The Climbing Dogfight

[Rex]

This should stir up some discontent, so let me state a few things up front.

I do not support attempts to make a game more realistic with rule changes! This is a game and not reality. Dawn Patrol is fun and playable the way it is. Even though there are several points that are heatedly contested by people on both sides of the "Realism" issue. I think a game should be fun and playable, over realistic. However, if it is possible to maintain the fun, then I think realism is a good thing. So with that said I will come to the point.

Dog fights descend. That is a fact. Maneuvering bleeds energy which slows planes down which causes them to lose lift. I think we will all agree on the physics of Air Combat.


I think there is a simple way to simulate this in DP.

For each consecutive turn that an aircraft climbs, its max top and turn speed is reduced 10mph.


I think this is an elegant and simple solution to the climbing dog fight. If a plane continues to climb for an extend period, it will stall and lose control. To avoid this a plane can level off/dive for a turn and regain airspeed (Energy).

This probably wont cause dogfights to actually descend. But it will slow the climb rate. Since we already track altitude each turn, this does not require a whole lot of additional record keeping.

Let me know what you think about it. I am not advocating that this be adopted, I just thought it would spark a nice hot disscussion and help me offset some of expense of heating the house this winter.

-Rex

[albpilot]

rex said:

I do not support attempts to make a game more realistic with rule changes! This is a game and not reality. Dawn Patrol is fun and playable the way it is. Even though there are several points that are heatedly contested by people on both sides of the "Realism" issue. I think a game should be fun and playable, over realistic. However, if it is possible to maintain the fun, then I think realism is a good thing. So with that said I will come to the point.

Dog fights descend. That is a fact. Maneuvering bleeds energy which slows planes down which causes them to lose lift. I think we will all agree on the physics of Air Combat.


I think there is a simple way to simulate this in DP.

For each consecutive turn that an aircraft climbs, its max top and turn speed is reduced 10mph.


I think this is an elegant and simple solution to the climbing dog fight. If a plane continues to climb for an extend period, it will stall and lose control. To avoid this a plane can level off/dive for a turn and regain airspeed (Energy).

This probably wont cause dogfights to actually descend. But it will slow the climb rate. Since we already track altitude each turn, this does not require a whole lot of additional record keeping.

Let me know what you think about it. I am not advocating that this be adopted, I just thought it would spark a nice hot disscussion and help me offset some of expense of heating the house this winter.

-Rex

I agree with the first paragraph completely. I play the game to have fun, and if there are some things that are a little unrealistic I'm ok with that. The fact that by and large the game is decided by what you roll on a d6 and not your playing skill is ok with me.

For your proposal, I suspect it isn't really an option for most players, as they are SO ingrained with climbing without restriction that making a throttle adjustment will be forgotten in the heat of the game frequently as it will require meticulous record keeping and an added level of effort some players won't be able/want to expend.

As a counter proposal - when we dive, we gain one square. How about when we climb we LOSE one square - but top/turn are not changed. Just as simple as your suggestion but such turn intensive record keeping is not needed. An example. A DrI has an 11 square turn speed at 4500 feet. Said DrI decides to move upward 100 feet during his turn. He moves 10 squares, announces his altitude at 4600 ft, and sets his throttle at 110.

We have played this variant in HP Flight games and it seems to sovle the problem somewhat. Planes in dogfights still climbed as they broke out of the furball but the furball itself didn't climb nearly as much.

Looking forward to this discussion...

[kevan]

I've always thought that each 100' of climb should count as a one-square move, as albpilot proposes. In fact, this would be my #1 choice for rule change in the entire game.

I'd never thought of Rex's suggestion of a 10mph deceleration for successive climbing turns. I'm not sure how I feel about it being cumulative, but I would be entirely in favour of a 10mph speed penalty for any turn following a turn with an increase in altitude.

[AP]

I am with albpilot and Kevan on this one. Rex, your idea does have some good merit to it in the realistic category, but albpilot hit the key point- record keeping. Games need to be as simple as possible and have easy flow to keep it playable and entertaining. Too much record keeping really slows things down.
Logically though, climb penalty of 1 square per every 100ft makes sense, and fits right in stride with the dive bonus.

I would be interested in play -testing a few games to see how this works, maybe the next email game we can propose it? OR Mike Carr is hosting an all day event this Saturday in Milwaukee area, maybe he would be willing to play test it there.

[kevan]

We could try this rule out at tomorrow evening's VDP session.

[albpilot]

cubsfan4life said:

I am with albpilot and Kevan on this one. Rex, your idea does have some good merit to it in the realistic category, but albpilot hit the key point- record keeping. Games need to be as simple as possible and have easy flow to keep it playable and entertaining. Too much record keeping really slows things down.
Logically though, climb penalty of 1 square per every 100ft makes sense, and fits right in stride with the dive bonus.

I would be interested in play -testing a few games to see how this works, maybe the next email game we can propose it? OR Mike Carr is hosting an all day event this Saturday in Milwaukee area, maybe he would be willing to play test it there.

Didn't hear about that event....looks like Indy is still the red headed stepchild of the DP universe...

[Rex]

I really only wanted to spark a discussion. I would not be in favor of a rule change at this point, since I don't see it as a problem that cannot be lived with. If anything, it could be considered for inclusion in the V.8 rules.

I agree that it is 1 more thing players would have to keep track of. Which is a down side. But I like the idea that if a player keeps climbing turn after turn, eventually he will run out of air speed and stall.

[AP]

Here's the playability issue I see with this idea though... for 1918 games where turn speed is 8-11, it does not affect things that badly. For 1917 games though, its going to create much longer games. With a turn speed of 6 or 7, if you climb 200ft you would only be moving 4-5 squares, which will inevitably lead to poor shots, more jammed guns, etc...basically LESS damage will be done which draws out the game much longer. Just a point to ponder...
Albpilot- sorry i should not have stated this weekend was an 'event' as its just a last minute game that Mike is putting together as he has a free Saturday. I only found out about it because he was in town a few weeks back. I am sure anyone is welcome and if any of the Indy players can make it to Oconomowoc I would strongly urge you to contact Mike!!

[albpilot]

cubsfan4life said:

Here's the playability issue I see with this idea though... for 1918 games where turn speed is 8-11, it does not affect things that badly. For 1917 games though, its going to create much longer games. With a turn speed of 6 or 7, if you climb 200ft you would only be moving 4-5 squares, which will inevitably lead to poor shots, more jammed guns, etc...basically LESS damage will be done which draws out the game much longer. Just a point to ponder...
Albpilot- sorry i should not have stated this weekend was an 'event' as its just a last minute game that Mike is putting together as he has a free Saturday. I only found out about it because he was in town a few weeks back. I am sure anyone is welcome and if any of the Indy players can make it to Oconomowoc I would strongly urge you to contact Mike!!

Well, much as I would like to come up, I'm pretty booked this weekend...got basketball tourneys, tickets to the Colts/Jagoffs...but I wish everyone going luck.

[kevan]

cubsfan4life said:

Here's the playability issue I see with this idea though... for 1918 games where turn speed is 8-11, it does not affect things that badly. For 1917 games though, its going to create much longer games. With a turn speed of 6 or 7, if you climb 200ft you would only be moving 4-5 squares, which will inevitably lead to poor shots, more jammed guns, etc...basically LESS damage will be done which draws out the game much longer. Just a point to ponder...

The whole point of this thread is to discuss means of counteracting the current tendency towards climbing dogfights. If someone wants to maneuvre extensively in a 1917 game, they will avoid climbing... objective accomplished.

[Stephen]

The idea that I proposed long ago would have mandatory altitude loss with each maneuver. Remember, we already have altitude restrictions on every maneuver so this would only be a slight variation of what we've all played with for decades. But I've not succeeded in getting a bandwagon going on that one.

An easier way to do the suggestion that started this thread is this: climbing any increment at all takes -10 mph off your speed. Done. And it might be enough to work.

[albpilot]

admin said:

The idea that I proposed long ago would have mandatory altitude loss with each maneuver. Remember, we already have altitude restrictions on every maneuver so this would only be a slight variation of what we've all played with for decades. But I've not succeeded in getting a bandwagon going on that one.

An easier way to do the suggestion that started this thread is this: climbing any increment at all takes -10 mph off your speed. Done. And it might be enough to work.

Again, I really think the lose one square for every 100 ft climbed is easier to grasp, easier to record keep, and flows more logically into how the game is structured (ie, you get a square for diving 100, you lose one for climbing).

[joseki]

I am pretty sure I've trotted this argument out before but I can't find the post so I'll trot it out again.

Climbing dogfights are an enigma. In order for a dogfight to climb all involved players must believe this in order for it to become true. One dissenting player can drag the combat down merely by diving. I've always heard that old saw that "Altitude is life." And in some cases its true and some not.

I don't think the game mechanic's need to be adjusted. But that's just me.

[Stephen]

albpilot said:

Again, I really think the lose one square for every 100 ft climbed is easier to grasp, easier to record keep, and flows more logically into how the game is structured (ie, you get a square for diving 100, you lose one for climbing).

I found that cumbersome and difficult, but then I can't add two plus two. I'm not sure how that's easier to grasp since we're already using mandatory altitude restrictions during maneuvers. I think the main problem is my inability to explain it... I'm best off actually writing up the proposed rule so it can be used rather than explained.

The simplest thing of all might be -10 mph when you climb. Poof... done. That actually might solve, or at least limit, the problem.

[AP]

admin said:

albpilot said:

Again, I really think the lose one square for every 100 ft climbed is easier to grasp, easier to record keep, and flows more logically into how the game is structured (ie, you get a square for diving 100, you lose one for climbing).

I found that cumbersome and difficult, but then I can't add two plus two. I'm not sure how that's easier to grasp since we're already using mandatory altitude restrictions during maneuvers. I think the main problem is my inability to explain it... I'm best off actually writing up the proposed rule so it can be used rather than explained.

The simplest thing of all might be -10 mph when you climb. Poof... done. That actually might solve, or at least limit, the problem.

To me, the simplest is also going to be the most logical. It makes sense that if you gain +10MPH for every 100ft of dive, that you would also lose -10MPH for every 100ft of climb... so if we were to go w/ Stephen's idea that is even more simple, we would have to apply it to diving as well and take away the full dive bonus. +10MPH if you dive, -10MPH if you climb. Splitting them does not seem logical though, and to me it doesnt make sense that you lose the same amount of speed whether you climb 100 or 400ft...

...to open another can of worms, it seems this would affect throttle speed as well. If you had a throttled turn speed of 8 and did a 200ft climb (move 6 squares, -20MPH for 200ft climb) would you be allowed to do your straight speed of 10 the next turn and move 10 squares? Or only move 8 because you moved 6 the turn prior?