|
Post by AP on Jun 14, 2007 14:55:01 GMT -5
Yes, but the next turn you wont have 450'. If you get lucky & move second, I will climb 300' or more, and out straight/turn you by 2 or 3, taking away any advantage you had...
|
|
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 15:03:39 GMT -5
I would be interested in hearing the results of a playtest with ALb DIII's vs either Camels or Sopwith Triplanes. I've done the Alb vs Camel in the regular game, it sucks bad enough to not even make turn classes an appealing option in that situation....
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 15:09:14 GMT -5
Yes, but the next turn you wont have 450'. If you get lucky & move second, I will climb 300' or more And of course, your opponent will, too. At the end of the turn he simply waits until he gets numbers on his side and swoops down. I suppose that by some miracle, if your plane had vast superiority in climb and could outroll your opponent for 4 or 5 straight turns, you might be able to even things up. But essentially, if he's 450' above you he'll take what he wants when he wants it. No matter what system we use or method we try, the trick will always be to use whatever your plane does best to its advantage. It would just be nice if those advantages had some historical precedent. It would be even nicer to see a dogfight go down instead of up.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 15:23:36 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume that the bad planes will get worse and the best planes will get better?
Stop and think for a moment. You wanted Camels vs. Albs, right?
A Camel had to apply full left rudder in a right turn to prevent a spin. That made it lose altitude... it could turn sharp, alright, but not without losing a lot of altitude. So the Camel drops more than the Alb on its tail.
Currently, if you're 100' behind the Camel and he turns at 100 and your Alb turns at 80, and if he pulls a climb at 350' and you match it at 250', your second turn of tailing offers you only a 400' shot.
With mandatory altitude loss during tailing, the Camel pulls a Turn Right and you follow. He cannot climb... in fact, he drops (for instance) 200' while your Alb only drops 100'. You use the extra 100' altitude to gain back one of the extra squares the Camel gets in speed.
So now, instead of a 400' shot, your Alb has a 200' shot and you're still on his tail.
C'mon... you guys know your WWI history better than that... start using it. Your dismissing this out of hand without thinking.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on Jun 14, 2007 15:41:24 GMT -5
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic, is the altitude issue really a symptom of the tailing mechanics, or is it more a symptom of maneuvring in general. Would we accomplish more by simply saying that you can't do max climb if you do anything other than simple maneuvres, and then limit your climb to the tailing card climb limit for your non-simple maneuvres?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 15:58:43 GMT -5
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic, is the altitude issue really a symptom of the tailing mechanics The altitude problem results from this: maneuvering a WWI aircraft results in a severe loss of altitude in real life, but in DP it does not. In fact, in DP you can go into a series of energy-sucking maneuvers and still climb.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 18:17:11 GMT -5
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. And increase the physical size of the card I think. Tell you what you send me the manuevers and thier altitudes and I'll send you a set of tailing cards. 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? Stephen listen to your own argument. And I paraphrase. "It makes the game more authentic. Isn't that a great thing?" No its not a great thing and let me tell you why. If a game is not fair to both sides it becomes unplayable. 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. If I am still in the tailing arc at the end of the turn. By dropping that extra 50 feet I may be out of it.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 18:44:55 GMT -5
Yes, but the next turn you wont have 450'. If you get lucky & move second, I will climb 300' or more And of course, your opponent will, too. At the end of the turn he simply waits until he gets numbers on his side and swoops down. I suppose that by some miracle, if your plane had vast superiority in climb and could outroll your opponent for 4 or 5 straight turns, you might be able to even things up. But essentially, if he's 450' above you he'll take what he wants when he wants it. Brother if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. If theres a plane 450' above I'm going to dive. No matter what system we use or method we try, the trick will always be to use whatever your plane does best to its advantage. It would just be nice if those advantages had some historical precedent. It would be even nicer to see a dogfight go down instead of up. I'm going to break this up into two parts Jim (Mac) Stated that when he put together the medium wound chart he did it and then began to play test it. He published actual rules. The Jacksonised tailing system we use in AZ has rules and I posted them on this thread. Instead of us arguing about what we fear. Write up the rules and playtest them. Heck send me a set and we will try them down here. At this point I argue because I fear what this idea may do. I think if your group tried our tailing rules you would switch. If we try your idea we may like it or not. But we will give constructive feedback on its merits and problems. Ok lets examine the myth that dogfights go up. It takes a concerted effort to keep a dogfight climbing, There are times when climbing will obviously get you shot yet most groups do it anyway. I tailed most of you guys a number of years ago at GenCon. Tailing you all the was easy you never went down. So as long as I picked the up cards I had a successful tail. As of the last minicon thst seemed to have changed we were dragging combats down to the ground. I have a real respect for the Ghost Jasta. They use all the cards and take advantage of the terrain. To reiterate if combats only go up thats a choice of those playing it. If you have 450' of altitude on me and I move first I'm diving. Even if I can only dive 1350' to your 1500. Im my experience combats rise and fall
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 18:54:23 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume that the bad planes will get worse and the best planes will get better? Stop and think for a moment. You wanted Camels vs. Albs, right? A Camel had to apply full left rudder in a right turn to prevent a spin. That made it lose altitude... it could turn sharp, alright, but not without losing a lot of altitude. So the Camel drops more than the Alb on its tail. Currently, if you're 100' behind the Camel and he turns at 100 and your Alb turns at 80, and if he pulls a climb at 350' and you match it at 250', your second turn of tailing offers you only a 400' shot. With mandatory altitude loss during tailing, the Camel pulls a Turn Right and you follow. He cannot climb... in fact, he drops (for instance) 200' while your Alb only drops 100'. You use the extra 100' altitude to gain back one of the extra squares the Camel gets in speed. So now, instead of a 400' shot, your Alb has a 200' shot and you're still on his tail. C'mon... you guys know your WWI history better than that... start using it. Your dismissing this out of hand without thinking. No were bringing up valid points that we worry about. Let me throw another wrench into your works. In the Camel VS Albs debate you mentioned the Camel would fall farther. So if I was the Alb I'd dive to 150' above the ground with the camel following. Next turn I'd do the immelman and drop to 50' because I lost 100' in altitude doing the maneuver. The Camel does the immelman and hits the ground as he falls 200 feet and I put in for the kill. Interesting no?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 14, 2007 20:44:46 GMT -5
Let me throw another wrench into your works. In the Camel VS Albs debate you mentioned the Camel would fall farther. So if I was the Alb I'd dive to 150' above the ground with the camel following. Next turn I'd do the immelman and drop to 50' because I lost 100' in altitude doing the maneuver. The Camel does the immelman and hits the ground as he falls 200 feet and I put in for the kill. Interesting no? I sure don't see that as a "wrench in the works." WWI-era airplanes performing loops and immelmanns at ground level is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. No sane person would have ever looped without at least a thousand feet under them even in combat conditions. Even with today's modern aerobatic airplanes, you need a special pilot's rating to try it under 1500 feet. So if mandatory altitude loss during tailing curtailed or eliminated extreme maneuvers at very low altitudes, how would this be a bad thing? Again, its not like you aren't well read on WWI aviation... you guys already know this stuff.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 14, 2007 23:26:16 GMT -5
[quote author=admin board=rules thread=1180368110 post=1181871886 [/quote] I sure don't see that as a "wrench in the works." WWI-era airplanes performing loops and immelmanns at ground level is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.
No sane person would have ever looped without at least a thousand feet under them even in combat conditions. Even with today's modern aerobatic airplanes, you need a special pilot's rating to try it under 1500 feet.
So if mandatory altitude loss during tailing curtailed or eliminated extreme maneuvers at very low altitudes, how would this be a bad thing?
Again, its not like you aren't well read on WWI aviation... you guys already know this stuff. [/quote]
Chuckles, I love looping over trees and flying between buildings. And to be fair, I could teach medieval history, all I know about WWI I've read in the drome or asked you guys
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 15, 2007 8:41:32 GMT -5
I'm sure you'll still see plenty of it regardless of realism, but losing a bit of altitude during such maneuvers would make them pretty interesting. At least an Alb would have some hope of getting a Camel off his tail.
|
|
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 15, 2007 9:14:49 GMT -5
I'm sure you'll still see plenty of it regardless of realism, but losing a bit of altitude during such maneuvers would make them pretty interesting. At least an Alb would have some hope of getting a Camel off his tail. Hey, that'd be way fun to try on the Italian board....
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 15, 2007 9:48:09 GMT -5
I'm sure you'll still see plenty of it regardless of realism, but losing a bit of altitude during such maneuvers would make them pretty interesting. At least an Alb would have some hope of getting a Camel off his tail. Its a two turn process to get a Camel off an Albs tail.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 15, 2007 9:57:26 GMT -5
True, but only if the fight is not already at ground level yet still more than 1650' high. And its only a one turn process to give him a longer shot and gain altitude advantage, which will be the majority of the cases.
|
|