|
Post by AP on Jun 12, 2007 12:30:55 GMT -5
Cool idea, but I think Dan really summed it up well in the top defense thread...
"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."
What makes DP such a long standing, great game is that it is simple, playable, and fun. Turn order is determined completely by random luck. Tailing takes a level of skill, and a level of luck. Thats the game, and it keeps it fun. Making it complicated and 'real' takes the fun out of it for many players.... SO that is where house rules come in. If your circle plays enough to want to try altered rules, etc.. cool go for it, but keep it to the local games. All the advocating for change in rules seems to be turning many of the long time players away from the game compeltely. I just know that in our MN group we hardly have the time to play anymore, and when we do, the last thing people want to do is learn new rules, go over new charts etc... they want to enjoy the game they know, have some laughs, and hopefully get lucky - never taking it too seriously. Its a game, and the first and foremost point of it is to have fun with your friends.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 12, 2007 15:54:24 GMT -5
SO that is where house rules come in. If your circle plays enough to want to try altered rules, etc.. cool go for it, but keep it to the local games. All the advocating for change in rules seems to be turning many of the long time players away from the game completely. I just know that in our MN group we hardly have the time to play anymore, and when we do, the last thing people want to do is learn new rules, go over new charts etc... they want to enjoy the game they know, have some laughs, and hopefully get lucky - never taking it too seriously. Its a game, and the first and foremost point of it is to have fun with your friends. I have a different perception of house rules. They are not there just beacause we want to try something. They have been instituted because that particular group has found an explloitable option that they are trying to fix. I would like us to all get together on them, But as I proved that won't happen. I'm still hoping for a set of tournament rules. But thats me.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 12, 2007 17:35:53 GMT -5
The mandatory altitude loss method of tailing previously described is not more complicated... its less complicated. And it fixes several major flaws in the game that those same veterans have griped about for decades.
So if there's any opposition to it, it is based in simple resistance to change rather than either playability or realism.
|
|
|
Post by jrmcintyre on Jun 13, 2007 11:52:46 GMT -5
I do really like Stephen's integration of the altitude change for the planes. I believe the resistance to the idea is not so much to change, but each aircraft would have to be revisited and classified to the four categories.
I imagine that there is still debate going on concerning the existing performance stats without adding, yet another, point for discussion.
The concept makes sense, and I would like to have this as an addition since, for some of us, tailing is so predictable.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 13, 2007 17:38:14 GMT -5
The mandatory altitude loss method of tailing previously described is not more complicated... its less complicated. And it fixes several major flaws in the game that those same veterans have griped about for decades. So if there's any opposition to it, it is based in simple resistance to change rather than either playability or realism. I know I'm going to regret asking but... What major flaws does it fix?
|
|
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 13, 2007 19:26:26 GMT -5
See last page on this thread, post by stephen
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 13, 2007 20:57:46 GMT -5
I do really like Stephen's integration of the altitude change for the planes. I believe the resistance to the idea is not so much to change, but each aircraft would have to be revisited and classified to the four categories. I imagine that there is still debate going on concerning the existing performance stats without adding, yet another, point for discussion. The concept makes sense, and I would like to have this as an addition since, for some of us, tailing is so predictable. You're right, Jim, it will necessitate classifying each a/c according to maneuver type, however, isn't updating all airplane stats already one of the major goals for the 8th edition? It should be easy to incorporate maneuver types into the work already taking place. Also, classifying each a/c as A, B, C or D types is far easier than actually restructuring the climb and speed stats because everything falls into one of four pre-determined categories. So it should really entail very little difficulty. Another point... since the four categories are general, it is not as critical to have everything "exactly" right. IOW, we know beyond doubt that when a Pup does a wingover, it will lose far less altitude than a Halberstadt. So if the Pup is classified as an A type and the Halberstadt as a C type, we know we're going to be very close to authenticity. Perhaps not perfectly correct, but as long as the various airplanes are correct in their relation to each other, the precise amount of altitude lost in a given maneuver becomes a bit less critical because the overall goals are still achieved... tailing becomes three dimensional, top speed matters, dogfights go down not up, etc., etc. This seems good way to simplify the game, fix several flaws in the game's mechanics, make tailing more fun and have greater variety, and do so by using the pre-existing system of plane stats that is already in place.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 0:58:47 GMT -5
See last page on this thread, post by stephen 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. Interesting I would not have classified any of these as glaring errors. 1) Dogfights descend. ~They descend now. Does this mean they will fall faster? 2) Top speed matters. ~It's one of three ways to break a tail now. But I can see as how you would have to speed up to catch a plane that falls farther than you do. 3) Tailing is not simply linear, it is three dimensional. ~Well with this system thats certainly true. A class D plane would be unable to tail a class A plane as it would fall farther in every maneuver 4) Planes have more relative advantages/disadvantages to each other than mere speed and climb rates. ~Again true as in a lower class plane you would have less incentive to tail because a lower class pane could not keep up. 5) Even if you cannot shake your tail, you can use your plane's strengths to lengthen his shot. ~There are three ways to break a tail, and using your planes strengths is currently one of them. 6) Mixed German flights with varying maneuverability categories bring great variety to every game. ~They certainly do We all currently have tailing cards with the restrictions printed on them. Can't do that with four classes of planes. Either the cards would get bigger or a chart would have to be made. What really worries me is that it unbalances the game. To use your example: If your opponant pulls an Immelmann while flying a category C airplane, he automatically drops at least (for example) 150 feet. You are tailing in a D category plane so you drop 200 feet. Boom... you're done. So if your flying a plane in a lower class than you, there is no reason to bother tailing as each shot will get worse. That would seem to me to be a very unbalancing factor. It may be a more realistic system but I don't buy the dogmatic argument that it would be simpler or preferable.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 14, 2007 8:17:01 GMT -5
Last time I spoke with Mike about the 8th edition, it was more the aircraft availability charts that were getting updated, not the aircraft stats. He said they were still working on French aircraft dates but otherwise it was almost all set. I think the only change in aircraft stats will be any new types added...but I am sure Al knows MUCH more about this...
|
|
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 8:41:08 GMT -5
See last page on this thread, post by stephen Interesting I would not have classified any of these as glaring errors. 1) Dogfights descend. ~They descend now. Does this mean they will fall faster? What really worries me is that it unbalances the game. It may be a more realistic system but I don't buy the dogmatic argument that it would be simpler or preferable. 1) Most dogfights I've been involved with tend to climb rather than dive, especially with guys who have played a lot. There is nothing in the rules that keeps this from happening. (Now, imho, I don't really care about this, it's another of those rules proposed for 'realism' that doesn't seem to add much, but again, just mho). Unbalances the game....that's a tough one. I have a book at home called "The First Air War", there is a chart at the back that shows a graphic representation of how the tech edge swung from side to side during the war - on the left, the Allies, on the right, the CP. As you can imagine, it looks almost like a double helix swirl you'd see on a doctor's symbol. The war starts out weighed heavily to the Allies, then swings to weigh heavily to the CP, then back again, and so forth. There were only about 4 points from 1916 through 1918 where it was balanced. So realisitically (how I hate to use that word) air combat in WW1 was actually an unbalanced experience. From a game standpoint however, I think you are referring to the ability to play either side and still have a reasonable expectation of winning the scenario. So, in a game where there are turn classes, you might have a situation where you are in Alb D-IIIs against FE-2Ds, or you might have a situation where you have Snipes against Alb D-Va's, or you might have a situation where you have Camel 150s against SSW D-IVs. This would all be determined by the roll up charts and would be as fair as anything else in the game, no?
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 10:33:08 GMT -5
1) Most dogfights I've been involved with tend to climb rather than dive, especially with guys who have played a lot. There is nothing in the rules that keeps this from happening. (Now, imho, I don't really care about this, it's another of those rules proposed for 'realism' that doesn't seem to add much, but again, just mho). Unbalances the game....that's a tough one. I have a book at home called "The First Air War", there is a chart at the back that shows a graphic representation of how the tech edge swung from side to side during the war - on the left, the Allies, on the right, the CP. As you can imagine, it looks almost like a double helix swirl you'd see on a doctor's symbol. The war starts out weighed heavily to the Allies, then swings to weigh heavily to the CP, then back again, and so forth. There were only about 4 points from 1916 through 1918 where it was balanced. So realisitically (how I hate to use that word) air combat in WW1 was actually an unbalanced experience. From a game standpoint however, I think you are referring to the ability to play either side and still have a reasonable expectation of winning the scenario. So, in a game where there are turn classes, you might have a situation where you are in Alb D-IIIs against FE-2Ds, or you might have a situation where you have Snipes against Alb D-Va's, or you might have a situation where you have Camel 150s against SSW D-IVs. This would all be determined by the roll up charts and would be as fair as anything else in the game, no? Morning, As the stats stand now you can get some interesting challenges when rolling plane types. I believe that the proposed tailing rule would make the differences all that more pronounced. With those 4 different classes of planes a lower class plane could never hope to successfully tail a higher class plane. Not only would the better handling plane have a higher top and turn speed, but when performing a manuever it would not lose as much altitude. Seems to me the rich would get richer and the poor poorer. I would be interested in hearing the results of a playtest with ALb DIII's vs either Camels or Sopwith Triplanes.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 10:45:17 GMT -5
We all currently have tailing cards with the restrictions printed on them. Can't do that with four classes of planes. Either the cards would get bigger or a chart would have to be made. I don't understand... each card would say A: -0 ft, B: -50 ft, C -100 ft, D: -150 ft. We could print ten times that on each card if we wanted. Or it rebalances it in historical context. SPADs become better hit and runners and worse dogfighters, DrI's become lousy hit and runners and better dogfighters. Is that not as it should be? No, you're not done at all. You just have a 150' shot instead of a 100' foot shot, which is the trade one makes for bumping up one table and making the other guy move first. And remember, the "lower" class planes are only "lower" in altitude loss during maneuvers... they are superior in straight speed and dive.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 10:56:35 GMT -5
I would be interested in hearing the results of a playtest with ALb DIII's vs either Camels or Sopwith Triplanes. That's an interesting comparison... Under current rules, Camels will stomp any Alb DIII in the sky. And while the Alb can outshoot the Triplane, it never gets the chance because it can't catch it. I'm not sure what else could be done to unbalance those scenarios much more than they already are. But then again, isn't that the key to the game... learning to use the strengths of your airplane even if it is weaker in areas than your opponent's? My Class D airplane is tailing your Class C airplane. You Wingover left and lose 150'. I cover you but instead of staying on your tail and coming out 50 ft below you, I pull a climb maneuver, willingly giving up the tail position, and climb 300 feet. Presto. My "poor, inferior" Class D plane that "can't win" now has a 450' altitude advantage and we're ready to roll numbers. Perhaps you enjoy having near-identical stats and that's okay... but to me, this makes for an interesting game. The fun of the game is using your planes relative advantages to overcome the enemy. WWI planes were not equal... far from it. But they tried to use what their plane COULD do to win.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 14, 2007 12:00:57 GMT -5
I agree...the thought of Alb3's vs. Camels is bad enough already. I think Stephens idea may be interesting for later war 1918 aircraft like the SPAD or SE or DVII, but the Albs & other 1917 'dogs' are already bad enough...penalizing them more doesnt sound like a fun way to play to me. I would be interested in hearing the results of a playtest with ALb DIII's vs either Camels or Sopwith Triplanes. My Class D airplane is tailing your Class C airplane. You Wingover left and lose 150'. I cover you but instead of staying on your tail and coming out 50 ft below you, I pull a climb maneuver, willingly giving up the tail position, and climb 300 feet. Presto. My "poor, inferior" Class D plane that "can't win" now has a 450' altitude advantage and we're ready to roll numbers. In a game where the point is to shoot your opponent down, how is not taking a shot an advantage to you?? Especially in an Alb! The only thing you gain is cooler guns. Even if you get lucky and roll under them the next turn, they can climb back up & turn much faster than you, so the closest you prolly get is a 250-300' shot. So you give up the 150' up a table for a 250'? Yes, altitude is important, but you 'cant win' unless you take the good shots when you can...
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 14:27:22 GMT -5
I agree...the thought of Alb3's vs. Camels is bad enough already. I think Stephens idea may be interesting for later war 1918 aircraft like the SPAD or SE or DVII, but the Albs & other 1917 'dogs' are already bad enough...penalizing them more doesnt sound like a fun way to play to me. Accurately reflecting the various attributes and shortcomings of airplanes doesn't necessarily equate to a "penalty." You may find yourself in a situation where at least your airplane can finally utilize the few advantages your plane actually had. In most cases if I have 450' of altitude on you, I'll take any shot I want whenever I want it.
|
|