose up or down does not break a tail. If you want Kevan I have these in an Excel Document you can cut them out like the base cards that come with the 7th edition
|
|
alien01
Lieutenant
"Talk is cheap. Let's go play." Johnny Unitas
Posts: 123
|
Post by alien01 on Jun 12, 2007 8:25:34 GMT -5
Regarding Stephen's post, I too dislike optional tailing because it removevsthe offensive aspect. However, no matter what tailing system you use the defensive aspect, at least that guy won't shoot at me, is still there. Not only that, it's a valid, historical aspect.
As an example, in “Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #62, Sopwith Triplane Aces of World War 1” they quote from the log book of R. A. Little for 30 April 1917: "My gun jammed and I tried to break off the engagement, but the HA kept pace with me and opened fire, shooting away my pump and hitting the planes, so I then stopped and stunted. I then got under the HA and stopped there. I turned when it turned and dived when it dived. The HA pilot could not find me. I got my jam clear and fired on the HA . . ".
The italicized part of the quote is a clear example of defensive tailing.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 12, 2007 10:06:56 GMT -5
Ok I don’t want to fuel the fire, & I REALLY don’t want to get into the whole ‘realistic’ thing, but we use OT in MN because its quick, and it simulates the quick decision making involved in combat. 8 cards or a 50% chance from 50ft. is too great, unless you have an experienced pilot. We have been thinking about using a scaled back version where you get 5 cards from 100ft, 6 from 150ft, etc. This will speed up the process considerably and simulate the quick thinking involved in tailing. I have played in TOO many games where you sit for 10 even 15 minutes waiting for someone to pick their 8 or 9 cards, which just kills the playability of the game. To make the playability of the game better, I think fewer is good. OT can be just as deadly if used right as well…not only is it a great defensive tatic, but it provides other opportunites for your side as well. You would be surprised how often you can successfully tail with it as well… I just don’t see a pilot in combat debating whether or not the guy in front of him is going to barrel roll or bank… in the few seconds he has to think, I do see him guessing if he will go left or right though…
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 12, 2007 11:11:09 GMT -5
Tailing in real life was determined by the attitude of your plane (i.e., I'm about to stall out, but you just pulled a sharp left turn... I can't stay with you or I'll stall and spin), or by the plane's ability (i.e., your DrI turns 180 degrees right in 70 feet, while my SPAD requires 1/4 mile to do the same thing and also loses 100' altitude in the effort).
Tailing in DP, on the other hand, is largely a result of pilot experience and guesswork.
IOW, tailing in DP is built on the wrong premise.
I once tried to get MC to consider this concept: All airplanes will be categorized by maneuverability (A, B, C and D types). This maneuverability category would supercede and replace the old maneuver card altitude restrictions (+/-50 feet in a Left Bank, etc). Each airplane's maneuver category would be included in the plane's stats.
"A" type airplanes would (for instance) make a Right Turn maneuver without losing altitude. "B" types would make the same Right Turn and lose a mandatory 50 feet. "C" types lose 100 feet, "D" types lose 150 feet.
Each maneuver in the game would have corresponding mandatory altitude losses for each plane category.
Remember that concept... maneuvering results in mandatory altitude losses. The plane that loses the least altitude in a given maneuver will have altitude advantage at the end of the turn. That is as it should be.
Before poking holes in the concept, please consider that such a rule would eliminate not one, but several of the biggest flaws in the history of the game:
1) Dogfights descend.
2) Top speed matters.
3) Tailing is not simply linear, it is three dimensional.
4) Planes have more relative advantages/disadvantages to each other than mere speed and climb rates.
5) Even if you cannot shake your tail, you can use your plane's strengths to lengthen his shot.
6) Mixed German flights with varying maneuverability categories bring great variety to every game.
And much more.
No, it does not complicate the game. Remember, you already have to look up the altitude restrictions on every maneuver in the game! In fact, this would actually simplify the process.
If you pull an Immelmann while flying a category C airplane, you automatically drop at least (for example) 150 feet. Your opponent is in a D category plane so he drops 200 feet. Boom... you're done.
Tailing in DP currently is built on a false premise. This is a more authentic premise that eliminates several of the most glaring errors in the game in one fell swoop yet does not require any additional rolls, and no more chart references than we are already making.
Something to consider.
|
|
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 12, 2007 11:59:06 GMT -5
Just a quick $.02 - I really like the concept of an 'ignore' card.
|
|