WW1 Air Combat Game
Mike Gingold
Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
combat game. I am aware of the following:
1. Knights of the Air (AH)
2. Blue Max (GDW)
3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
I believe 2 and 3 are out of print.
Thanks.
---------------------------------
Mike Gingold
gin...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~gingtor/
---------------------------------
John Beaderstadt
Mike Gingold wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
> combat game. I am aware of the following:
>
> 1. Knights of the Air (AH)
> 2. Blue Max (GDW)
> 3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
Wasn't there one alled "Richtofen's War"?
--
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
Erich Schneider
gin...@primenet.com (Mike Gingold) writes:
> Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
> combat game.
Nova's _Ace of Aces_, if you can find it. The first wargame to use
books showing a view of an air-to-air battle from the pilot's POV.
Has three levels of complexity: in the lowest, you just fly generic
planes around and don't worry about altitude; at the higher levels of
complexity you add altitude, maneuver constraints of different planes,
more sophisticated hit location, etc.
When it came out my father, a Navy test pilot at the time, and his
squadron mates played it a great deal ... a fine endorsement, I think.
--
Erich Schneider er...@csdl.tamu.edu http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~erich
The Maverick
Mike Gingold wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
>
> 1. Knights of the Air (AH)
> 2. Blue Max (GDW)
Fun game, quick and easy to play, good for introducing new players to
wargaming. It is reasonably realistic although some have complaints
about its accuracy. Make sure to get the second edition which contains
altitude rules. This game features large aircraft counters with full
color historical markings. I think you will agree they are the best
looking counters used in any air war game.
> 3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
Interesting idea, and useful RPG and campaign rules for use with other
WWI games. But it is a creaky old design and I can't recommend it.
This game was originally released as Fight in the Skies (first by Guidon
and then by TSR.)
> I believe 2 and 3 are out of print.
Correct, although the "miniatures" version of Blue Max might still be in
print.
My other recommended WWI air combat titles include:
Ace of Aces (Nova) - someone already commented on these. See my article
in issue #2 of John Kula's wargame collector's journal Simulacrum for
more information. Recommended WWI titles in this series are the Handy
Rotary Deluxe (boxed) edition, Powerhouse edition, and Flying Machines
edition. An excellent and innovative game.
Wings (Yaquinto) - A good game to step up to if you find that Blue Max
is too "simple." Get the original, not the re-release from Excalibre
(the new version changes the counters to a side view which doesn't make
sense when the mapsheet reflects a view down toward the battlefield.)
Or get both and use the laminated Excalibre components with the original
counters. ;-) Features a few different levels of complexity plus
"mass" game rules. In the mass game, simplified aircraft statistics are
used to allow very large dogfights to be completed in a reasonable
amount of time.
For an extensive list of air combat games of all eras (with brief
commentary), visit my boardgame list at:
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick/acg.html
the Mav
--
Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick
The Classic Microgames Museum
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/themav/micind.html
The Macho Women with Guns Homage Page
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/6747
Julian Barker
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote
>Mike Gingold wrote:
>
>Wings (Yaquinto) - A good game to step up to if you find that Blue Max
>is too "simple." Get the original, not the re-release from Excalibre
>(the new version changes the counters to a side view which doesn't make
>sense when the mapsheet reflects a view down toward the battlefield.)
>Or get both and use the laminated Excalibre components with the original
>counters. ;-) Features a few different levels of complexity plus
>"mass" game rules. In the mass game, simplified aircraft statistics are
>used to allow very large dogfights to be completed in a reasonable
>amount of time.
Wings is still my favourite by miles. I loved the depth of detail and
the way that planes were destroyed in a logical way. Many games shoot
planes down by attrition but Wings also allowed for lucky shots in a way
that didn't detract from the game. For example, planes didn't just die
because the fuselage limit was exceeded or because the wings took too
much damage etc, they could die that way but it was much more likely
that your plane ended up on fire with you diving like mad to put the
fire out etc or that a control wire was shot away at the wrong moment
pushing you into a manoeuvre that your damaged plane wasn't capable of
without falling apart etc.
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
Michel Boucher
In article <3555F9...@together.net>, be...@together.net says...
>
>Mike Gingold wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
>> combat game. I am aware of the following:
>>
>
Yup. Well, technically, it was called "Richthofen's War". And in the
General, there were rules to speed up the play. A friend of mine and I had a
house rule that changed each turn to a two step process, rather than a single
step process. It made it more interesting.
Michel
--
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Battlefield/8738/
Co-author, DARKLANDS FAQ (http://conk.com/world/darklands/)
President Pro-Tem, Christina Amphlett Fan Club
For private mail, get the zed out.
Charles Ryder
Mike Gingold wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
> combat game. I am aware of the following:
>
> 3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Mike Gingold
> gin...@primenet.com
> http://www.primenet.com/~gingtor/
> ---------------------------------
is the usual hex grid. The terrain depicted on the mapboard is well
done.
It will take some practice to get the hang of flying the aircraft. The
game tries to accurately simulate the effects of air flight. You can
practice with the balloon busting missions and then move on to attacking
a Zeppelin.
Once you move onto the dogfight missons, there are some additional
steps such as sighting and determining advantage. There is also an
additional feature of the game that allows for an attack/evade
opportunity. This feature takes some getting use to. It involves
aircraft stopping in mid-move to take an opportunity to attack or to
evade an attack. This part of game definitely take some getting use to
and some practice.
I also own Richthofen's War. This is a simpler game than KotA and
easier to learn and play. I perfer KotA for its realism, but RW will
be easier to learn and play if that is what you prefer.
Hope this helps,
Charles
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
> Mike Gingold wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
> > combat game. I am aware of the following:
> >
> > 1. Knights of the Air (AH)
> > 2. Blue Max (GDW)
> > 3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
> >
You missed one. Try Hostile Aircraft from Goblintooth Enterprises. Fairly
realistic without getting too bogged down, and it comes with miniatures
and stands (albiet small ones) for use on the tabletop.
I've been quite impressed with it.
Schoon
Scvsheldjk
Here are a few WWI air games:
1) Knights of the Air (AH)
2) Richthofen's War (AH)
3) Blue Max (GDW)
4) Fight in the Skies/Dawn Patrol (Guidon?/TSR -- 5 or 6 editions)
5) Aces High & Blue Max Expansion (3W magazine & 2 boxed editions)
6) American Aces (3W)
7) Wings (Yaquinto)
8) Wings Over France (Lambourne)
9) Zeppelin (S&T)
10) Zeppelin (Jagdpanther) (Let me know if you find one!)
11) Luftschiff & Riesen Expansion (Sierra Madre) (In print)
12) Flying Circus (SPI)
13) Red Baron (3W --Wargamer Vol I)
14) Dogfight (MB 2 boxed editions)
15) Ace of Aces: Rotary (Nova -- also "Deluxe" ed (in print)
16) Aces of Aces: Powerhouse (Nova)
17) Aces of Aces: Flying machines (Nova)
18) Sopwith (GameTime)
Of these, I'd rate the "Ace of Ace"s books series as excellent, along with"
Luftschiff". "Wings" is good as well.
--John
Karl Musser
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (sch...@aimnet.com) wrote:
: > Mike Gingold wrote:
: > >
: > > Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
: > > combat game. I am aware of the following:
: > >
: > > 1. Knights of the Air (AH)
: > > 2. Blue Max (GDW)
: > > 3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
: > >
: You missed one. Try Hostile Aircraft from Goblintooth Enterprises. Fairly
: realistic without getting too bogged down, and it comes with miniatures
: and stands (albiet small ones) for use on the tabletop.
: I've been quite impressed with it.
Also missed Richtofen's (sp?) War (AH), although that may also be out of print.
I've never played it, but am under the impression that it stresses realism more than
some of the other games (it's also quite a bit older than the other games listed).
--
-
Rev. Karl Musser, Episkopos of the Cartographer's Conspiracy Cabal
"Our cause is a secret within a secret, a secret that only
another secret can explain; it is a secret about a secret
that is veiled by a secret" - Ja 'far as-Sadiq, 6th Imam
http://www.shirenet.com/~musserk/ c...@flat-earth.org
Bill Tricomi
In article <6j4pnh$s...@nntp02.primenet.com>, gin...@primenet.com says...
>
>Can anyone give me any info regarding a good, fun, and realistic WW1 air
>combat game. I am aware of the following:
>
>1. Knights of the Air (AH)
>2. Blue Max (GDW)
>3. Dawn Patrol (TSR)
>
>
>
Mike Carr plans on releasing an updated version of Dawn Patrol. (DP players
in our area have certainly been inundated by new testplay charts.) Don't know
when a finalized version will see print though.
Steffan O'Sullivan
Scvsheldjk <scvsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>Here are a few WWI air games:
>1) Knights of the Air (AH)
>2) Richthofen's War (AH)
>3) Blue Max (GDW)
>4) Fight in the Skies/Dawn Patrol (Guidon?/TSR -- 5 or 6 editions)
>5) Aces High & Blue Max Expansion (3W magazine & 2 boxed editions)
>6) American Aces (3W)
>7) Wings (Yaquinto)
>8) Wings Over France (Lambourne)
>9) Zeppelin (S&T)
>10) Zeppelin (Jagdpanther) (Let me know if you find one!)
>11) Luftschiff & Riesen Expansion (Sierra Madre) (In print)
>12) Flying Circus (SPI)
>13) Red Baron (3W --Wargamer Vol I)
>14) Dogfight (MB 2 boxed editions)
>15) Ace of Aces: Rotary (Nova -- also "Deluxe" ed (in print)
>16) Aces of Aces: Powerhouse (Nova)
>17) Aces of Aces: Flying machines (Nova)
>18) Sopwith (GameTime)
There are also some miniatures rules not listed above. Oddly enough, I
seem to love this genre, and have played over half the games listed
above, plus some miniatures games not listed. My favorite, far and
above the others, is Blue Max by GDW. I prefer the first edition - I
don't think the second edition height rules add that much to the game,
and they unfortunately introduced some typos into the plane charts.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke
s...@vnet.net | a chain or freed a human soul in this world -
Chapel Hill, NC, USA | and never will."
http://www.io.com/~sos | -Mark Twain
Elliot Wilen
In article <6j9nad$p...@frodo.ShireNet.com>,
Karl Musser <mus...@bilbo.ShireNet.com> wrote:
>Also missed Richtofen's (sp?) War (AH), although that may also be out
>of print. I've never played it, but am under the impression that it
>stresses realism more than some of the other games (it's also quite a
>bit older than the other games listed).
I have played a fair amount of Richthofen's War--in fact, it's about the
only air game I have played (outside of computerized flight simulators).
While I don't have a basis for comparison, I can say pretty much for certain
that it is *not* very realistic. The representation of airplane flying
characteristics, damage capacity, and weapons may be reasonable, but the
core system doesn't produce anything that looks like real air combat. This
is due to a completely sequential, old-fashioned, non-simultaneous
move/fire system. A typical dogfight involves both planes trading shots at
one or two hexes until one runs out of "hit points".
This obvious flaw in an otherwise appealing game has spawned a large number of
variants in the General designed to introduce some degree of simultaneity
and maneuver into the game. Some may be successful--I don't know because
I haven't tried them.
--Elliot Wilen
--
Please include the word "rabbit" in the subject line when sending me email.
Want to ban UCE? Visit http://www.cauce.org/
user
In article <199805121454...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
scvsh...@aol.com (Scvsheldjk) wrote:
> Here are a few WWI air games:
<list of games snipped>
Has anyone tried Hostile Aircraft?
It's miniature rules for WW1 air combat.
-N
Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
In article <user-12059...@ezra.hrc.utexas.edu>,
us...@mail.utexas.edu (user) wrote:
Yes, I recommend it highly. It covers a great variety of options without
becoming too bogged down. Plus it looks great on the tabletop.
Schoon
Aforandy
there is a semi-pro home-produced game called BIPLANE,
which looks as though it deserves publication. Only a few copies exist.
Based to some extent on GMT's Down in Flames,
it emphasises manouevre v. power aircraft and has some clever systems.
Andy
Andy Daglish
afor...@aol.com
Mike Gingold
In article <6ja9ie$m9$1...@boris.eden.com>, "ShatRat" <shatrat@NO_SPAMeden.com> wrote:
>I have seen the game, and even browsed the rules. I still prefer Blue Max,
>for its simplicity. If you liked "Air Superiority" by GDW, you'll like
>Hostile Aircraft by Goblintooth.
>
I love Air Superiority. In fact, I was a playtester for The Speed of Heat.
>I have also heard a bunch of good reviews for it, eventhough I've not
>played.
>
>They also have the best 1/285th scale miniatures, in all aircraft models to
>cover almost ALL of your WWI aircraft gaming.
>
>I am presently trying to pull together 1/72nd scale models for my BlueMax,
>but cannot find anyone that can get me all of the desired types of aircraft.
>I've fallen back to Hostile Aircraft's miniatures.
Are the minis for Hostile Aircraft readily available?
>
>ShatRat
>**Remove NO_SPAM from email address**
>
>user wrote in message ...
>>In article <199805121454...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>>scvsh...@aol.com (Scvsheldjk) wrote:
>>
>>> Here are a few WWI air games:
>><list of games snipped>
>>
>>Has anyone tried Hostile Aircraft?
>>It's miniature rules for WW1 air combat.
>>
>>-N
ShatRat
I have seen the game, and even browsed the rules. I still prefer Blue Max,
for its simplicity. If you liked "Air Superiority" by GDW, you'll like
Hostile Aircraft by Goblintooth.
I have also heard a bunch of good reviews for it, eventhough I've not
played.
They also have the best 1/285th scale miniatures, in all aircraft models to
cover almost ALL of your WWI aircraft gaming.
I am presently trying to pull together 1/72nd scale models for my BlueMax,
but cannot find anyone that can get me all of the desired types of aircraft.
I've fallen back to Hostile Aircraft's miniatures.
ShatRat
Colin Douthwaite
On 12 May 1998 16:23:05 GMT, ell...@emf.emf.net (Elliot Wilen) wrote:
>I have played a fair amount of Richthofen's War--in fact, it's about the
>only air game I have played (outside of computerized flight simulators).
>While I don't have a basis for comparison, I can say pretty much for certain
>that it is *not* very realistic. The representation of airplane flying
>characteristics, damage capacity, and weapons may be reasonable, but the
>core system doesn't produce anything that looks like real air combat.
How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
Bye,
Elliot Wilen
In article <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>,
Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
>Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
Well, yes, but I think it's a given (based on the forum and the question
asked) that advice is being sought on board games, for whatever reason.
I really enjoy flight simulators, but a number of reasons I can think
of for preferring a board game are:
* In general, greater variety of aircraft, weapons, and scenarios. Plus
the ability to add to these without having to reprogram.
* Ability to tinker with the game if desired.
* Ease of multiplayer/multi-unit support.
* Social experience of playing face-to-face vs. playing solo against the
machine or networked.
* No computer crashes, glitches, or platform incompatibilities. (This is
paid for by greater learning difficulty, though.) No hardware upgrade
required to play the latest $30-$60 game. (And there are still a few
people out there without personal computers at all.)
* Ability to study the situation and think about one's move. Not realistic,
but desirable and/or pleasurable for many players.
* Ease of "interfacing" the game with a roleplaying campaign, if that is
desired.
* More pleasurable interface (to some).
Stanley, the Daredevil Crow!
Elliot Wilen wrote:
>
> In article <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>,
> Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
> >How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
> >Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
>
> machine or networked.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Elliot Wilen
In article <6je0pj$neb$1...@maxwell.emf.net>,
Elliot Wilen <ell...@emf.emf.net> wrote:
>In article <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>,
>Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>>How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
>>Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
>
>asked) that advice is being sought on board games, for whatever reason.
And just to be sure I wasn't misunderstood, when I was criticizing
Richthofens War it was *not* on the basis of a comparison with
flight simulators. When I first played RW, it was long before I'd
seen a flight simulator, and my early reaction was "Why can't I
'get on the other guy's tail' so he can't shoot back?" The variants have
all pretty much tried to address this question, so I must not have been
alone. I assume that most of the other games have also tried to deal
with it through some combination of si-move, impulse movement, and rules
on "positional advantage" during movement.
ShatRat
Mike Gingold wrote in message <6jatr4$d...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>In article <6ja9ie$m9$1...@boris.eden.com>, "ShatRat"
<shatrat@NO_SPAMeden.com> wrote:
>I love Air Superiority. In fact, I was a playtester for The Speed of Heat.
>
>Are the minis for Hostile Aircraft readily available?
>
>---------------------------------
Yes, there ARE miniatures. Commonly, you can buy 4 1/285th scale miniatures
for $7.50, standard retail.
Just about ALL of the miniatures that they advertise making are available
too.
There are only a small handful of miniatures that they make that are NOT
$7.50. Some of the miniatures are larger and cost more, or have fewer in a
package than 4.
ShatRat
Colin Douthwaite wrote in message <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>...
>
>How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
>Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
>
>Bye,
People say the same thing with Advanced Civilization. I still prefer the
boardgames versus computer gaming. There is a level of control that you
have in the boardgaming medium that you don't have over the computer medium.
I can play very very "simple" games of Supremacy, or load up all of the
expansions for a Mega-Supremacy game. We have also added a bunch of our own
expansions. With the complexity of the rules, it is very hard to do this
game as a computer game (and I would know best with Supremacy).
There is also a level of face-to-face games that a computer, even with
networked play, can't have. You have diplomacy. You can lie, cheat, and
steal when you play face to face games. You cannot do that with computers.
Advanced Civilization is BEST played in the boardgame version.
I would submit that most games are this way. I am an avid boardgamer, and
while I work in the computer industry, still feel that there is some main
factor missing with computer games. I can't have the pride about winning a
game. There is no one to boast to. You didn't beat a REAL person. I like
to know that I won on my merits and not won due to an AI bug.
Most gamers that play boardgames fall into this catagory. We want a
challenge where it takes a level of finess to manipulate the ending through
our personalities.
Colin Douthwaite
-On 14 May 1998 05:51:47 GMT, ell...@emf.emf.net (Elliot Wilen) wrote:
>In article <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>,
>Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>>How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
>>Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
>
>Well, yes, but I think it's a given (based on the forum and the question
>asked) that advice is being sought on board games, for whatever reason.
>I really enjoy flight simulators, but a number of reasons I can think
>of for preferring a board game are:
>
>* In general, greater variety of aircraft, weapons, and scenarios. Plus
> the ability to add to these without having to reprogram.
>
>* Ability to tinker with the game if desired.
>
>* Ease of multiplayer/multi-unit support.
>
>* Social experience of playing face-to-face vs. playing solo against the
> machine or networked.
>
>* No computer crashes, glitches, or platform incompatibilities. (This is
> paid for by greater learning difficulty, though.) No hardware upgrade
> required to play the latest $30-$60 game. (And there are still a few
> people out there without personal computers at all.)
>
>* Ability to study the situation and think about one's move. Not realistic,
> but desirable and/or pleasurable for many players.
>
>* Ease of "interfacing" the game with a roleplaying campaign, if that is
> desired.
>
>* More pleasurable interface (to some).
Bravo! A very well thought out response. We should award you a
Boardgamer's Prize. :-)
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
On Thu, 14 May 1998 01:13:09 -0500, "Stanley, the Daredevil Crow!"
<samc...@io.com> wrote:
>Elliot Wilen wrote:
>>
>> In article <355b5978...@news.southern.co.nz>,
>> Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>> >How could any Air Combat Board Game possibly compare with the Air
>> >Combat Computer Games. It's the difference between cheese and chalk.
>>
>> * Social experience of playing face-to-face vs. playing solo against the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> machine or networked.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes but often you cannot get anyone with the spare time to play a game
with you and they may not like the same sort of games.
I like playing computerised "Bridgepal", Contract Bridge, which can be
played solo when normally you would need to find 3 other players with
hours to spare.
Bridge of course is a card game so I am drifting off topic for this
newsgroup. :-(
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
On Fri, 15 May 1998 03:22:16 -0500, "ShatRat"
<shatrat@NO_SPAMeden.com> wrote:
>You can lie, cheat, and steal when you play face to face games.
>You cannot do that with computers.
Hey, I wouldn't like to play board game with you. *8-)
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
On 14 May 1998 06:26:21 GMT, ell...@emf.emf.net (Elliot Wilen) wrote:
>And just to be sure I wasn't misunderstood, when I was criticizing
>Richthofens War it was *not* on the basis of a comparison with
>flight simulators. When I first played RW, it was long before I'd
>seen a flight simulator, and my early reaction was "Why can't I
>'get on the other guy's tail' so he can't shoot back?"
That also applies to "Red Baron I" flightsim! If it is the Baron
himself on your tail you'll be lucky if you even see him. I don't
think he can be that sneaky in the board game. :-)
Bye,
Psychohist
Elliot Wilen gives a number of valid reasons for possibly preferring a board
air combat game to a computer flight simulator.
I'd add one more: the visibility of the game mechanics often allows one to
learn more from a board game simulation.
Warren Dew
Elliot Wilen
In article <199805162347...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'd add one more: the visibility of the game mechanics often allows one to
>learn more from a board game simulation.
Or at least different things from what you'd learn from a flight
simulator.
I'll one more item to my list: a flight simulator requires motor skills
that not everyone is capable of (or interested in) developing. At least
at the beginning, much of what it takes to be good in an air combat
flight simulator is simply learning how to fly and maneuver. At higher
levels, undoubtedly, players benefit from application of good strategy
and tactics. A board game obviously can't exercise hand-eye
coordination and visceral flight skills the way a flight simulator
does, but conversely it allows people who are more interested in
strategy and tactics to skip directly to that level. It's a bit
like comparing a baseball strategy board game with an amateur game
of baseball in the park. Few people can play baseball even at minor
league level, but a lot of gamers want to play a game at the level of
Ken Griffey or Roger Clemens.
--Elliot Wilen
P.S. As for me, I'd rather play softball even though I'm not that good.
Psychohist
On the issue of learning more from a board game than from a computer flight sim
because of the visibility of the game mechanics, Elliot Wilen posts, in part:
Or at least different things from what you'd learn from
a flight simulator.
That's probably more accurate.
In addition to the motor skills you mention, flight simulators give a much
better feel for the visibility and spotting issues so important to air combat.
I was thinking specifically of issues having to do with aircraft design,
though. In a computer flight sim, there usually isn't a graphical display of
where one is in the aircraft's flight envelope - the displays are very much
tied to the physical aircraft.
A well developed air combat board game, though, can provide more direct
information on issues like excess power and the relationship of altitude to
performance in charts and the like. These are the things that drive design
tradeoffs like those between power and weight, turning ability and drag.
Unfortunately, few board games handle energy issues well enough to learn about
in flight performance tradeoffs like those between altitude and speed.. It
seems that mechanics sophisticated enough to handle energy as the square of
speed typically end up being too complex for easy game play.
Warren Dew
Elliot Wilen
In article <199805171702...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>A well developed air combat board game, though, can provide more direct
>information on issues like excess power and the relationship of altitude to
>performance in charts and the like. These are the things that drive design
>tradeoffs like those between power and weight, turning ability and drag.
Yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if the things one might learn from a good
board game could help you do better in a good flight simulator.
Going full circle from the original post on this topic, which board
games (not just WWI, but WWII and modern, too) are this accurate with
regard to flight dynamics?
--Elliot Wilen
Julian Barker
Elliot Wilen <ell...@emf.emf.net> wrote
>In article <199805171702...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>>A well developed air combat board game, though, can provide more direct
>>information on issues like excess power and the relationship of altitude to
>>performance in charts and the like. These are the things that drive design
>>tradeoffs like those between power and weight, turning ability and drag.
>
>Yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if the things one might learn from a good
>board game could help you do better in a good flight simulator.
>
>Going full circle from the original post on this topic, which board
>games (not just WWI, but WWII and modern, too) are this accurate with
>regard to flight dynamics?
>
Air Superiority, Speed of Heat, Over the Reich, Actung Spitfire all seem
pretty authentic to me. I have read a fair bit on real jet age tactics
and they worked pretty well in AS and SoH.
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
ShatRat
Colin Douthwaite wrote in message <355da049...@news.southern.co.nz>...
Would it be surprising that Diplomacy and Machiavelli are my favourite
boardgames?
I am actually a very diplomatic gamer. I just believe in mature gaming
where everyone knows the rules, and everyone is ernestly involved to win,
not just pass the time. Even when I'm dead last in a game, I'm still
fighting to claw my way to the top.
It is very hard, however, to simulate all of the gunboat diplomacy and
backstabbing involved in some of the best boardgames produced.
The Maverick
Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> My favorite, far and
> above the others, is Blue Max by GDW. I prefer the first edition - I
> don't think the second edition height rules add that much to the game,
> and they unfortunately introduced some typos into the plane charts.
Outside of the typos, I just plain prefer the charts from the 1st
edition. Ideally, someone would buy both and then have two sets of
those great counters and then mix and match the favored components from
each set. :-)
the Mav
--
Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick
The Classic Microgames Museum
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/themav/micind.html
The Macho Women with Guns Homage Page
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/6747
The Maverick
Bill Tricomi wrote:
>
> Mike Carr plans on releasing an updated version of Dawn Patrol. (DP players
> in our area have certainly been inundated by new testplay charts.) Don't know
> when a finalized version will see print though.
Can you give us any more details on the updated Dawn Patrol project?
Does it still use squares instead of hexes? Thanks!
Bill Tricomi
In article <356052...@volcano.net>, thema...@volcano.net says...
>
>Bill Tricomi wrote:
>>
>> Mike Carr plans on releasing an updated version of Dawn Patrol. (DP
players
>> in our area have certainly been inundated by new testplay charts.) Don't
know
>> when a finalized version will see print though.
>
>Can you give us any more details on the updated Dawn Patrol project?
>Does it still use squares instead of hexes? Thanks!
>
>the Mav
Well, I don't know if I can bring myself to talk about DP today, as I'm still
mourning the loss of my 59-mission French SPAD XIII ace this Saturday. Forced
down in the front just short of his lines, his messed up his landing and died
of injuries due to the crash. (Sniff sniff)
Actually, it's this sort of event that makes DP the game that it is. It's
about pilot development (NOT role playing!) more than a flight mechanics game,
but it's hard to convey that appreciation to a non-player who's looking for a
"good" WWI air game.
Defining what makes a game "good" or "bad" means different things to different
people.
For example, let's talk about the question of squares. Yes, DP still uses
"squares". Why?
Two reasons...
1) Given the design of the game, it doesn't make a difference. To make a
point, my club, back in the middle 70's, converted FITS (Fight in the Sky, the
predecessor to DP) to play on the RW board. For two years we played on hexes.
Result: It made no difference to the play of the game. Planes with greater
straight speed went faster straight; planes with greater turn speed retained
that advantage in turns.
So, we went back to squares. Yes, we have the-square-root-of-two factor for
any plane that moves diagonally. But it's there for every plane and it makes
many of the geometrical calculations in the game simpler to be on a "squares"
board.
Reason two: This one you'll never see in the rulebook or a game review. Much
has been made of the "traditions" born in WWI air combat. No need to go into
that aspect, but understand that many DP players appreciate "tradition". And,
for DP, one tradition is that it started out as a set of rules Mike Carr
developed in order to play with his 1/72 model aircraft. His board turned out
to be his basement floor, covered with 3" tiles. In honor of that beginning,
with only the slightest of twinkle in his eyes, Mike will tell you that this
is one reason the game stays on "squares".
I understand the normal revulsion of the typical boardgamer. If it isn't on
hexes, it can't be a good design. Not true as a blanket statement, and
certainly not in this case.
And if squares weren't bad enough, DP still retains the "no right triangle"
rule. That is, if you're 300 feet behind an enemy plane and 400 feet higher,
you'd actually be 500 feet from the target (the old 3-4-5 right triangle). DP
doesn't do this. 300 feet behind and 400 foot height difference is a "700"
foot shot in the game, and hence, not possible except for the greatest of aces
(those with 25 kills or at least 60 missions. Did I mention that I just lost
my SPAD XIII pilot on his 59th mission?)
Actually, ignoring right triangle geometry keeps the "math" simple without
causing undue problems because it affects all players in the same way, so it
may not be "realistically correct", but so what?
But I don't want to belabor these points and go on.
The rules to DP as I currently know them bring in or expand the following:
1) The time scale of the game will move backward. Originally covering the
period from Feb '17 to Nov. '18, the new version will cover the air war from
as early as 1916. Yes, we finally get to see what made the Alb D II the
"wonder weapon" it truly was when first introduced.
2) Tons more planes: More variety of planes, like the American 110 hp Camel
added to the 130 and 150 hp Camels in the published addition.
And the Fokker EII, DI,DII, DIII, DIV,DV and DVI. The Junker DI. The variety
of SPAD's, including the SPAD two-seater and the fighter fitted with the
cannon.
The German seaplanes for those "North Sea" scenarios. (And I wonder if
Kerry's put the finishing touches on the Russian Front tables for both the WWI
and contemporary/subsequent Russian Revolution period?)
Let's not forget the German Eindecker and the abominable BE-2 and other early
British aircraft which are causing Mike Carr a rules problem. Basically, Mike
is reorganizing the mission-date-aircraft availability tables to reflect real
life statistics. So, if you roll up an early war mission and you're British,
you're almost guaranteed to fly..Oh, I can't think about it. The Horror!
The problem is that the majority of these "early" missions were flown in
planes that are truly horrible in game terms (no manuevering, no guns!!). To
hold players to this realism would make missions in a certain time period a
whole bunch of no fun for one side. So Mike is tinkering with "optional"
choices for this time period, and letting the players have some say in what
they will fly, "if both sides agree", whatever.
Other changes include a revamping of the role of two-seaters in the game. In
the published game, these planes were basically used as two-seater fighters to
give the players some variety. Over the years, there's been a growing set of
rules to make these planes perform their historical functions (Escort,bombing,
Photo recon, artillery observation, ground attack missions) Mike is currently
allocating the two-seaters into groups performing the missions they did
historically, and contemplating rules which allow two-seater crews to gain
mission experience by completing missions, rather than gaining mission credit
ONLY through an exchange of fire combat, as is currently the case.
The critical hits table has been heavily modified and is even "more" fun
(sarcastic empahsis for people who have experienced the loss of planes due to
these tables..."G**d*** fabric tear!")
Multi-engined aircraft and even Zeppelins are being considered for inclusion
at this time. The problem here is extensive modification to the fire-hit
location table that has served it's purpose well up to this point. As has
been done in the case of the pusher aircraft, these planes will probably have
specially-designed hit location tables and covering arc of fire diagrams.
That's probably enough to give you the idea. Far from thinking DP as dead and
gone, it is quite alive and growing.
A small aside here:
I know the DP won't please everyone. In fact, I remember reading the capsule
review that appeared in F&M when DP first came out many years ago. The
reviewer was turned off by the "squares" on the mapboard and the review only
went downhill after that. I never responded to that review, thinking others
more "worthy" than I would do so. It never happened, so let me take this
opportunity to write a very belated rebuttal.
Unfortunately, this was a very "bad" review. I mean, it was the review that
was "bad", not the game itself. This person was upset that "DP" wasn't
"Wings" and said as much in his last sentence. It would have been better if
this person had reviewed DP for what it was rather than what it wasn't.
But the reviewer did a greater disservice to the gaming public, for he
proceeded to review a game he didn't bother to play. How do I know?
Because he complained about the "tailing rules" and said, "In this system an
RE8 could keep a DrI at its mercy." Any one who has ever played the game
knows how silly a statement this is. True, it could happen that a DrI might
find a RE8 on his tail. And the RE8 might decide to *tail* for the next turn.
But the only way the RE8 is going to "STAY" on the DrI's tail for the turn
following is if the DrI pilot is a complete and total idiot.
By not playing out his own example, the revewer showed he never bothered to
play the game. But it got worse.
He later complained that "this game doesn't even allow rotary right turns".
Funny, it does in my rulebook.
By making this statement, the reviewer showed he never bothered to read the
rules.
Yet his review is published in F&M, declaring to the gaming world that DP is a
lousy game.
Let me close by saying that, over the years, my club has seen WWI air games
come and go. WR, Knight of the Air, Blue Max, Wings, etc. Each has shown up,
been played a couple of weeks, and been put up on the shelf.
Dawn Patrol, in one manifestation or another, has been played at my club since
1974 and it's still going strong. I can't name another game (board,
miniatures, RPG) in my experience that even comes close to accomplishing that.
And every year Mike hosts the National DP Team Championships. Every GenCon
has DP events that run all throughout the con (Thursday-Sunday), culminating
in the DP Invitational Tournament.
And every year DP players get together to discuss the "newest" legends.
Ever hear about Kerry Nash's DVII pilot, Lothar? 45 kills in 105 missions
before he was brought down. Ever hear about my two back-to-back Pfalz DIII
pilots? Between the two of them, they established a flight record of 40
consecutive missions without a kill. Certainly one of the silliest and most
uneviable records of gross ineptitude in DP history.)
This is what gives this game it's great flavor, but it's something that you
realize only by playing the game with people who love it as much as you do,
and is something that can never be conveyed by a discussion of basic design
mechanics in a game review.
The Maverick
Bill Tricomi wrote:
>
> Actually, it's this sort of event that makes DP the game that it is. It's
> about pilot development (NOT role playing!) more than a flight mechanics game,
> but it's hard to convey that appreciation to a non-player who's looking for a
> "good" WWI air game.
Role-playing is a fair name for it since you are playing a recurring
character... but maybe the role-playing label is what turned away
wargamers. ;-) In fact, I have always felt that the "pilot
development"/"role-playing" rules from DP would make a good addition to
any WWI game.
> 1) Given the design of the game, it doesn't make a difference.
<snip>
> So, we went back to squares. Yes, we have the-square-root-of-two factor for
> any plane that moves diagonally.
But there's one difference already: playability.
> Reason two: This one you'll never see in the rulebook or a game review. Much
> has been made of the "traditions" born in WWI air combat. No need to go into
> that aspect, but understand that many DP players appreciate "tradition".
My impression from the rulebook is that the game, somewhat
disappointingly, appreciates WWI mythology as it's "tradition"...
> I understand the normal revulsion of the typical boardgamer. If it isn't on
> hexes, it can't be a good design. Not true as a blanket statement, and
> certainly not in this case.
I don't find the squares revolting, but I certainly think it's one
aspect that keeps the game from appearing to be "state of the art." I
don't think it's hard to see why hexes (or even the JD Webster 12
direction hex system) are necessarily better for an accurate air combat
game. Hexes aren't just a fad after all... ;-) When MB's Dogfight is
virtually the only other air combat game out there using squares, you
can see how this can hurt a game's reputation. ;-) A disappointing
decision considering the other positive changes that you described.
Roy W. Connelly
Dawn Patrol,
An absolutely beautiful game, with beautiful counters and the few times I played
it I thoroughly enjoyed it. Just can't find anyone to play it with me.
Who will be publishing this revamped DP? 'Cause I'll buy it whether I have an
opponent or not.
Roy
The Maverick
Roy W. Connelly wrote:
>
> Dawn Patrol,
> An absolutely beautiful game, with beautiful counters
If you think the DP counters are beautiful, you definitely need to get a
copy of GDW's Blue Max! The counter art puts DP (and any other WWI air
game for that matter) to shame.
Mike Gingold
As far as I know, the designer is doing it independently. The rights to the
game have reverted back to him.
Aforandy
BIPLANE is a home-produced WW1 version of Down in Flames,
designer Father Nigel Hodge from England.
There are seven copies in existence, one of which was sent to GMT.
A cursory examination suggests the game system is rather good,
differentiating as it does between manouevre and power aircraft.
The rear gunner rules were good too, IIRC.
If you want a copy, i suggest contacting GMT. If they get 500
emails they may do it.
Andy
Andy Daglish
afor...@aol.com
co...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Bill Tricomi (wtri...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Well, I don't know if I can bring myself to talk about DP today, as I'm still
: down in the front just short of his lines, his messed up his landing and died
: of injuries due to the crash. (Sniff sniff)
: Actually, it's this sort of event that makes DP the game that it is. It's
: about pilot development (NOT role playing!) more than a flight mechanics game,
: but it's hard to convey that appreciation to a non-player who's looking for a
: "good" WWI air game.
<snip>
Although I don't own Dawn Patrol, I do have it's predecesor, Fight in the
Skies 5th ed. (for those who are counting; along with Wings 2nd ed., and
Red Baron).
Squares vs. hexes is the least of my quibbles. Although I haven't read the
rules all that thuroughly, nor played the game, I am impressed at the
depth of information included. Very comprehensive, and obviously brought
forth with much passion -- ALWAYS a good thing. A novice to WWI era
aircraft can come away with a good understanding and appriciation of the
subject (this from one who has very little intrest in jet aviation
himself, so MY point of view is narrowly skewed).
My stumbling block is in the plotting of movement. Without simultanious
movement, for me the feel of arieal combat is lost. Too much relies on
which of the players get inititive (the fourth of four players essencially
gets on SOMEONE'S tail "automaticly", while the first being the sacrafical
lamb). A system like this is fine for a quick beer & pretzels game, but
does little justice to all the thought and effort put into the rest of
this fine effort.
...although I suspect it couldn't be too difficult to implement plotted
orders/movement into the system. As an aside, I also favor plotted gunfire
rules, whereby target orders are made then revealed prior to resolution.
No orchestrated paperwork here, just some scribbles before before combat
dice are rolled...that chance that two+ people will inadvertantly fire on
one target, while letting the others go is a dramatic element.
__
(oO) Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fthagn
/||\
Bill Tricomi
In article <35610EE6...@feist.com>, achi...@feist.com says...
>
>Dawn Patrol,
>An absolutely beautiful game, with beautiful counters and the few times I
played
>it I thoroughly enjoyed it. Just can't find anyone to play it with me.
>Who will be publishing this revamped DP? 'Cause I'll buy it whether I have an
>opponent or not.
>Roy
>
Don't know "who" will be publishing it, but Mike Carr was able to buy back the
rights to it from TSR before TSR became a WOTC possession, so he's definitely
controlling its fate.
Bill Tricomi
In article <6jtadp$kqc$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, co...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca says...
>
>My stumbling block is in the plotting of movement. Without simultanious
>movement, for me the feel of arieal combat is lost. Too much relies on
>which of the players get inititive (the fourth of four players essencially
>gets on SOMEONE'S tail "automaticly", while the first being the sacrafical
>lamb). A system like this is fine for a quick beer & pretzels game, but
>does little justice to all the thought and effort put into the rest of
>this fine effort.
DP? Definitely beer and pretzels. No denying it, but it's a heck of a lot of
fun beer and pretzels.
Actually, it's not as bad as you may think. Having played many games (I
stopped actively counting after my 1000th mission), I have seen a variety of
moving-first strategies developed in accordance with the current rules. The
experienced DP player who has to move first may position himself to give his
opponents' a "free" 300-foot side-shot, with the intention of giving other
members of his side who move later an opportunity to go in and get a better
100-foot attack on the enemy.
We call this "sucking them in" and is correctly performed while making the
appropriate "slurping" noises with your mouth as you move your counter.
Other schemes for planes that have to "go first" is "boxing up", thereby,
providing mutual covering fire against later-moving attackers. Yes, there are
always blind spots, and you NEVER box up against a potential attack from a
two-seater! (Oh, my pilot will take a 100-foot bottom attack on Al, and my
observer will take the 200-foot head-on shot at Fred...."
Yes. within the confines of dice-rolling for movement order, there are
definite strategies...
>...although I suspect it couldn't be too difficult to implement plotted
>orders/movement into the system.
Every DP "club" has its share of "house rules". Nothing stops you from
implementing a "si-move system in DP if all the players agree. We tried it
for a bit, but it really bogged the game down.
As an aside, I also favor plotted gunfire
>rules, whereby target orders are made then revealed prior to resolution.
>No orchestrated paperwork here, just some scribbles before before combat
>dice are rolled...that chance that two+ people will inadvertantly fire on
>one target, while letting the others go is a dramatic element.
This can also be done, although "the" rule is that a player must announce if
he is targetting another plane at the end of his movement.
Writing it down instead of announcing it out loud would be very interesting,
considering the attack limitation rule. I honestly don't remember if this was
in the last published addition of DP or came in as a later add-on. One of the
problems with dice-directed movement is that players know what order they're
moving before anyone does move. It has happened in, say, an 8-player game
that all four members of one side would move last. This allowed for a very
gamey tactic in which all four team members would attack the same enemy plane,
hoping to "kill" it or seriously damage it in one turn of withering fire. To
stop this, DP now has an attack limitation rule: No plane can be attacked by
more than two enemy planes if other targets of equal or better opportunity
exist AT THE TIME of movement for the attacking plane.
Writing down targeting orders WITH si-move would eliminate the need for this
rule. With dice-controlled movement, I think it would still be necessary, as
there is plenty of opportunity for people to "develop" an understanding of
what plane is to be considered the "bulleye" for a coordinated attack.
(Believe me, when you play this game thousands of times, certain lines of play
become second nature.)
Anyway, just to repeat, one is always free to adapt house rules to the game.
Julian Barker
co...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote
>Bill Tricomi (wtri...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: Well, I don't know if I can bring myself to talk about DP today, as I'm still
>: mourning the loss of my 59-mission French SPAD XIII ace this Saturday. Forced
>: down in the front just short of his lines, his messed up his landing and died
>: of injuries due to the crash. (Sniff sniff)
>
>: Actually, it's this sort of event that makes DP the game that it is. It's
>: about pilot development (NOT role playing!) more than a flight mechanics game,
>: but it's hard to convey that appreciation to a non-player who's looking for a
>: "good" WWI air game.
><snip>
>
>Although I don't own Dawn Patrol, I do have it's predecesor, Fight in the
>Skies 5th ed. (for those who are counting; along with Wings 2nd ed., and
>Red Baron).
>
>Squares vs. hexes is the least of my quibbles. Although I haven't read the
>rules all that thuroughly, nor played the game, I am impressed at the
>depth of information included. Very comprehensive, and obviously brought
>forth with much passion -- ALWAYS a good thing. A novice to WWI era
>aircraft can come away with a good understanding and appriciation of the
>subject (this from one who has very little intrest in jet aviation
>himself, so MY point of view is narrowly skewed).
>
>My stumbling block is in the plotting of movement. Without simultanious
>movement, for me the feel of arieal combat is lost. Too much relies on
>which of the players get inititive (the fourth of four players essencially
>gets on SOMEONE'S tail "automaticly", while the first being the sacrafical
>lamb). A system like this is fine for a quick beer & pretzels game, but
>does little justice to all the thought and effort put into the rest of
>this fine effort.
>
>...although I suspect it couldn't be too difficult to implement plotted
>orders/movement into the system. As an aside, I also favor plotted gunfire
>rules, whereby target orders are made then revealed prior to resolution.
>No orchestrated paperwork here, just some scribbles before before combat
>dice are rolled...that chance that two+ people will inadvertantly fire on
>one target, while letting the others go is a dramatic element.
>
> __
> (oO) Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fthagn
> /||\
My experience of plotted air games is that they result in a nonsense
unless there are clear advantages given to position. In the original
AirForce/Dauntless it was so easy to escape someone on your tail
because you had a choice of ahead, left and right, the plane on your
tail had to guess and often enough got it wrong.
What I like about Speed of Heat etc is the non-simultanious method based
on position. A plane that is being tailed moves before those that are
not and those that are tailing move last. The effect works very well.