Home Forums Air and Sea Air Lacquered Coffins (WW2 Air Combat) Released

This topic contains 54 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by NKL Aerotom NKL Aerotom 8 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #58499
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Posting this here too, as it belongs in the Air forum 

    We are excited to announce the release of Lacquered Coffins, our fast-play WW2 air combat game

    Lacquered Coffins is a simple and fast-play WW2 air combat game aimed at between 4 and 20 aircraft per side. The game focuses on the interaction of fighters, bombers, ground attack and utility aircraft, and can be played on a 4′ X 4′ or 4′ X 6′ table.

    What does Lacquered Coffins offer?

    • Good balance of historical accuracy and simplicity
    • Bombing, Torpedo attacks and Reconnaissance all play an important role
    • Based on the first-hand accounts of pilots
    • 6 Missions included, land or sea battles can be fought
    • Stats included for over 200 Aircraft
    • Luftwaffe, RAF, Soviet, US, Japanese and Italian air forces all covered
    • 3 Periods – Early Mid and Late, showing the evolution of aircraft during the war
    • 4 Pilot qualities available – Poor quality pilots are less effective, aces are deadly
    • Free-form squadron building; aircraft, pilots and ordinance have points values
    • Simple to play, games take less than 2 hours

    Lacquered Coffins is aimed at 1/600 scale miniatures, but 1:144 could be used just as easily. The game requires minimal equipment, just dice, a tape measure and a circular protractor – No fancy flying stands necessary!

    Purchase it here:

    http://www.wargamevault.com/product/205740/Lacquered-Coffins-WW2-Air-Combat

    #58554
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Dunno if this is a good idea (only one cup of coffee so far) but since the OP got put here I thought it best to continue relevant discussion here as well, and so have copied the latest posts to this thread/forum.  I realize it runs the risk of having two parallel threads, but figured having it here in the ‘air’ forum was best for any future reference?  Perhaps if approved by Tom the mods can shift the original thread over here?

     

    …the “line up and fire” keeps things feeling realistic, as aircraft attempt to point at the target and get some strikes.

    I understand the ‘feels right’ objective, but question whether the feeling comes from it being the familiar (and therefore comfortable) presentation of games of the genre rather than from any sort of representation of realism in regard to what the player/pilot is doing?  As stated, it does represent what the aircraft is doing, but is it a necessary task for the player to dedicate energy/gametime on?  I agree it is only a few seconds, but it looks to be as much (if not more?) than the time spent on the pilot check, which -in effect- doubles the time used?  With speed/simplicity a goal, it seems as though trimming away as much ‘fat’ as possible would be a good thing?  dunno.  It relates, I think, on the ‘theater’ concept mentioned by Zippy*

     

    The indication of those differences can be done in many ways (dice on a stand – be it a Wellington bomber or a Wellington command) but there is no reason to presume that one method of location is any better than another simply because a different dimension is involved.

    M’kay, so you don’t think analog representation of altitude by physically moving model airplanes up and down is necessarily superior to displaying altitude on a dice or dial.

    Nope – my poor writing strikes again…sorry.

    The comparison was not between methods of showing altitude in air gaming (eg: dice v telescoping rods) but between using dice to represent altitude in air gaming and dice to represent depth in ground gaming (ie: playing on a 1′ x 6′ board with the minis only moving laterally along one’s edge and using dice (or other markers) to indicate how far into the battlefield the units are).  The latter appears crazy, but is the equivalent to some extent.  The impracticality of such a system is -as pointed out- only due to the unfamiliarity of players with it.

     

    *

    …wargaming is a theater of the mind exercise, that it requires a convincing illusion of verisimilitude, so that the players can willingly suspend disbelief and enter emotionally into the drama of the action…Through long usage, dice displaying altitude present a convincing illusion to me. I can *see* the display in my mind’s eye, and enter into the drama. Some of the other players in that game could not. Hunh.

    I completely agree.  It is the decision a designer makes as to where/when to use some sort of ‘illusion’ (and what kind it will be: mask?…lighting?…?) that creates the game.

    The pointing of the model in order to fire upon an opponent is ubiquitous, but I wonder whether the time/energy spent on it (especially in a genre most would describe as representing ‘fast-action’) is worth the trouble?  Could the ‘theater of the mind’ be used instead?

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58562

    zippyfusenet
    Participant

    The comparison was not between methods of showing altitude in air gaming (eg: dice v telescoping rods) but between using dice to represent altitude in air gaming and dice to represent depth in ground gaming (ie: playing on a 1′ x 6′ board with the minis only moving laterally along one’s edge and using dice (or other markers) to indicate how far into the battlefield the units are).  The latter appears crazy, but is the equivalent to some extent.  The impracticality of such a system is -as pointed out- only due to the unfamiliarity of players with it.

    I think we’re approaching a meeting of the minds, here.

    The difference I see between dice representing altitude and dice representing ground movement, and one reason I like to physically point models at one another, is that analog horizontal movement in two dimensions is easy to engineer, while vertical movement in three dimensions is much more difficult, maybe because you have to overcome gravity.

    I can play a two-dimensional game on a flat surface, a table. It can be as big as my floor space and my arm’s reach allow, say 5 feet by 12 feet. I can model elaborate terrain on the surface, if I want to. It’s trivial to move my models across the flat surface. I can easily construct a visually convincing moving diorama, suspend disbelief and enter emotionally into the drama of playing with my toys. “Charge!”

    To move my toys in three dimensions, I must construct a mechanically complex flight stand, with multiple parts that fit with some precision, to allow me to move my models up and down. The stands are bulky and top-heavy, they easily fall over, and knock down other stands when they fall. Two stands can’t physically occupy the same space, so one airplane model can’t physically be directly above another at different altitudes, which is fairly common in dog-fighting. Because my reach is only to about 3 feet above the table surface, I have less space to work in vertically than horizontally. Reduced working space tends to magnify scale compression issues, which are always a problem when playing table top wargames with scale models. This leads to the visually displeasing result of a group of large objects embedded in a forest of sticks. Some players feel than the forest of sticks is a convincing illusion, but many do not.

    All of these problems can be overcome at some cost, but they’re non-trivial. I’m satisfied to symbolically represent altitude on a dice or a dial, while I physically move my models around on a flat table and point them at one another. The illusion convinces me, I can fluently *see* the altitude differences in my mind’s eye. I appreciate that it takes more effort, and more practice, to *see* the part of the illusion that isn’t physically there. Why go to that extra effort when physical representation is easy, in two dimensions?

    I look forward to the development of holographic miniature wargaming. Then we will be able to project highly detailed miniature images and move them as we please, without any physical constraints. Our toy airplanes will be able to fly in three dimensions, in real time or scaled down, just as we like. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but I can dream about it.

    You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

    #58585

    The sample looks interesting and I may pick it up eventually but for now I will stick with 2D rules like Wings (AT) War rules or Air War C21/1917 for aerial combat.

    Gracias, Glenn (H. I. C. K.)

    #58666
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

     I think we’re approaching a meeting of the minds, here.

    That’s a scary thought…for one of us, at least!  ; )

     

    I’m satisfied to symbolically represent altitude on a dice or a dial, while I physically move my models around on a flat table and point them at one another.

    No disagreement on altitude representation – it is one of the chief obstacles to the genre (whether in constructing stands or learning to see the third dimension via markers).

     

    Where new ground can be broken, imo, is when it comes to applying the ‘theater of the mind’ to the ‘point them at one another’ facet ubiquitous in games.  The ‘pilot/maneuver check’ in “…Coffins” seems to do this, insofar as it represents movement of the aircraft not displayed by the model on the tabletop (or directed/controlled by the player) but is instead abstractly represented by a die roll – the details of that movement are left to the players’ imaginations.  (This is exactly the way I use a ‘movement test’ in my rules, btw, so it stood out to me.)

    My question (to all, though sort of directed at Tom since it’s his game…) is whether the other ‘pointing’ of the model (within the scope of combat maneuvering, not moving around the battlefield) can be treated in the same manner?

     

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58695
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Hi Don, the field of fire for fixed-forward weapons in Lacquered Coffins is very strict: it extends in a straight line from the aircraft’s nose. If this doesn’t cross another aircraft’s base, none can be targeted. Fighters wanting to line up a shot will “maneuver and fire”, making a turn so that they’re pointing at the enemy and then roll their pilot check to see if they actually get any strikes.

    Bombers and aircraft with flexible mounts don’t usually have to maneuver at all in order to fire, and have very large fields of fire, depending on the location and capabilities of the mount.

    Since there are negatives when attacking a target head-on (45 degrees either side of an aircraft’s nose), heading is quite important. Turning is also quite strict, and fighter type aircraft (for example) will lose speed for every 90 degrees of turn they make. Sometimes heading is so important that a few degrees can mean the difference between being able to attack the enemy and not.

     

    Hope that answers your questions. There is an example game on the wargame vault page you can watch if you like – will show you how the system plays.

    #58709
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Hi Don, the field of fire for fixed-forward weapons in Lacquered Coffins is very strict…

    I understand that part – I simply question why it (the pointing of the model) is included if the goal is to simplify/speed play as much as possible.

    The source of my query is the ‘Dogfight!’ video you posted which contains not only the pilot check but also ‘going evasive’ – both of which appear to represent movement of the aircraft that is not physically displayed on the tabletop with the model(s).  If “Coffins” is different this is moot, and I’m sure I could be interpreting this incorrectly?  If not, it is stated:

    Fighters wanting to line up a shot will “maneuver and fire”, making a turn so that they’re pointing at the enemy and then roll their pilot check to see if they actually get any strikes.

    In the video, however, a roll is made after the pilot check for firing.  I assumed that this latter roll determined ‘if they actually get any strikes’, and that the pilot check and defensive evasion were rolls that represented the success in lining up the shot (and/or subsequent quality).  If this is correct, I wonder what the ‘pointing’ bit is supposed to represent, as it seems to be an unecessary step (and the most time-consuming).

     

    Since there are negatives when attacking a target head-on (45 degrees either side of an aircraft’s nose), heading is quite important. Turning is also quite strict, and fighter type aircraft (for example) will lose speed for every 90 degrees of turn they make. Sometimes heading is so important that a few degrees can mean the difference between being able to attack the enemy and not.

    All of these seem akin to the modifiers already applied for evasion and pilot check – the only difference is that they are applied based on the (time-consuming) physical manipulation/positioning of the model(s) rather than (as with the pilot check or evasion) by abstract (and relatively quicker) die rolls.

     

    Apologies for potential attitude – none is intended beyond sincere curiosity.

     

    PS- I assume I’m not thought to be flying under false colors, as my history on this (and other) site(s) is known?

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58748
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Hi Don, in Dogfight!  there is an extra pilot check to attempt to gain a +1 to damage, which I have simplified / removed from the system for Lacquered Coffins. In this game the pilot check represents the fine maneuvering to actually get your guns on target, either in the vertical or horizontal, and also fine throttle and flaps management. The better quality pilots get a universal +1 or +2 to damage against aircraft so don’t need to roll an extra pilot check for this.

    As for turning an aircraft to line up with a target, this is no more complex than making a normal turn, so there’s no good reason to leave it out, or to abstract the facing of the aircraft. Unless you would prefer a game when all aircraft move directly forward and never turn, or where facing doesn’t matter at all – imagine chess with aircraft… (on a side note that would be pretty hilarious to replace chess pieces with specific aircraft – I wonder if anyone has done this. You could to a WW1, WW2 and modern version…)

    There is also something satisfying about turning your aircraft in behind another, or speeding in from an unanticipated angle on an attack run. It makes the game exciting and means that after the merge the table becomes a mess of aircraft at all different altitudes and facings – which is exactly how many pilots describe large scale encounters. It makes the players really play like a pilot: choose 1 single aircraft and try to take it out, even if there are 5 to 10 other aircraft all around you.

    #58804
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    In this game the pilot check represents the fine maneuvering to actually get your guns on target, either in the vertical or horizontal, and also fine throttle and flaps management.

    By that I take it to mean the same as the firing roll of ‘Dogfight!”?  No matter: I continue to question the differentiation in the game between the abstracted ‘fine maneuvering’ represented with dice and the ‘gross maneuvering'[?] represented by pushing the model around a protractor.  To me they are just degrees of the same thing, and continue to wonder why they are handled/treated differently in the game. cuz…

    As for turning an aircraft to line up with a target, this is no more complex than making a normal turn, so there’s no good reason to leave it out, or to abstract the facing of the aircraft.

    [italics mine]

    …except that that is exactly what you are doing with the pilot check roll, so I wonder what -instead of ‘no good reason to leave it out’- the reason is to leave it in?

     

    There is also something satisfying about turning your aircraft in behind another, or speeding in from an unanticipated angle on an attack run. It makes the game exciting…

    No argument there.  There’s also something satisfying about making the di(c)e roll that allows your miniature alter ego(s) to succeed in a dramatic/heroic act that saves the day.  The two are, imo, six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

    I guess the focus of my query relates to how close you came to using dice in “Dogfight!”, but seem to have abandoned in “…Coffins” – why?

     

    It makes the players really play like a pilot

    There’s the rub.  Do pilots consciously manipulate the controls to move/position the aircraft?  I don’t think so, and I don’t know of anyone who does.

    So: Why does a player/pilot take up gametime in a ‘quick play game’ do so?

    Game designers/publishers make the conscious decision to make this sort of decision/control a part of their aircombat games.  “It’s fun/satisfying” is a perfectly valid answer (believe me: I’m all for fun – look at most/all of my silly offerings) but it doesn’t address the ‘is it necessary?’  issue that seems to serve as a block to the development of aircombat gaming.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58809
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    I continue to question the differentiation in the game between the abstracted ‘fine maneuvering’ represented with dice and the ‘gross maneuvering'[?] represented by pushing the model around a protractor.  To me they are just degrees of the same thing

    The physical making of the turn represents the aircraft changing facing, and moving in space. The pilot check represents actually being able to get an attack in. Its fine to be pointing at your target, but actually hitting it is a different story. Having to lead your target, following him down (or up) in the vertical, minor flaps and throttle adjustments so you don’t overshoot, etc. These are the things that the pilot check represent. If this is failed, the aircraft is still pointed in the right direction, but no attack can be made, and pilots with a lower skill will lose speed and altitude as they over-correct and generally make a mess of things.

    You can carry out a turn and attack (making the turn, rolling the pilot check, rolling damage) in about 10 seconds, so considering this is the most time consuming part of playing the game, I still consider it “Fast Play”

    #58813
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    *

    • This reply was modified 9 months, 2 weeks ago by Whirlwind Whirlwind.
    #58826
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    I continue to question the differentiation in the game between the abstracted ‘fine maneuvering’ represented with dice and the ‘gross maneuvering'[?] represented by pushing the model around a protractor. To me they are just degrees of the same thing

    The physical making of the turn represents the aircraft changing facing, and moving in space. The pilot check represents actually being able to get an attack in. Its fine to be pointing at your target, but actually hitting it is a different story. Having to lead your target, following him down (or up) in the vertical, minor flaps and throttle adjustments so you don’t overshoot, etc. These are the things that the pilot check represent.

     

    umm, okay.  You just restated the premise.  Do you have an answer to my question – that is: On what basis do you differentiate (via game mechanics) between the fine and gross maneuvering of the aircraft?  In what way do they deserve different treatment/separate steps in the game?

     

    You have:

    Physical movement of the model (representing ‘pointing’ at the target)

    A pilot check die roll (representing ‘fine tuning’ of the pointing)

    A damage roll (which, presumably, represents the quality of the aforementioned ‘fine tuning’)

     

    The second step looks to be a modification of the first, and the third looks to be a redundancy of the second.

     

    Cut to the chase: Why “Point-and-Shoot”?  Why have players tediously move the little models on the tabletop in order to justify qualifying for a potential shot (which must be further justified with two di(c)e rolls) ?

    What does the moving of the models (to point at the target, but not really…) represent?

    • This reply was modified 9 months, 2 weeks ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58831
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    On what basis do you differentiate (via game mechanics) between the fine and gross maneuvering of the aircraft?  In what way do they deserve different treatment/separate steps in the game?

    The ‘gross’ maneuvering is where you have complete control over where the aircraft is facing and its position in space, the ‘fine’ maneuvering represented by pilot checks introduces the element of chance, beyond the control of the player and where pilot quality is more important than the player’s skill.

    This keeps a balance between complete control and the random-ness of combat.

     

    Physical movement of the model (representing ‘pointing’ at the target)

    Where the player has complete control and can place the aircraft wherever they like in space

    A pilot check die roll (representing ‘fine tuning’ of the pointing)

    Where there is an element of random-ness and where pilot quality is more important than player skill – representing the skill of the pilot in performing a maneuver – Be it a steep dive, immelmann, or a ‘maneuver and attack’

    A damage roll (which, presumably, represents the quality of the aforementioned ‘fine tuning’)

    Which represents how much damage is caused by the attack – and involves a combination of factors – speed difference, pilot skill, armament, armor, facing (negatives for attacking head-on), range and the enemy attempting to go evasive.

    Think of the process as ‘my control’ – ‘pilots control’ – ‘damage inflicted’

    #58834
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    The ‘gross’ maneuvering is where you have complete control over where the aircraft is facing and its position in space, the ‘fine’ maneuvering represented by pilot checks introduces the element of chance, beyond the control of the player and where pilot quality is more important than the player’s skill.

    Okay.  This still doesn’t address the issue of why the two are treated differently in the game.

     

    I have reservations about “complete control over where the aircraft is facing and its position in space” insofar as where the boundary exists between complete control and the random-ness of combat.  Where/how/why do you draw the line?

     

    You use two distinct game mechanics: players physically moving models on the tabletop, and abstract di(c)e rolls, to accomplish the same result.

    Why?

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58835
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    You use two distinct game mechanics: players physically moving models on the tabletop, and abstract di(c)e rolls, to accomplish the same result. Why?

    Allow me to answer this with a quote from my own post:

    This keeps a balance between complete control and the random-ness of combat.

    It also differentiates between what the player can control, and what the pilots themselves are capable of. If it was all down to the player like in Wings of War, pilot quality wouldn’t matter. If it was all down to the pilot quality, player skill and decisions wouldn’t matter. So I opted for a balance between the two.

    #58837
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    It also differentiates between what the player can control, and what the pilots themselves are capable of.

    What?  The player and the pilot are two different entities?

     

    reset

     

     

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58842
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

     

    What?  The player and the pilot are two different entities?

    Hence why pilot quality exists in the game, and is important. Poor quality pilots cost less in points, and are capable of much less. Average quality pilots perform averagely and are relatively cheap

    Good quality pilots are pretty expensive, perform pretty well, and get bonuses to damage. They also never lose speed or altitude if they fail a pilot check

    Ace pilots are even more expensive, almost never fail, get even larger bonuses to damage, and are much harder to hit (if you know how to enter and exit a snap roll consistently, you are incredibly hard to hit…).

    This way people have the option of spamming many low quality pilots, or taking a few good quality pilots, or an average amount of average pilots. Good quality and Ace pilots can cost as much as a good fighter aircraft (20 and 30 points respectively – a Bf 109 costs 20 points) So the balance of aircraft and pilots adds an interesting dynamic to building your lists for the game.

     

    #58855

    This seems overly redundant for fast play rules IMO.

    Gracias, Glenn (H. I. C. K.)

    #58909
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    A step back.

    You use two distinct game mechanics: players physically moving models on the tabletop, and abstract di(c)e rolls, to accomplish the same result. Why?

    Allow me to answer this with a quote from my own post:

    This keeps a balance between complete control and the random-ness of combat.

    It also differentiates between what the player can control, and what the pilots themselves are capable of. If it was all down to the player like in Wings of War, pilot quality wouldn’t matter. If it was all down to the pilot quality, player skill and decisions wouldn’t matter. So I opted for a balance between the two.

    I highlighted/commented on the ‘player/pilot’ difference, but missed the mark (surprise, surprise!).

     

    I think we’re closer than appearances present.  You differentiate between general directional control (what the player does) and -for lack of a better term- ‘combat control’ (what the pilot does).  Where we differ is in how you allow the former (time-consuming process) to intrude on the latter.

    As Glenn points out, there’s a fair amount of redundancy going on.

     

    My main question is: Why use gametime/player energy to point the model at another model when the ‘pilot check’ and ‘evasion’ devices (from the “Dogfight!” paradigm) serve to determine both the quality of the pilot’s ability to maneuver into a firing position as well as the resultant effect of the shot?  It is, bluntly, an unnecessary and time-consuming step that represents…what?

     

    As stated previously, my historical (10+ years?) position on this matter is -hopefully- no surprise, and my intention here (beyond the usual cyber ego-boost) is to promote a discussion of current aircombat gaming systems.  I have no personal grudge against Tom (it is Tom, correct?) and am honestly encouraged by his “Dogfight!” rules as much as I am disappointed that he has (apparently) abandoned that path with his current endeavor.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #58921
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Why use gametime/player energy to point the model at another model when the ‘pilot check’ and ‘evasion’ devices (from the “Dogfight!” paradigm) serve to determine both the quality of the pilot’s ability to maneuver into a firing position as well as the resultant effect of the shot?  It is, bluntly, an unnecessary and time-consuming step that represents…what?

    I felt turning was important in an air combat game, so I didn’t devise some kind of system that forgoes turning. I feel its an important part of air combat, as important as speed and altitude. When I described the Dogfight!   system to a friend, I told him I had a way to track speed and altitude, and everything else was “turning and shooting”. So to leave out turning, would be leaving out 1/4 of the game mechanics. I didn’t want a system where facing was unimportant, and in Dogfight! There was even a bouns to damage for attacking from the rear facing. I removed that bouns for Lacquered Coffins because aircraft have so many more weapons and much more powerful weapons, and pilots get straight up bonuses to damage instead of having to roll for them, that an extra bonus to damage for being behind a target was just too much. Hopefully that Explains why physically turning the aircraft and having facings is important in these systems.

    As for the pilot checks, this gives pilot qualities a reason to exist, and adds an element of chance that can prevent whoever gets the first attack from annihilating the enemy in the first pass.

    The damage checks is the culmination of everything. Its a big sky out there and hard to put the “thing” on the “thing” especially when the thing is going into a dive and jinking all over the place. So the damage roll factors in all the things that have nothing to do with the pilot – speed difference, weaponry, armor of the target, target going evasive, etc. Its also another stage in the chance element to prevent the first attack being fatal every time. If the person who gets the first attack always wins every time, the game becomes about avoiding contact until you know you’re going to get that first attack run in. I didn’t want the game to be about that, so encourage players to move forwards and take whatever comes, with the ground attack and recon targets forcing you to move up to defend you ground attack, recon and bomber aircraft.

    As stated previously, my historical (10+ years?) position on this matter is -hopefully- no surprise, and my intention here (beyond the usual cyber ego-boost) is to promote a discussion of current aircombat gaming systems.  I have no personal grudge against Tom (it is Tom, correct?) and am honestly encouraged by his “Dogfight!” rules as much as I am disappointed that he has (apparently) abandoned that path with his current endeavor.

    The Lacquered Coffins system is almost identical to Dogfight!. The main changes are a few simplifications. For example in Dogfight! the pilot needs to roll an additional pilot check to get a bonus to damage. In Lacquered Coffins this bonus is automatically factored into the damage roll for Good quality and Ace pilots. So that’s one less pilot check you need to roll during an attack. The other main change is there is no longer a bonus to damage for being behind a target, and the ground attack system has been hugely expanded. In Dogfight! you just bomb the enemy deployment zone, and the entire deployment zone has air defense around it. In Lacquered Coffins there are 3 types of ground target, each with their own air defense. Rules are also included for different types of ground attack – dive bombing, strafing, torpedoes for naval vessels, etc. Apart from that, the system plays very similair to Dogfight! except fighters can have multiple 20mm cannons instead of 2 machine guns. The up-gunning was something that surprised me when I first play tested Lacquered Coffins – so many more guns, planes just fell out of the sky as soon as you pointed at them – even heavily armored planes, and the game was over in 3 or 4 turns. So I removed the bonus to damage for being behind – this game was no longer about tailing a target in a 1 v 1 dogfight, but about E fighting, boom n zoom attacks, getting your 8 machine guns onto a target for a split second and annihilating it, then moving on to the next.

    Hope that answers your questions, I have had a look at your site and through your WW1 air combat rules, very interesting!

    There is an example game for Lacquered Coffins here, although I have altered the mission balance a bit since then (ground attack aircraft cost half in close air support missions, for example), and these lists were somewhat unbalanced… so made for a fairly 1 sided game. I will film another of these soon, with more balanced lists. 5 Spitfires vs 5 Bf 109s was dead even when I played the other day.

    #59105
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    First off: Kudos to Tom (I hope I got that correct?) for engaging in a polite manner, even when the others (umm…that’s me) don’t do so well in that regard.

    Seriously folks: Behavior like this (Tom’s) should be applauded, especially when it comes in the face of the sort of internet behavior that we have come to cringe at (…that would be mine).  I ask that you take a moment to appreciate it.

    Then (of course) I plunge back in (with, I hope, is a degree of civility that is better than that which I have demonstrated)…

     

    Why use gametime/player energy to point the model at another model when the ‘pilot check’ and ‘evasion’ devices (from the “Dogfight!” paradigm) serve to determine both the quality of the pilot’s ability to maneuver into a firing position as well as the resultant effect of the shot? It is, bluntly, an unnecessary and time-consuming step that represents…what?

    I felt turning was important in an air combat game, so I didn’t devise some kind of system that forgoes turning. I feel its an important part of air combat, as important as speed and altitude.

    Where my question comes in is in why turning (which means what, exactly in a 3d environment?)  differentiates itself from all the other maneuvers that a pilot may make?  I can understand how a player may feel regarding this, but don’t see the difference a pilot may make.

    This is the key: Is the audience players, or players wanting to be pilots?

     

    You’ve taken the manipulation of the aircraft (to achieve a firing position on another aircraft) and made it into both a player-dependant physical skill and a dice roll.  Why?   Really: Why?

     

    Hopefully that Explains why physically turning the aircraft and having facings is important in these systems.

    Nope.  nothing.  nada.  nyet.

    You’ve got your work ahead of you.

     

    PS- I’m not completely against the means.  Mike Clinton’s “Check Your Six!” (highly recommended) are rules that still rely on the (undefended) point-and-shoot mechanic, but which I am still a fan of (the rules, not the mechanic).  What I’m seeking is a reason to accept your game-designer-choice to use the ‘point and shoot’ mechanic.  So far…

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59108
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    @Ostfront,

    I thought your explanation was perfectly clear.

     

     

     

    #59109
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    @Ostfront, I thought your explanation was perfectly clear.

     

    How so?

     

    No snark/bad-internetz intended.

    If I’d intended to talk privately I’d have done so.  The strength/value of a public forum such as this is to display as many voices/views as possible.

    Main point (imo) is to display as many views as possible – the source of those views is, imo, irrelevant.  It is the ideas -not the ones proposing them- that are the keys to the discussion.

     

    blah blah blah…I’m just a doofus on the internet who doesn’t really know what he’s doing.*

    *beyond caring about aircombat gaming. ; )

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59124
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Sorry for the delayed response, haven’t had much time for internetting [sic] recently.

    This is the key: Is the audience players, or players wanting to be pilots?

    The player in this game functions almost like an airbase commander. They decide what kind of aircraft to send, which pilots to send in, and the ordnance required – all depending on the mission.

    Once the game starts, the player exhibits far more control in the micro/tactical area than a real commander on the ground would, but in the end this is a game and I want to be able to push aircraft around the table and have them go where I want them to go, so overlooking realism in the command/control area is ok by me in favor of gameplay. The player acts as the commander and also as a referee or gamemaster for their own side – moving the aircraft where they think the pilots would move them.

     

    You’ve taken the manipulation of the aircraft (to achieve a firing position on another aircraft) and made it into both a player-dependant physical skill and a dice roll.  Why?   Really: Why?

    So that players can still move aircraft where they want them on the table, while pilot skill still plays a part in the success of the maneuver/s. Its important that different quality pilots behave differently. Poor quality pilots don’t even know what an immelmann is, let alone how to perform one. Average pilots know the basics of an immelmann and other such maneuvers, and exactly what to do when they hear the “hail stones” of enemy fire striking their aircraft – they go evasive like their life depends on it.

    Meanwhile good quality pilots are very consistent with their maneuvers, almost every immelman and steep dive is done accurately, the right amount of flaps, the right recover from the roll, etc.

    Ace pilots do these maneuvers in their sleep and it would probably be down to exhaustion or wounds if they end up failing a pilot check for a split-S or suchlike.

     

    First off: Kudos to Tom (I hope I got that correct?) for engaging in a polite manner, even when the others (umm…that’s me) don’t do so well in that regard.

    My pleasure, I’m happy to discuss the design choices I made in this game, part of the reason I included “notes from the designer” in the rule set and complete transparency in how I arrived at the stats and points values for all the aircraft (basing the stats on real life specifications). Game design should be a conversation, and especially for new games like Lacquered Coffins, its important to address any questions or suggestions people might have. I do take on board all the suggestions and ideas, and often implement them. Lacquered Coffins has already benefited greatly from the input of people outside the design team (me – and yes, it is Tom 🙂 ).

    While visiting my family recently I devised a truly “fast play” air combat game I called Position which can be explained verbally in a few minutes and involves players drawing a flight path on a small square piece of paper (an office memo cube of small paper squares being essential for the game). The game plays very similarly to Wings of War, with moves being drawn in secret and revealed/executed simultaneously, but with complete freedom of move choice, and with much simpler damage rules if your aircraft ends up pointing at an enemy and within range (roll a D6: On a 5+ you cause damage. Aircraft damaged a second time are destroyed).

    I will likely type up these simple rules for people to play, as Position proved good fun for a family of 2-4 to play over 10-20 minutes.

    #59185
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    The player in this game functions almost like an airbase commander. They decide what kind of aircraft to send, which pilots to send in, and the ordnance required – all depending on the mission. Once the game starts, the player exhibits far more control in the micro/tactical area than a real commander on the ground would, but in the end this is a game and I want to be able to push aircraft around the table and have them go where I want them to go, so overlooking realism in the command/control area is ok by me in favor of gameplay. The player acts as the commander and also as a referee or gamemaster for their own side – moving the aircraft where they think the pilots would move them.

    Agree (with caveats ).  Multi-aircraft games are a struggle for the genre (especially in WW1, but applicable in WW2 when you consider how much time a pilot spends on listening to the radio in the middle of a furball) and I have no problem with game designers making efforts to address this issue (though I could go round-and-round with someone who advocates that a soldier in a squad/platoon/company automatically carries out an order, but that’s another can of worms) but have a serious issue with anyone who thinks that allowing players to control the specific turning/facing/position of the units on the tabletop is residing on a valid position.

    Thus we come back to:

     

    I felt turning was important in an air combat game, so I didn’t devise some kind of system that forgoes turning. I feel its an important part of air combat, as important as speed and altitude.

    Why is turning the aircraft a special maneuver, insofar as you call it out as a separate function to be controlled by the players in a distinctly different manner (pushing models along the tabletop)?  Why is this particular thing treated differently?

    So that players can still move aircraft where they want them on the table…

    …does not, as far as I can see, justify the specific ‘pointing’ requirement – especially in the light of the abstraction of the myriad other maneuvers being represented by dice rolls.  What does the moving/pointing represent?

     

    I’m happy to discuss the design choices I made in this game…

    I appreciate that.  You deserve a lot of credit TOM .

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59409
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Why is turning the aircraft a special maneuver, insofar as you call it out as a separate function to be controlled by the players in a distinctly different manner (pushing models along the tabletop)?  Why is this particular thing treated differently?

    Turning exists in this game so that aircraft can face different directions, allowing them to move in different directions, and prepare for attacks on opponents. Having aircraft able to turn allows aircraft to change facing. Facing is important as it indicates where an aircraft will move during its next mandatory move (So you can estimate where an enemy aircraft will be next turn), and to show which direction an aircraft will be more difficult to attack from (the front, as it is coming directly at you).

    Facing is also important for weapons with limited fields of fire, like rear gunners, waist gunners, etc. Turning means you can bring gunners to bear on a target, and allows fighters to attack bombers from directions where they have the least gunners (provided the fighter is being smart about it…)

    Like I’ve said, the game has 4 basic elements: altitude, speed, turning and attacking. You’re questioning why I’ve included turning at all, which I find hard to understand. Without turning, all aircraft would move directly forwards in straight lines until they left the table. The game would be awfully static. The other option is to have aircraft move wherever they like (for example: backwards), which makes facing unimportant and removes the feeling of air combat from the game. Air combat is about predicting where an opponent will be, intercepting him, matching speed, getting hits and getting out intact. If your opponent can move in any direction he likes the game is no longer air combat, but ground combat. The entire point of the mandatory move is to have all aircraft moving at all times, meaning you can estimate where they will be, and meaning they act like real fixed wing aircraft in-game.

     

    I would like to ask you a question: Would you want to remove turning from an air combat game? and if so, why?

    #59434
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Why is turning the aircraft a special maneuver, insofar as you call it out as a separate function to be controlled by the players in a distinctly different manner (pushing models along the tabletop)? Why is this particular thing treated differently?

    Turning exists in this game so that aircraft can face different directions, allowing them to move in different directions, and prepare for attacks on opponents. Having aircraft able to turn allows aircraft to change facing. Facing is important as it indicates where an aircraft will move during its next mandatory move (So you can estimate where an enemy aircraft will be next turn), and to show which direction an aircraft will be more difficult to attack from (the front, as it is coming directly at you). Facing is also important for weapons with limited fields of fire, like rear gunners, waist gunners, etc. Turning means you can bring gunners to bear on a target, and allows fighters to attack bombers from directions where they have the least gunners (provided the fighter is being smart about it…)

    Okay.  Repeat the original question: Why is it treated differently from other maneuvers (split-S, wingover, high yo-yo, etc…) much less vertical adjustments in facing?  Players are required to tediously/meticulously move/adjust the position/facing of the little models on the tabletop to resolve a (seemingly arbitrary) horizontal facing when other facets of the pilot’s endeavors are resolved with a die roll.  What purpose is served by the movement and facing of the model?  Again: What does it represent?  You made it a key element of your game – why?

     

    Like I’ve said, the game has 4 basic elements: altitude, speed, turning and attacking. You’re questioning why I’ve included turning at all, which I find hard to understand.

    No, I’m not questioning the inclusion of turning (though I could easily question its definition, if you had one?) but I am seriously questioning why you treat it differently in its representation.  You have (as near as I can tell) pilots/aircraft moving all over/around the 3d environment, yet the only facet of that 3d environment you choose to hold players strictly accountable for is the 2d facing – no accounting for slips, wingovers, split-Ss, falling leafs, immelmans…nothing – any number of complicated maneuvers can be performed (dependant on a die roll?) but the key to anything happening at all is that the player has to push the little model on the table so that it aligns just so.

    Does that sound silly?  On the surface, without any justificaton, I think so.

     

    The question I put to you is: What is the justification?

     

    I would like to ask you a question: Would you want to remove turning from an air combat game? and if so, why?

    Answer: I don’t want to remove turning, I only wish to place it amongst the other 3d tools pilots have at their disposal, and treat it as one of many things a player/pilot has to use from the menu of choices.

     

    Pointing the little model is…unnecessary.

     

    PS: If you’d prefer, I’m more than willing to continue this discussion privately, since it seems there’s no one else interested.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59437
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    *

     

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Whirlwind Whirlwind.
    #59439
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    The game defines the position of the aircraft, the facing and the altitude in precise terms in the game model.

    Agreed.  My issue resides in the fact that the facing of the aircraft (in 3d) is resolved/determined in multiple ways.

    Players methodically/tediously move the little stands around (imprecisely) placed protractors and move them along (equally imprecisely) placed scales to achieve specific positions.  As asked many times: What does this represent?

     

    This question -while applicable to most every other air combat game- is of significance in this particular situation because the game designer (hi Tom!) has chosen to include in the game the very real and obvious fact that there is more to piloting an aircraft in combat than simply pointing the nose of a model plane towards a target in the horizontal plane.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59440
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Agreed. My issue resides in the fact that the facing of the aircraft (in 3d) is resolved/determined in multiple ways. Players methodically/tediously move the little stands around (imprecisely) placed protractors and move them along (equally imprecisely) placed scales to achieve specific positions. As asked many times: What does this represent?

    The position of the model/counter in any air combat game represents the 2D position.  The “what does this represent?” isn’t clear.  In RL, positions in 3D are represent by plotting on 2D maps or with altimeters – or in your expression “resolved in multiple ways”.  Where is the problem with that?

    I’m afraid it simply isn’t clear what your problem with any of this is.

     

    #59443
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Agreed. My issue resides in the fact that the facing of the aircraft (in 3d) is resolved/determined in multiple ways. Players methodically/tediously move the little stands around (imprecisely) placed protractors and move them along (equally imprecisely) placed scales to achieve specific positions. As asked many times: What does this represent?

    The position of the model/counter in any air combat game represents the 2D position. The “what does this represent?” isn’t clear. In RL, positions in 3D are represent by plotting on 2D maps or with altimeters – or in your expression “resolved in multiple ways”. Where is the problem with that?

    In this particular instance, my ‘problem’ lies with the fact that the specific orientation/facing of the aircraft is determined by both the player-positioned location/facing of the model (note: NOT the aircraft) and an abstract ‘skill result’ made by a die roll (or rolls).  There are (at least) two distinct game mechanics used to determine the possibility and quality of a shot on a target.  My question is simply: What do those game mechanics (moving/placing the model and di(c)e roll(s) ) represent?

     

    I’m afraid it simply isn’t clear what your problem with any of this is.

    My problem is the treatment of aircombat as something unique simply because it takes place in three dimensions.

    Two swordsmen.  Two pilots.

    They are (fundamentaly) the same, and they can be treated (fundamentaly) the same in games.

     

    Ed (2-hr wargames) and Mike (Check Your 6) have delved into this, so I’m not alone in my insanity.   ; )

    The key is that specific positioning/facing of fighter aircraft is not necessary (or even supported) for the resolution of air-to-air combat.

     

    The only reason this is posted here is because Tom leans in this direction but doesn’t cross the line, and I question why.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59444
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    In this particular instance, my ‘problem’ lies with the fact that the specific orientation/facing of the aircraft is determined by both the player-positioned location/facing of the model (note: NOT the aircraft) and an abstract ‘skill result’ made by a die roll (or rolls). There are (at least) two distinct game mechanics used to determine the possibility and quality of a shot on a target. My question is simply: What do those game mechanics (moving/placing the model and di(c)e roll(s) ) represent?

    I think the designer explained this before:

    The player-positioning bit represents the player/pilot choice and delineates the broad action of the aircraft (or, if you prefer, the precise action of the aircraft within the game model); this is the “art of the possible” – e.g. you can’t turn faster than this, even if you do have Bader or Hartmann behind the stick.

    The manoeuvre die roll represents the fine-grain manoeuvring below the level that can be physically represented in the game.

    I contend that this is perfectly clear and understandable.  Anyone may prefer different mechanics, but that isn’t because the above doesn’t make sense.  You could make it all die roll dependent (which you appear to want), but that is a fundamentally different decision about the game, not a more efficient mechanic.

    My problem is the treatment of aircombat as something unique simply because it takes place in three dimensions. Two swordsmen. Two pilots. They are (fundamentally) the same, and they can be treated (fundamentally) the same in games.

    Well no, I for one don’t think that they are fundamentally the same at all.

    The key is that specific positioning/facing of fighter aircraft is not necessary (or even supported) for the resolution of air-to-air combat. The only reason this is posted here is because Tom leans in this direction but doesn’t cross the line, and I question why.

    On one level this of course is perfectly correct.  One can resolve air-to-air combat (or a martial arts contest) entirely using a probability table.  That doesn’t take us anywhere at all really.  It doesn’t mean that good, accurate games which do involve the specific positioning and facing of fighter aircraft are redundant, merely that you don’t like them.

    #59445
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    “…good, accurate games which do involve the specific positioning and facing of fighter aircraft are redundant…[/quote]

    That’s it, not that…

    …you don’t like them.

     

    They exist.  They serve a purpose.  They are not necessary for gaming air combat.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59449
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Two swordsmen.  Two pilots.

    They are (fundamentaly) the same, and they can be treated (fundamentaly) the same in games.

    Here’s where I disagree. Swordsmen don’t have to keep running forward to prevent themselves sinking into the ground. But aircraft do have to keep moving in order not to stall. A swordsman could move in any direction he wanted, but an aircraft must maintain lift in its wings, and maneuvering too hard will be bad news. It essentially has to keep moving forwards, and can choose to alter that forward movement with turns.

    And that’s why turning and facing are important in Lacquered Coffins; Turning allows you to face a new heading, and facing allows you to guess roughly where enemy aircraft will be.

     

    Note that you don’t have to make a pilot check in order to turn. You can simply turn. You only need to make a pilot check if you are trying to combine a turn with an attack using fixed forward weapons. Turning is easy and is an absolute basic that no pilot should really fail, provided they maintain airspeed and altitude. Pointing your aircraft at an enemy aircraft and trying to hit him with your fixed-forward guns is an entirely different story and could be considered an art form if you factor in ammunition conservation and leading your target. This is why there is a pilot check required for a Maneuver and Attack, but not for a basic turn.

     

    On a side note, Laqcuered Coffins is now available in print – softcover book.

    We will be playing a large game tomorrow at our local wargames club, likely RAF vs Luftwaffe in a Battle of Britain style mission. I will be sure to take some photos!

    #59504
    NKL Aerotom
    NKL Aerotom
    Participant

    Played a good game today, RAF vs Luftwaffe, early war (aircraft in service up to 1940). Mission was a defensive counter air, so RAF were trying to bomb some ground targets, while Luftwaffe tried to stop them.

    Game was incredibly even, only 16 points separating the sides at the end of the game, out of a 400 point game.

    Some photos:

    #59512
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Two swordsmen. Two pilots. They are (fundamentaly) the same, and they can be treated (fundamentaly) the same in games.

    Here’s where I disagree. Swordsmen don’t have to keep running forward to prevent themselves sinking into the ground. But aircraft do have to keep moving in order not to stall. A swordsman could move in any direction he wanted, but an aircraft must maintain lift in its wings, and maneuvering too hard will be bad news. It essentially has to keep moving forwards, and can choose to alter that forward movement with turns.

    No.  Nonsense.  “A swordsman could move in any direction he wanted” – really?  Really?  He can move in any direction he wanted?  Take a moment, regroup, and consider that again, because it refutes your objection to treating 1:1 air combat differently from 1:1 hand-to-hand combat.  Both combatants (swordsman and fighter pilot) must yield to physics.  To say that the restrictions on one are somehow distinctive from those on the other requires something more than ‘just cuz’.

     

    And that’s why turning and facing are important in Lacquered Coffins; Turning allows you to face a new heading, and facing allows you to guess roughly where enemy aircraft will be.

    Here’s the problem with that: Your tabletop is completely abstract.  Completely – in both horizontal and vertical dimensions.  It has no correlation to the physical space/position of the aircraft represented in the game.  Firing range is whatever, horizontal movement distance is whatever, vertical movement distance is whatever, turning radius is whatever.  Where the little model is on the table has nothing to do with where the aircraft it represents is in the battlefield/airspace of the game.

    Every measurement on your tabletop is made up. That’s fine…but: You insist that players move the little models in the horizontal plane to determine if a firing opportunity exists.  I ask again ( for the ??? time?) : What does this physical manipulation of the little model by the player on the tabletop represent?   The physical tabletop has nothing to do with reality, so why does the player-manipulation of the little models on that tabletop affect the game?

     

    FWIW, I bought both your games (Dogfight! and …Coffins) and I’m not impressed.  Milton Bradley did as much with their “Dogfight!” (which I would recommend more than yours).  Also: You ask in the Designer notes of “…Coffins” under ‘Turning Times’ – “…there isn’t as much data about turn times as I had thought…please contact me…”

    I can do that.  Every aircraft at the same speed and the same G-load turns the exact same rate/radius of turn.  Simples.

    The fun part comes when you consider energy loss/replacement, but that’s a turn/decision-loop based issue, and since you don’t have a time or ground scale associated with your rules it’s pretty much meaningless.

     

     

    PS – I want to highlight that I am not an enemy of ‘fun games’ – look at what I offer, and I think you will come to the conclusion that I am all for ‘fun’ (especially the mindless kind).  My involvement on this particular thread is not intended to be derogatory – to the contrary: I admire and publically commend Tom for posting his ruleset for public comment, and encourage/welcome such discourse – it is, however, totally dedicated to the idea that “This is Bogus” should not be left unchallenged.

     

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59516
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Both combatants (swordsman and fighter pilot) must yield to physics. To say that the restrictions on one are somehow distinctive from those on the other requires something more than ‘just cuz’.

    Yes, both combatants must yield to physics.  Your assertion that swordsman, who can choose whether to move, are the same as fighter aircraft, who have to move, will require more than your just coz.

    Here’s the problem with that: Your tabletop is completely abstract. Completely – in both horizontal and vertical dimensions.

    It isn’t *completely* abstract.  It is warped and simplified but it is recognizable as a model of aircraft in a 3D environment.  So take a moment, regroup, and consider that again.  If that is your objection, it fails completely.

    You insist that players move the little models in the horizontal plane to determine if a firing opportunity exists. I ask again ( for the ??? time?) : What does this physical manipulation of the little model by the player on the tabletop represent?

    You have been told time and time again.  If you want a discussion, you’ll have to actually listen.  If you don’t agree then that’s great, but repeating the question again and again is utterly pointless and just creates bad feeling.

    My involvement on this particular thread is not intended to be derogatory

    It looks from the outside that it is intended to be entirely derogatory, because Tom doesn’t share your idiosyncratic views.

     

     

    #59517
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Apologies for any confusion resulting from my misuse of the ‘quote/reply’ functions.  aack.

    Both combatants (swordsman and fighter pilot) must yield to physics. To say that the restrictions on one are somehow distinctive from those on the other requires something more than ‘just cuz’.

    Yes, both combatants must yield to physics. Your assertion that swordsman, who can choose whether to move, are the same as fighter aircraft, who have to move, will require more than your just coz.

    I asserted no such thing.  Look at what I wrote, and reconsider your ill considered reply.  Swordsman choosing to crouch are in every way similar to fighter pilots choosing to execute a hi-yo-yo.

     

    Here’s the problem with that: Your tabletop is completely abstract. Completely – in both horizontal and vertical dimensions.

    It isn’t *completely* abstract. It is warped and simplified but it is recognizable as a model of aircraft in a 3D environment. So take a moment, regroup, and consider that again. If that is your objection, it fails completely.

    Did you look at the rules, or are you just being contrary?  In the game (according to the rules) horizontal movement is arbritrary, vertical movement is arbitrary, and turn radius is arbitrary (insofar as it’s the same for everyone).

     

     

    You insist that players move the little models in the horizontal plane to determine if a firing opportunity exists. I ask again ( for the ??? time?) : What does this physical manipulation of the little model by the player on the tabletop represent?

    You have been told time and time again.[/quote]

     

    Show me once.  Really.  Show me once.

     

    If you want a discussion, you’ll have to actually listen.

    Tell me first, and then decide if I listen.  So far, no one has told me what the movement/placement/pointing of the models on the tabletop represents.  I’ve heard a lot about how turning is important in air combat (though no definition of what ‘turning’ actually is), but not one word on how having players move/point the little models on the tabletop represents anything in the historical world (purported to be) represented in the game.

     

    If the objective is simply a fun game loosely based on air combat, I have no basis for criticism.  This is (AFAIK) not the case, and Tom needs to justify his claim that it is a game that offers ‘historical accuracy’.

     

     

    My involvement on this particular thread is not intended to be derogatory

    It looks from the outside that it is intended to be entirely derogatory, because Tom doesn’t share your idiosyncratic views. [/quote]

     

     

    oh my.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

    #59522
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Swordsman choosing to crouch are in every way similar to fighter pilots choosing to execute a hi-yo-yo.

    This rather makes my point for me.  In every way similar?  Na.

    In the game (according to the rules) horizontal movement is arbritrary, vertical movement is arbitrary, and turn radius is arbitrary (insofar as it’s the same for everyone).

    Are fighters in the game generally faster than bombers in this game?  Do aircraft gain speed in the dive and lose it in the climb? This isn’t arbitrary.  “Abstract” and “Arbitrary” don’t mean what you seem to think they mean.

    Show me once. Really. Show me once.

    Don Glewwe wrote: In this particular instance, my ‘problem’ lies with the fact that the specific orientation/facing of the aircraft is determined by both the player-positioned location/facing of the model (note: NOT the aircraft) and an abstract ‘skill result’ made by a die roll (or rolls). There are (at least) two distinct game mechanics used to determine the possibility and quality of a shot on a target. My question is simply: What do those game mechanics (moving/placing the model and di(c)e roll(s) ) represent? I think the designer explained this before: The player-positioning bit represents the player/pilot choice and delineates the broad action of the aircraft (or, if you prefer, the precise action of the aircraft within the game model); this is the “art of the possible” – e.g. you can’t turn faster than this, even if you do have Bader or Hartmann behind the stick. The manoeuvre die roll represents the fine-grain manoeuvring below the level that can be physically represented in the game. I contend that this is perfectly clear and understandable. Anyone may prefer different mechanics, but that isn’t because the above doesn’t make sense. You could make it all die roll dependent (which you appear to want), but that is a fundamentally different decision about the game, not a more efficient mechanic.

    Tell me first, and then decide if I listen. So far, no one has told me.

    You have been told countless times.  You just don’t accept the answer.  That’s fine, but that’s on you.

     

     

    #59523
    Don Glewwe
    Don Glewwe
    Participant

    Swordsman choosing to crouch are in every way similar to fighter pilots choosing to execute a hi-yo-yo.

    This rather makes my point for me. In every way similar?  

     

    Name one way, then, that a swordsman can defy the laws of physics in which that option is denied to a fighter pilot.

     

     

    careful now…you’ll make yourself look foolish.

     

    Seriously: The physical options available to any warrior are restricted by the laws of physics.  Game rules serve to acknowledge those restrictions.

    The fact that the restrictions on a swordsman are different than those on a fighter pilot has nothing to do with the fact that both operate under limitations.  To stipulate that one set of restrictions disallows another is ridiculous.  Something that inhibits a swordsman doesn’t inhibit a fighter pilot, and vice versa.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by Don Glewwe Don Glewwe.

    http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.