In the cradle

[Stephen]

Jun 29, 2008 14:03:22 GMT -5 noski said:

My point, is , on one hand Indy will stand on history to change a rule and then change another by ignoring history.

Unless something substantial can be produced to back the statement, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Much reaserch went into these rules and I doubt MC , off the top of his head decided , 'Hmm, Ihave never heard of of a pilot dying from a rough wing set down but I'll put it in the rules anyway.' I f you think that is the way it is you discredit MC's intelligence,

Nothing to do with MC. Everything to do with cleaning up errors in the game. There are lots of them and you guys do the same thing in different areas.

As far as a rough set down killing some one... a 37 year old man in the Kalamazoo area died after falling out of golf cart lasr week. I don't think a golf cart can reach 20mph. In Hawaii last year, a motocycle cop escorting GW Bush's motorcade died after crashing at 10mph by driving over a curb into the grass . He didn't hit a tree or parking meter or anything else. Just a big green lawn.
The historical record has to be there , otherwise it would be in the game .

Then it should be very easy to produce.

Maybe Indy should look a little harder at history before changing a rule rather than expecting the rest of the DP world to prove them wrong after the fact.

I've looked hard at it for thirty years. And if the evidence is as abundant and obvious as you say, then surely some of it can be produced.

What we're really dealing with here is not an inconsistency at Indy, but an inconsistency in the way we look at house rules in general.

IOW, every squadron represented here has house rules that can be picked apart. But they made sense to the people who made them, and they work well at that local squadron. Indy is no different, despite claims to the contrary.

Our game is far deadlier in several ways and our pilots are at an extremely high risk compared to several other rules packages. We also saw a ridiculously high number of pilots dying from a lack of a crash. A simple and sensible method of dealing with both issues was to make a very minor adjustment to help pilots survive the lack of a crash. It wasn't much - not nearly enough to compensate for point blank range shots, time limits, no backwards movement, etc., etc - but in a very small percentage of cases, it might help pilots survive in a non-crash situation. It helps our game, balances our game, and makes some game results a bit less laughable.

Every person here does the same thing in one area or another. Pretending that Indy alone has somehow invented house rules or contradicted itself in order to save hundreds of its own pilots from dying in horrible, end over end smash ups is foolish.

The evidence that allegedly supports death by not crashing doesn't exist. If it did, we would have found it long ago or it would have been produced here.

The notion that this rule even comes close to making our game as benign as most others is equally silly. The impact of this rule is minimal to the extreme and only helps unwounded or barely wounded pilots in the mildest of circumstances.

Most other squadrons in the country use rules that Indy pioneered which have since become standard, including expanded Parabellum drums, expanded critical hit charts, rear fuselage critical hits, evasion of capture rules, single gun firepower, artillery spotting, hi compression engines, etc., etc.

Any time you try to move the game forward, there will be critics. Any time you try to advance the rules package, someone will complain. But those who criticize Indy for house rules that they don't like should at least be consistent and not use anything else that we developed or pioneered, either.

[Stephen]

Jun 30, 2008 9:23:36 GMT -5 AP said:

I wont argue that it probably didnt historically happen all that often, but that shouldnt even be part of the discussion

I question the wisdom of labeling DP a WWI aviation game when we openly admit that we make no attempt whatsoever at using WWI aviation history as a premise for our rules.

Perhaps we should be playing fantasy games instead.

This game has many inaccuracies that can be mulled over

I also question the inconsistency of accepting the game's inherent inaccuracies without blinking, while criticizing even the most minor alleged fault in a house rule.

If Indy decides they want to play a different game & add rules for time limits & not allowing players to count out moves more than once etc., thats their choice and certainly makes a different and more challenging game.

7th Ed rules suggest a 30 second time limit. We were generous and made ours 60. And you can count your move out til the cows come home, but you can only move your counter once. Movement rules are spelled out clearly in the 7th Ed book, and there is no provision for reverse movement. All movement is the rule book is forwards unless a special maneuver is enacted.

So in reality, neither time limits nor forward movement are truly "house" rules. They are standard 7th Ed rules that nearly everyone else ignores.

Once again, we have a glaring inconsistency. On one hand, Indy is condemned for not sticking with standard rules... on the other, we completely ignore the movement rules and time limit suggestions clearly printed in the DP rule book.

Expecting those that dont play that way to accept the changing of standard rules based on Indy's custom game rule - I think thats where the issue is.

No, actually the initial complaint was that Indy pilots were getting "mulligans" that unbalanced the game in comparison to other squadrons.

That issue was addressed, so now the accusation has been changed to "expecting others to accept rules changes based on Indy's rules."

It seems that the complaint is rather fluid and can be altered at any time.

everyone is used to the system writen in the rulebook that has worked just fine for years.

Then they don't need any of the other rules we pioneered or developed, either. Drop them all. The system worked just fine for years.

Andy, we can't move the game forward by only using house rules that don't ruffle anyone's feathers or make waves. You have to experiment to see progress. Otherwise, we'd all still be using plastic models on the tile floor of Mike's kitchen.

[noski]

Have you bothered to ask MC how he came up with roughwing CRASHES?
Just because YOU say they are silly, foolish and not historical doesn't make it so.
I doubt very much that you have searched for 30 years for specific evidence . I doubt it very much.
I have yet to accuse INDY of changing rules to pad pilot rosters. Your replies show me you guys have thin skin.
In my one expeience of playing at INDY ,table talk was pervasive throughout the game ,even after I objected to it. So don't tell me what a tough game you guys play.
I admit it's tougher than most every other group I've play against but you got nothing on the Freikorps . We don't table talk . As far as how proud INDY is in the strict ways you play... we were doing it 15 years before you ever cracked a rule book.
Until you have the guts to ask MC about where rough wing CRASHES and the rules governing them came from, don't put it on me to prove you wrong.

[albpilot]

Jul 6, 2008 20:42:50 GMT -5 noski said:

Have you bothered to ask MC how he came up with roughwing CRASHES?
Just because YOU say they are silly, foolish and not historical doesn't make it so.
I doubt very much that you have searched for 30 years for specific evidence . I doubt it very much.
I have yet to accuse INDY of changing rules to pad pilot rosters. Your replies show me you guys have thin skin.
In my one expeience of playing at INDY ,table talk was pervasive throughout the game ,even after I objected to it. So don't tell me what a tough game you guys play.
I admit it's tougher than most every other group I've play against but you got nothing on the Freikorps . We don't table talk . As far as how proud INDY is in the strict ways you play... we were doing it 15 years before you ever cracked a rule book.
Until you have the guts to ask MC about where rough wing CRASHES and the rules governing them came from, don't put it on me to prove you wrong.

Sounds like your experience here was not the best...sorry to hear it. You're one of the folks I most like to game with. Hope your experience won't keep you away in the future.

Question - was there really a lot of table talk (players disussing upcoming moves and strategizing), or was it more talking around the table (discussing past moves and their relative merits)? This is a rather fine distinction I realize, but understanding the difference can help us tone it down if there was indeed too much of the former. The first is clearly bad, the second is really pretty much human nature (as illustrated by the perpetual IndySqdn debates as seen in this forum) and is essentially armchair quarterbacking, which I don't know is outlawed but may be wrong in that understanding.

[joseki]

And all this because I was looking at pic's and wondering where the cradle is. (chuckles)

[albpilot]

Jul 9, 2008 0:14:36 GMT -5 joseki said:

And all this because I was looking at pic's and wondering where the cradle is. (chuckles)

Troublemaker.

[joseki]

So...

Is there a cradle or is it just a turn of phrase?

[albpilot]

Jul 25, 2008 19:56:11 GMT -5 joseki said:

So...

Is there a cradle or is it just a turn of phrase?

There is actually a device designed to transport the balloons to the site, called a 'cradle' due to how much it looks like a baby's cradle.

[joseki]

Happen to have a Pic?

[noski]

Capt: "I just read your combat report. It says you were not in any combat, didnot fire your MGs nor did you receive any damage by enemy fire, correct?"

Lt: " Correct sir"

Capt: "The Technical Officer tells me you have considerable damage to your left wing. Two thirds of it in fact (8hfs of damage in a 12 hf wing) are damaged. How did that happen?"

Lt: " Well, I didn't crash if that's what you mean. It was only a rough wing set down..."

Capt: " Oh, Ok. I'll tell the T.O. not to repair your wing because it was not damaged in acrash and you can take it up this afternoon as is ( with only 4 hfs remaining). Good day Lt."