Rules Questions

[kirkh]

I have a couple questions about the design of DP that I'm hoping maybe one of the old guard can answer.

1) Why the 1 square movement bonus for every 100' of dive yet no penalty for climbing? It just doesn't seem at all realistic to me that a plane that has a maximum horizontal speed of 100mph (10 squares) can travel a horizontal speed of 250mph (25 squares) if he dives 1500 feet. In addition to that though, even with the huge horizontal bonus for diving, why no penalty for climbing? When I play at home my "house rule" is 1 square added or deleted for every 200 feet of altitude change.

2) Why is there no substantial penalty for deflection shooting? From my reading (which I admit is probably not as much as many of yours) the vast majority of damage to aircraft came when being attacked from the rear, where deflection and closure rates are at their most advantageous. Why does DP not penalize attackers substantially when attacking from other than the tail attack angle?

3) Lastly, it seems jammed guns occur far more frequently in DP than they did in real life. Not that I'm an expert, but it seems many DP games that last more than a handful of turns wind up with many of the planes buzzing around with jammed guns. I could understand if pilots were ignoring their jam possibilities but in most cases pilots take real care to try and not jam their guns - but it still happens frequently. When the game was designed all it had were two six sided dice so that's what everything had to be based on. Today we have percentile dice so we don't have to continue to live with the large jam chances the original game had. I could see the jam chances being what they are if there was a real ability to shoot down an opponent with one or two shots. The problem is though, since it usually takes far more shots to shoot down an opponent than it did in real life, jam chances seem unrealistically high. I'd say either reduce the jam chances, or increase the number of hits obtained with each shot. Has anybody else ever talked about this or do the large number of jams seen in the game suit everybody? Just wondering.

[kirkh]

I also have another question hopefully somebody can answer. Why are some tailing cards separated by direction (turn left, turn right) while others (circle for example) are directionless? It seems to me all cards would either be directionless (turn, bank, circle, etc.) or there would be more cards and all maneuvers with directions would be separated with left and right cards (left turn, left circle, left wingover, etc.). The latter solution would mean the game would have to contain a prohibitively large number of tailing cards so isn't a viable option. The first option though appears do-able. The number of tailing cards one gets to pick would then have to be adjusted of course.

[albpilot]

1) Why the 1 square movement bonus for every 100' of dive yet no penalty for climbing? It just doesn't seem at all realistic to me that a plane that has a maximum horizontal speed of 100mph (10 squares) can travel a horizontal speed of 250mph (25 squares) if he dives 1500 feet. In addition to that though, even with the huge horizontal bonus for diving, why no penalty for climbing? When I play at home my "house rule" is 1 square added or deleted for every 200 feet of altitude change.


Well, this is one of the very first ones I latched onto when I started playing, and is the very basis for the climbing dogfight. The only person that can really answer why is Mike Carr.

Having said that, I know several groups that use a climb penalty regularly, and it does seem to make sense to me too. I've often thought of trying to make it an Indy house rule (but havent' really wanted the compulsory argument that would require).

Briefly, the way that works best that I've tried is this: Say a plane has a 90 turn speed. He chooses to climb 200 feet in a turn. His plane would move only 7 squares on the board, the other 2 squares being used up in the climb. Simple, easy to understand, matches the dive.

[kevan]

Might be interesting to test out some rules variations in our VDP games. I've always favoured the idea of a climbing penalty, and an expansion to deflection shooting would make sense for top and bottom shots, unless maybe if both planes have the same heading. Personally, I like the optional tailing cards as a way of separating circles, wingovers, and barrel rolls into left/right maneuvres.

And I've had enough 5% jams lately, I wouldn't mind reviewing that one too.

[kirkh]

albpilot - I think if the crazy "one extra square per 100' of dive" rule were eliminated there wouldn't be a need for huge boards or this constant need to wrap planes. If one thinks about it logically the current rule makes absolutely no sense. To use the numbers I provided in the first message in the string, a plane starting at point A that moves ten squares horizontally and executes a 1500 foot dive vertically to get to point "B", is actually traveling 18 squares (the square root of 10 squared plus 15 squared). Adding 15 more squares of horizontal movement is just way over the top. And then to compound the problem by not taking away anything for climbing really leaves me scratching my head. When I play at home I use a rule that says 1 square of movement change for every multiple of 200 feet. If you're at a speed of 8 and want to climb 200' you have to add in 1 point of throttle to stay at a horizontal movement of 8 squares.

As for gun jams, when my friend and I play our version of Richthofens War (we've heavily modified the rules) we have varying gun jam rates based on altitude. We have them increase above 10,000'. For DP I'd recommend saying the base chance is 3% plus or minus 3% per turn of shooting or cooling respectively with long shots having a base chance of 6%. We could increase them for flying above 10,000' as well if we like.

As for deflection, I'd recommend tail shots be left alone, side shots have 1 added to the "to hit" roll, top and bottom shots get 2 added, and head-on shots get 3 added. The game should encourage players to do what happened in real life, which is to shoot from the tail. As it is right now, the tail is the position where the least lethal damage is generated from.

Just some potential rules variations we can maybe try out some night.

[joseki]

kirkh said:

I have a couple questions about the design of DP that I'm hoping maybe one of the old guard can answer.

1) Why the 1 square movement bonus for every 100' of dive yet no penalty for climbing? It just doesn't seem at all realistic to me that a plane that has a maximum horizontal speed of 100mph (10 squares) can travel a horizontal speed of 250mph (25 squares) if he dives 1500 feet. In addition to that though, even with the huge horizontal bonus for diving, why no penalty for climbing? When I play at home my "house rule" is 1 square added or deleted for every 200 feet of altitude change.

2) Why is there no substantial penalty for deflection shooting? From my reading (which I admit is probably not as much as many of yours) the vast majority of damage to aircraft came when being attacked from the rear, where deflection and closure rates are at their most advantageous. Why does DP not penalize attackers substantially when attacking from other than the tail attack angle?

3) Lastly, it seems jammed guns occur far more frequently in DP than they did in real life. Not that I'm an expert, but it seems many DP games that last more than a handful of turns wind up with many of the planes buzzing around with jammed guns. I could understand if pilots were ignoring their jam possibilities but in most cases pilots take real care to try and not jam their guns - but it still happens frequently. When the game was designed all it had were two six sided dice so that's what everything had to be based on. Today we have percentile dice so we don't have to continue to live with the large jam chances the original game had. I could see the jam chances being what they are if there was a real ability to shoot down an opponent with one or two shots. The problem is though, since it usually takes far more shots to shoot down an opponent than it did in real life, jam chances seem unrealistically high. I'd say either reduce the jam chances, or increase the number of hits obtained with each shot. Has anybody else ever talked about this or do the large number of jams seen in the game suit everybody? Just wondering.

Hey Kirk,

I'm not old guard but nobody else is answering so I will take a stab at it. I'm an opinionated jerk (as you can tell from my other posts. And the answers I give are my perceptions)

1) There is an advantage for diving and no penalty for climbing for playability. Dawn Patrol is not a research paper into WWI aviation. It is a game based on WWI aviation. Nor is it a complex game. I've played with kids as young as 6 and been shotdown by them. Most arguments here stem from this core issue, Playability vs. Realism. I notice another misconception here. It has been stated that dog fights climb because there is no penalty. I do not find that theorum to be true. I find the players make that distinction themselves.

2) There is no substantial penalty for deflection shooting because in reality side shots are much harder get and hit with. In reality head-on and tail shots are much easier to achieve. Try shooting a moving target with a hand gun, its not very easy. It becomes less easy when adding 1000 pounds of aircraft. But from the tail its much easier to line up and stay on target.

3)Gun jams only seem to occour more often in Dp than real life. Each turn is 20 seconds 5 turns is a minute. The percentage table is mathematically based and the numbers are good. If you would prefer to use percentile dice instead of 2d6 then by all means I would recommend that you do so. The group I play with uses both interchangeably.

4)The tailing cards are seperated as they are in order to make it more user friendly to new players. The tailing system we use in Arizona does utilize left and right circles banks etc. and we do not find the deck size to be prohibitive. Our system favors not only experienced pilots but experienced PLAYERS as well. It would be worth your time to read through it. I believe it is the best tailing system out there. And to referance point two it offers a signifigant advantage to tail resulting in more kills from the tail.


Ok its obvious I'm using point four to promote my own agenda. The tailing system is the way it is so that new players stand a chance against the more experienced players.

[kirkh]

Thanks for the input. That's the kind of response I am looking for.

1) Regarding climb penalties, it seems to me it would be more realistic to simply eliminate the dive bonus. That would aid playability immensely because then there wouldn't be moves where a player gets to move 25 squares. The sole reson the game board that comes with the game is inadequate is because of all the re-centering that has to be done due to those big moves when people dive. Take away the dive bonus and it would aid playability immensely - and be lots more realistic.

2) A head-on shot is much harder to achieve than a tail shot because of closure rates. Two planes approaching each other at a closure rate of 200mph have very little time to line up a shot. The tail shot is optimum because the closure rate is nil (assuming the shooter and target are flying at the same speed) and the deflection angle is at its best.

3) I recommended changes because it seems after a game of eight or ten turns or so, half the players are running around with jammed guns. I'm just not aware of cases where that happened in real life. Sure jams occurred, but not with the frequency they happen in DP.

4) I'll have to check out what you guys in AZ do regarding tailing. It may make more sense to me than the way the 7th edition rules are written.

I agree with you in your assessment though that DP is a fun "beer and pretzels" game that is kept fairly simple to improve playability. It just confuses me though sometimes when some aspects of the game try to be very realistic while others fly in the face of any sort of reality.

Oh, and lastly, the climbing dogfight has nothing to do with not having penalties associated with climbing. The reason for climbing dogfights in DP is because of the sequential movement order. As we all know, no board game can ever do a perfect job of replicating air combat and each system has its advantages and disadvantages. Games with sequential movement assume one guy moves after the other so the unfortunate guy that moves first has to do something to protect himself, which on many occasions means climbing. Then his wingmates try to protect him, his opposition climbs to chase him, etc. Also, in DP energy is not an issue so I can climb my max at low throttle and still do a loop on top of it. In reality any maneuver burns energy and costs altitude so if there were rules saying a player that performs anything other than a simple turn cannot climb, that would take care of it. The problem is though, the game probably wouldn't be as fun. So that's another case where realism is sacrificed for playability.

[kevan]

Kirk, I agree with you on everything except a lack of climbing penalties having nothing to do with the climbing dogfights. They aren't the entire reason (dive bonuses are the other half of the equation), but they are part of the reason. Without a climbing penalty, and with the incentive of gaining a position that may give future dive bonuses, climbing is heavily encouraged. If there were a climbing penalty, some of the incentive for climbing would be removed, as a climbing plane would not be able to put as much space between themself and enemy planes, and would be paying for future maneuvrability with a loss of current maneuvrability.

[kirkh]

But if the climbing is generally done by the first guy to move in a turn, even if he loses a movement point or two he'll still probably climb his max. I think the problem is being able to do a combination of things (climb and maneuver) without penalty. If there was a rule that said a climbing plane can only execute simple turns, that might alleviate some of the problem. Then a pilot would have the realistic choice of having to trade off altitude for maneuverability, which he doesn't have to do now. That still wouldn't solve all the problem though. I agree that there needs to be some sort of penalty for climbing and that without penalties it contributes to the climbing dogfights, however I think the larger impact is due to the sequential movement. As long as one guy has to move first and is essentially flying defensively that turn, he will do what it takes to try and avoid as much damage as possible. If his plane climbs better than his opponents then he'll use that advantage to minimize his risk.

[kevan]

Just came across an interesting thread on modeling gun jams in games, over on the Aerodrome forums.

www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/31441-reliability-wwi-mgs.html

[kirkh]

That was a good read. It reminds me of the scene in Flyboys where two of the pilots are going through their ammo belts. One asks why they're doing it and the other responds by showing him the faulty French ammo. Also, the theory that many times the problem was a misfire as opposed to a jam is interesting. Maybe something like that could be modeled in DP. In other words, keep the chances for a problem the same as they are now but call it a "malfunction". Then, when you get a malfunction roll again with one die. On a 1-3 the gun is truly jammed and you use the normal unjamming procedure. On a 4-6 it was just a misfire and all the pilot loses are the hits he lost with that shot. He can fire again next turn with full effect (assuming he doesn't have a malfunction again).

[kevan]

I think misfires are already factored in simply by the fact that jams have a chance of being cleared in the midst of a dogfight. Perhaps part of our problem is that the chance of clearing should be higher, perhaps with the trade-off that you would have fewer turns to clear it before it became permanent?

I really like the idea of reflecting altitude somehow in the jam chance.

And the idea of Germans having less jam chance, if there really was an across-the-board difference in ammo loading protocols. That gives me some reading to do this week.

[kirkh]

In reading Greg Van Wyngardens Osprey book "Early German Aces of WWI" he talks about the early Fokker Eindeckers suffering from excessive jamming early on until they started being fitted with Spandaus. I think a large part of it had to do with the type of gun, the quality of ammo prep, and altitude. Unfortunately that's too many different factors one has to weigh when trying to play a game. I think the simplest approach would be to adopt your suggestion that maybe there should be less opportunites to clear a jam (maybe 5 turns instead of 8) but that they can be cleared a higher percentage of the time. Also, there could be an increase in jam chances above 10,000 ft.

[noski]

There were 4 kinds of jams. Two could be cleared by opening the breech and pulling a bad cartridge out. Another could be cleared using the small hammer seen in Fly Boys. The 4th jam could not be cleared in the air. Also, the famous Camel hump was designed to keep the MGs warm at altitude.

Dan

[ologotai]

I hope this is the best place for a rules question

I am trying to get my head around Tailing and Maneuver cards.

This is how I am reading it:

A plane is tailed and does a stall maneuver - diving its max 1550 feet.

As I read the rules its movement is a follows:

- It Stalls and moves square forward (counting as 5 squares).

- The tailing plane performs one of his maneuvers (if it doesn't play a reversal maneuver then initiative is reversed)

- The tailed plane then sets it speed - say its max turn speed of 70mph. It has moved the equivalent of 5 squares already so it now has to move its remaining 17 squares ( 2 left representing the balance of its seven squares for 70mph plus 15 squares for diving 1550 feet.

- The tailing plane then sets its speed and flies the rest of of its move.

Do I have it correct?

Cheers

Andy