The Climbing Dogfight

[kevan]

In proposing that it cost 10mph to climb 100, I've always envisioned it as not counting against your speed. That way, we avoid any debate about moving slower than stall speed for early aircraft. With that logic, you would be accelerating from 80 (your recorded speed) the second turn, not 60.

[albpilot]

kevan said:

In proposing that it cost 10mph to climb 100, I've always envisioned it as not counting against your speed. That way, we avoid any debate about moving slower than stall speed for early aircraft. With that logic, you would be accelerating from 80 (your recorded speed) the second turn, not 60.

And it's exactly that sort of adjustment that will make it tough to track round after round...that's why I like the simple approach.

[albpilot]

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.

You know, that's a pretty good way of going too. -10 mph per hundred feet (but actual throtte speed is unaffected?).

My way works, we've playtested with it, but this would be fun to playtest too.

[noski]

The Freikorps played with the =10mph for every 100ft climbed, for over a year. The fights don't climb as quickly. Tailing is affected alittle. We had to alter the climb manuver card so that when under cards, the climb manuver was 2 sqrs straight(not 4) and 2 sqrs 'up', for a total of 40mph. SPADs and SEs can still skeedadle but it is harder for them to get back in the fight.
DP is a game,not a simulation. Canvas Falcons is a simulation. Aircraft with good rates of climb were desired by all . Because DP is a tactical game, it is hard to show and reflect that the climb rate allowed the a/c to to rise from their airfields to get altitude advantage or get height advantage as they approached the front over their opponents. Once the fighting started , the fights fell lower and lower. Since DP IS a tactical game, the obvious way to show an a/c's climb advatage is in the way it is done now.

[Stephen]

WWI fights fell lower and lower because the airplanes could not maneuver without losing altitude. Until we build that into the game, anything else is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

And I wouldn't worry about the inconsistency of using a straight -10 mph on climbs yet giving a square for every 100 feet of dive. If we wanted consistency, we'd have mandatory altitude loss during maneuvering and do it right. Since we don't want that, don't worry about the inconsistency... just keep it simple. If you climb, you lose 10 mph. Yeah, it inconsistent. So what. Done.

[noski]

And how much fun would a 'game' be if everytime you played it ,you had the same results . A 'simulation' needs to have altitude loss, a 'game' does not. I don't think 'we' need to do a major overhaul(ie change the total design )) to the game since it has been in exixtence for over 30 years. If people are so upset over climbing dog fights ,they should design their own simulation. In the meantime, -10mph per 100ft climbed is a simple fix that has a desired affect, without ruining the 'game'.

[kirkh]

I think the climbing dogfight is a by-product of the way the game is played. By having sequential movement (which is decidedly unrealistic in and of itself) the first player is at a disadvantage and may try to climb to avoid being shot at. I thnk the only way to truly eliminate the climbing dogfight would be to radically alter the rules by eliminating sequential movement which we all know won't ever happen. Personally when I play at home I use a rule that says a plane gains or loses one square of movement for every 200' it dives or climbs.

[albpilot]

admin said:

WWI fights fell lower and lower because the airplanes could not maneuver without losing altitude. Until we build that into the game, anything else is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

And I wouldn't worry about the inconsistency of using a straight -10 mph on climbs yet giving a square for every 100 feet of dive. If we wanted consistency, we'd have mandatory altitude loss during maneuvering and do it right. Since we don't want that, don't worry about the inconsistency... just keep it simple. If you climb, you lose 10 mph. Yeah, it inconsistent. So what. Done.

I still prefer you lose 1 square of movement.

[albpilot]

kirkh said:

I think the climbing dogfight is a by-product of the way the game is played. By having sequential movement (which is decidedly unrealistic in and of itself) the first player is at a disadvantage and may try to climb to avoid being shot at. I thnk the only way to truly eliminate the climbing dogfight would be to radically alter the rules by eliminating sequential movement which we all know won't ever happen. Personally when I play at home I use a rule that says a plane gains or loses one square of movement for every 200' it dives or climbs.

Please see my posts on impulse based movement. Yes, it eliminates the sequential problem (a huge plus) but it is absolutely so cumbersome that it's not fun at all to play.

[kirkh]

I think everyone has to realize there's no way to truly simulate air-to-air combat using cardboard counters. Regardless of how one plays (i.e either sequential movement, impulse movement, or plotted simultaneous movement) there are drawbacks. In the end it's just a game and will have it's issues when it comes to replicating reality. Personally, I think the 1 square of movement penalty for climbing 100' is something that should have been in place all along since planes are given a bonus of 1 square for every 100' they dive. I never understood why one gains momentum when diving yet doesn't lose it when climbing. Regardless, it won't solve the problem of the climbing dogfight. It will reduce it slightly, but it's the mechanics of the game that are the problem.

[AP]

Rex has sure brought up an interesting conversation here!! As I read it, I realize that 'new' players are excited about altering aspects of the game to make it more 'realistic' ,and Dan brings up a very good point- this is a board game, not a flight simulation. It has been played for over 30 years now, and part of the reason it has lasted that long is that it IS a game and not a simulation. I think it would be fun to 'playtest' a few of these rules once or twice, but a 30 yr establishment will not be permanently changing anytime soon.
I saw the '8th edition' in progress last weekend at Mr. Carrs, and they are probably 90% finished. The rules will have very little changes, and the remaining work to be done is on the random aircraft charts, and the aircraft stats...

[albpilot]

cubsfan4life said:

Rex has sure brought up an interesting conversation here!! As I read it, I realize that 'new' players are excited about altering aspects of the game to make it more 'realistic' ,and Dan brings up a very good point- this is a board game, not a flight simulation. It has been played for over 30 years now, and part of the reason it has lasted that long is that it IS a game and not a simulation. I think it would be fun to 'playtest' a few of these rules once or twice, but a 30 yr establishment will not be permanently changing anytime soon.
I saw the '8th edition' in progress last weekend at Mr. Carrs, and they are probably 90% finished. The rules will have very little changes, and the remaining work to be done is on the random aircraft charts, and the aircraft stats...

And of course no way to stop silly things like Madisonized top defense...

In my short time playing the game I've playtested a lot of variations and what I keep coming back to time and time again is that the game is fun to play because it's SIMPLE. The more effort made to include realism, the more it becomes not worth playing. By and large, I'm all for cleaning up some of the bad wording in the 7th edition (if for no other reason than to stop rules lawyers from arguing the definition of "is" or such other silly time wasters) and if we can add touches of realism here or there I'm not against it, but any sort of wholesale change in the play system for the sake of added realism would defeat the simplicity and playability of the game.

[kirkh]

I agree for the most part. The first thing anyone that plays DP has to realize is that's it's a fun "beer and pretzels" wargame/role playing game. Sure there are elements to try and make it more realistic, but for the most part realism is sacrificed for playability. I agree it doesn't need to be more rules intensive, however I also think where non-intrusive changes can be made, they should. As an example, the lethality of head-ons. I think everyone agrees they're too deadly and all it would take to change it would be modifying the damage chart. That's just an example, but other things could be changed as well that wouldn't necessarily make the game any more rules intensive. Personally, I've always found the dive bonus unrealistic and would love to see it disappear. Removing it would improve playability by reducing the volume of rules and also make it so that a huge gameboard isn't needed for those 25 square moves when people dive 1500' at a speed of 100. The game could be played on the standard gameboard without having to re-center all the planes every other turn.