What is your air wargaming set-up?

[Whirlwind]

I was wondering from amongst the air wargamers here, what set-up they have in terms of:

Models or not?

And if yes, what scale?

What board / mat / layout (size and type)?

Hexes or not?

Solitaire, H2H, multiplayer?

Only video games?

 

 

 

 

[Norm S]

I want to look at this in 2017. I will be using my Kallistra hexes and home brew rules. I recently bought a die cast Fokker Dr1 and a Sopwith Camel from the Corgi WWI Centenary Collection range. They don’t give he scale, but they look around 1:100 perhaps. My hex field may be around 12 x 12 for this.

Last night we played the board game BLUE MAX, it produces a nice narrative. I (in my Fokker Dr1) took some raking fire – drew the dame card and suffered the loss of 6 fuel points. I was already down to 9 fuel points, so my demise followed swiftly!

[Darkest Star Games]

I have tons of 1/600 planes for WW2-Mod, and use the various Check Your 6! rules, mostly because my friends enjoy the game (though we haven’t played in forever since X-Wing came out… sigh).

CY6 uses hexes, so I bought a thin but rugged clear plastic shower curtain and put 3 little lines at each hex intersection (1 going each way) with a silver pen.  When laid over a regular gaming mat (cloth or flocked or whatever) it works pretty well, with the silver markers being unobtrusive but visible.  Unless the glossiness of the sheet bothers you…

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Don Glewwe]

Models or not?   Yes, most definately!

 

And if yes, what scale?  WW1 stuff is 1/300 (mostly H&R), WW2 is 1/600 (Tumbling Dice)

I’m a big advocate of limiting (as far as practical) the amount of translation players need to do regarding what they see and what it means: Big models and the (relatively small) distances between them create incongruities (re: ground scale) that present a ‘this isn’t what it is’ visual picture that interferes (imo) with player decision-making…plus it looks wrong, and I’m an OCD model builder who hates that!  ; )

 

What board / mat / layout (size and type)?   It’s the sky, so as close to the maximum reach of players – 5’x5’…6’x6′ ?  …anything that will remind players that the edge of the table is not the edge of the world. If you can define your table in yards(or meters) rather than feet: That’s good.  If you can use miles(or kilometers) that’s better!

 

Hexes or not?  Yes and no.  Hexes that denote large, ‘combat-range’ zones (~300yds for WW1, twice that for WW2) between which aircraft move, but within which no attempt is made to indicate (or control) an aircraft’s specific position.  ‘Point-and-Shoot” it is not.

 

Solitaire, H2H, multiplayer?   All three.

 

Only video games?  Nope – tried but shelved.  For much, perhaps, but for sure open-cockpit stuff: Video flying is to the real thing as dryer lint is to sex – if you think the former is the same , then your experience is not to be bragged of… ; )

[Paul]

Cheap 1/350 scale plastic planes for Mercenary Air Squadron. Played on an abstract board (but I will one day do something nice for my air warfare “terrain”). Played solo.

Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!

[irishserb]

Models and scale:

1/72 WWII with Mustangs & Messerschmitts for head to head and multi-player

1/144 WWII for use in close support with 15mm ground battles with homebrew rules.  May attempt to convert M&M to the table top and use these in place of the 1/72 models.

1/100 Modern for use in close support with 15mm ground battles with homebrew rules.

1/285 WWII to modern for use in air battles using home brew rules, and for use in ground attack/CAS with 1/285, 6mm land battles also with homebrew rules.

 

What board / mat / layout (size and type):

In ground attack games, 3-d modular foam terrain.

Air to air, no ground cover yet.  Will eventually probably get a table cover/cloth with some sort of light blue, maybe sky and cloud pattern.

 

Hexes or not?

No hexes, all with turn modes or radii depending on which scale and rules.

 

Solitaire, H2H, multiplayer:

Yes to all.

 

Only video games?

Never, miniatures only.

 

I will be phasing out the 1/72 scale stuff, as my knees take a beating from the up/down with M&M.  I primarily plan to focus on 6mm and 1/100 in the future.  I may add to 1/144 WWII stuff, but only as needed in support of ground battles.  I expect that my focus in the future with air to air will be 6mm on the tabletop, now that I’ve hammered out my air to air rules system.

[Gaz045]

1/300 WW1, WW2 , usually on a 1″ hexmat for air to air or on 3d tabletop for ground attack type missions.

Same for 1/300 Korea and post 1975 (approx!) jet combat…….US & Nato v Warpac,AIW,Falklands…….

Sino-Japanese War in 1937, lots of varied aircraft types, bombers on both sides, biplanes and anti- shipping strikes on the Yangtze…….1/600 with similar scale boats, ships and ground defences. Mostly on the same hexmat ……….

The hexes just make things easier with simple rules and my 7 yr old opponent!!

"Even dry tree bark is not bitter to the hungry squirrel"

[zippyfusenet]

Gary Richards, what rules do you use for Sino-Japanese 1937? I nerd for Republican China.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Gaz045]

Air War 1918………….with movement increased accordingly……….armament at this stage was very similar to WW1, twin MG’s and single mg mounts for defence.

(Wessex Games)

"Even dry tree bark is not bitter to the hungry squirrel"

[zippyfusenet]

Thx Gary, I’ll look for those rules. I agree about mid-1930s aircraft tech – engines were more powerful, airframes were cleaner and a little more robust, but tech generally was still similar to late WWI. Heck, the US Navy was still trying to fly zeppelins as late at 1934. The ricky-ticky-tech is part of the era’s charm, open cockpits and bracing wires.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Don Glewwe]

Risking hijack/pariah status:

Does anyone not do point-and-shoot?  ie: physically point the model to shoot at an opponent.

 

I only ask because I’ve believed/asserted that most(all?) existing games do this, and this seems like a good place to find out if I was/am correct (without, hopefully, derailing the function of the OP).

[zippyfusenet]

Does anyone not do point-and-shoot? 

Only in one-counter-equals-one-squadron level boardgames, and then the opposing sides usually have to be in the same hex to fight. Models always point at each other, that’s why I use models. Henh.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Don Glewwe]

zippyfusenet wrote:

Models always point at each other, that’s why I use models.

I point my models, too!  – but that’s just (mostly) for aesthetic reasons, not because the game requires it.

[Whirlwind]

But which rules don’t require that the models be pointed?

[Don Glewwe]

Whirlwind wrote:

But which rules don’t require that the models be pointed?

That’s my question, really – I’ve thought/declared as such for a few years, and just wondered about getting feedback on that assertion.

 

For examples of my efforts in dismissing the need you can check out this (dusty) thread:

100 Years Ago

[zippyfusenet]

Skimming that ‘100 Years Ago’ thread, it looks like all your models are pointing at each other, besides moving up and down on sticks and streaming smoke and flame as they go down. Nice toys, by the way. I play games with models precisely so I can create that sort of moving diorama. I like it like that.

Of course it’s possible to design a wargame that uses models, but doesn’t resolve into moving dioramas where the toy airplanes point at each other to shoot. A few years ago I dabbled in a set of WWII air combat rules called Instant Bandits. To give credit, they were written by N Lancaster (sorry, I’ve forgotten your first name, N) who gave me a free copy. This game is played on a grid that represents position, but it’s not an analog display – the planes don’t point at each other to shoot. I played with cardboard counters, but could easily have used 3D painted models.

As it happens, Instant Bandits didn’t hold my attention. It worked well enough, but was too abstract to satisfy me. I point toy airplanes at each other because that’s how I like to play. Pew-pew-pew-pew-pew!

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Don Glewwe]

zippyfusenet wrote:

I point toy airplanes at each other because that’s how I like to play. Pew-pew-pew-pew-pew!

 

So do I.  There’s no reason, however, for the rules to require that you do so, is there?

[zippyfusenet]

There’s no reason, however, for the rules to require that you do so, is there?

The reason is that I like my rules that way. But it’s certainly possible to write a dogfight wargame between individual airplanes without an analog display where the models are placed in their actual spatial relationship (moving diorama), pointing at each other to fire. Here’s a link to the Instant Bandits rules I mentioned, if you want to explore those. I think the author is *Nick* Lancaster ISTR:

http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/File:Instant_bandits.pdf

Here’s a review. Boardgame Geek lists Instant Bandits as a boardgame, but I think the author intended it for small 3D miniatures:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/55333/instant-bandits

 

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Phil Gray]

I fixed on WW2  in 1/300.

Goto rule sets are Scramble (no hexes, but specified base sizes play a role in movement and combat) and Blue Skies (hexed). I haven’t transitioned to computer games as I see them as focussing on the flight, not fight, aspect.

I’d like to see an air war set that moves away from the individual plane/ pilot and looks at the unit/ formation level of combat – which is not to say that pilots and plane capabilities are unimportant, there is a sympathetic relationship there, but good pilots, in good planes, who are tied to an out of date method of fighting, are going to have a hard time performing well against opponents with a better set up. i.e. GCI vs non-GCI, vic 3s vs pairs…

Sand, not oil, in the gears of the world.

[RogerBW]

Yes, the perfect situational awareness that comes from having models on a table seems to go directly against the “lose sight, lose the fight” principles of air combat – and I’d like to look at the early WWII era where various powers were trying different approaches to tactical unit size, before everyone settled on the lead/wingman pair.

RogerBW's Wargaming Blog

[Chris Pringle]

1/600 scale models

6’x4′ hexmat, 1.5″ hexes

Multiplayer games of CY6

[6mmwargaming]

1/300 for SCW, WW2 and Moderns. I also have a few 1/600 modern and used to  have 1/600 WW2 but sold them. For rules we (used to) play Scramble for WW2 and C21 for moderns.

My 6mm Wargaming site https://6mm.wargaming.info

[Anonymous]

1914 to the end of the Cold War.

 

Mostly Air War xxxx rules but also Wings AT War (not WoW.)

 

1/600th scale exclusively.

 

Mat with hexes that I don’t use.

 

Table top exclusively.

 

0 – n opponents.

[John D Salt]

My air wargaming is pretty much entirely confined to boardgames.

For the tactical level (individual aircraft), the collection includes:

Richthofen’s War [AH]
Flying Circus [SPI]
Knights of the Air [AH]
Spitfire [SPI]
Spitfire! [3W]
Air Force [Battleline]
Mustangs [AH]
Nightfighter [GMT]
Foxbat and Phantom [SPI]
Air War [SPI]
Top Gun [FASA]
Flight Leader [AH]
Rolling Thunder [Commando]
Air Superiority [GDW]
Air Strike [GDW]
Birds of Prey [Ad Astra]

Some of them I have not yet got around to playing, but I don’t think I’m missing much; in “Birds of Prey” I am sure I am missing something, but I haven’t got my read around the rules yet.

As far as I can see, the development of air wargames at the tactical level was gripped by a fashion for complexity started by Battleline’s “Air Force”. Like so many of Battleline’s offerings, this enjoyed wide popularity, but I thought it a dreadful game. The good ideas were better used in “Air War”, and to my mind perfected in Jim Webster’s “Air Superiority” and “Air Strike”. But I would prefer a simple game that made it possible to take at least a 12-strong squadron into combat on each side. The greatest enjoyment I have had from these are from “Richthofen’s War”, “Spitfire” (the SPI one, without an excalamation mark) and “Air War”. While the first two are not very satisfactory as designed, they are improved beyond recognition by grafting the “Air War” sequence of play on to them — as I supect many of the other games would be.

The essential problem with tactical air wargames is that alternating movement, as is usual with terrestrial wargaes, doesn’t work. Neither does simultaneous movement (though “Top Gun” makes an entertaining stab at it). The “Air War” scheme is to move aircraft at a position of disadvantage (roughly, those with enemy noses pointed at them, but their noses not pointed at an enemy), then neutrally-positioned aircraft, then those at a position of advantage (those with noses on the enemy but no enemy noses on them).

The “Air War” sequence of play is a brilliant idea (as is its 12-direction facing), but I have yet to see (“Ace of Aces” notwithstanding) a really successful mechanism for showing the importance of situational awareness well. “Flight Leader” makes an effort by providing markers to track tallies and visuals, but it becomes a mess in a 4v4, never mind 12v12, fight.

The other thing I don’t see reflected in tactical air games is how voice control of fighter formations works. Rules writers concentrate on the performance characteristics of the aircraft and weapons, sometimes in astonishing detail; nobody worries about comms and control.

Moving up to the operational level, my games collection includes:

“Luftwaffe” [AH]
“B17: Queen of the Skies” [AH]
“Battle over Britain” [AH]
“RAF” [WEG]
“Tac Air” [AH]

With the honourable exception of the brilliant “RAF”, I’d say these games show that writing a decent operational air game is even harder than a decent tactical one.

There is also the oddity of helicopter tactical games, although doctrinally this is “aviation” rather than “air”:

Air Cobra [OSG]
Air Cav [WEG]

Both were written by Tony Merridy, who also contributed to AMrk Herman’s “Raid!” [SPI], which featured helos quite a lot.

Let’s just say that I’m still in the market for a good, playable helicopter tactical game.

All the best,

John.

[Don Glewwe]

At the risk of alienating the TWW crowd…

…the development of air wargames at the tactical level was gripped by a fashion for complexity…

I disagree: The development was gripped by a fashion for modeling the behavior of the aircraft instead of the behavior of the pilot.  This formed the (seemingly unbreakable) notion that a game must center on the physical pointing of the weapon (usually the aircraft) towards the target in order to resolve any combat.  The fact that this has been/is not the basis for any other skirmish (ie: 1:1 scale) game has been lost.  Why?

The essential problem with tactical air wargames is that…I have yet to see a really successful mechanism for showing the importance of situational awareness well.

That’s because aircraft don’t have situational awareness, and as long as rules are aimed at what aircraft do (instead of pilots) it will remain a problem.

[Whirlwind]

Don Glewwe wrote:

I disagree: The development was gripped by a fashion for modeling the behavior of the aircraft instead of the behavior of the pilot.

AFAIK this is hardly a “fashion” – pretty much all tactical air wargames have done this.

Don Glewwe wrote:

This formed the (seemingly unbreakable) notion that a game must center on the physical pointing of the weapon (usually the aircraft) towards the target in order to resolve any combat. The fact that this has been/is not the basis for any other skirmish (ie: 1:1 scale) game has been lost. Why?

Because the current speed and direction and altitude of the aircraft predict/force the subsequent behaviour of the aircraft in a way that doesn’t resemble much in land warfare.  But for some things (early artillery, some SP guns) then something similar does occur.

Phil Gray wrote:

I’d like to see an air war set that moves away from the individual plane/ pilot and looks at the unit/ formation level of combat – which is not to say that pilots and plane capabilities are unimportant, there is a sympathetic relationship there, but good pilots, in good planes, who are tied to an out of date method of fighting, are going to have a hard time performing well against opponents with a better set up. i.e. GCI vs non-GCI, vic 3s vs pairs…

I thought the TooFatLardies’ “Bag the Hun” makes a reasaonable stab at this one – aircraft are generally manoeuvred and fought in vics, shotais, finger fours, pairs or whatever.

John D Salt wrote:

The “Air War” sequence of play is a brilliant idea (as is its 12-direction facing), but I have yet to see (“Ace of Aces” notwithstanding) a really successful mechanism for showing the importance of situational awareness well.

I liked the Fighting Wings series “tactical” module for this one – basically a pre-battle manoeuvre sequence that allowed you to try and set-up a bounce.  I’ve never seen one that worked with the counters on the table in any of the tactical games though.

 

 

 

 

[Don Glewwe]

Don Glewwe wrote:

This formed the (seemingly unbreakable) notion that a game must center on the physical pointing of the weapon (usually the aircraft) towards the target in order to resolve any combat. The fact that this has been/is not the basis for any other skirmish (ie: 1:1 scale) game has been lost. Why?

Because the current speed and direction and altitude of the aircraft predict/force the subsequent behaviour of the aircraft in a way that doesn’t resemble much in land warfare.

Doesn’t resemble much?  Nonsense. Try to stick a sword or spear or whatever into an opponent without considering the direction and position(altitude) or the weapon’s force and subsequent behavior, or that of the fighter manipulating the weapon.  Now, show me a land warfare skirmish game that deals with those issues at the (unneccesarily detailed) level that most/all aircombat games require.

[Whirlwind]

Don Glewwe wrote:

Doesn’t resemble much? Nonsense. Try to stick a sword or spear or whatever into an opponent without considering the direction and position(altitude) or the weapon’s force and subsequent behavior, or that of the fighter manipulating the weapon. Now, show me a land warfare skirmish game that deals with those issues at the (unneccesarily detailed) level that most/all aircombat games require.

You say ‘nonsense’ – I totally disagree.

I think the position and direction of a sword or bow can be moved extremely quickly into other positions and directions.  I know that an aircraft flying fast will be a 200m down the track by the time you have finished reading this sentence and before you have even decided which direction to move.

That said, the single gladiator game I have played did give lots of though to position, movement, stance and so on.

 

 

[Don Glewwe]

Whirlwind wrote:

You say ‘nonsense’ …

Apologies for the tone/rudeness – not the sort of tenor I expect to enjoy here, and sorry I posted it.

Whirlwind wrote:

I think the position and direction of a sword or bow can be moved extremely quickly into other positions and directions. I know that an aircraft flying fast will be a 200m down the track by the time you have finished reading this sentence and before you have even decided which direction to move. That said, the single gladiator game I have played did give lots of though to position, movement, stance and so on.

Yes, aircraft movements take up a lot of space and time but, as with swords, that space and time is matched by what is being done by the other fellow.  Since the relationship between action and reaction is the same it (aircombat) presents no unique aspect that requires a special treatment in gaming.

There is the occasional (rare, actually) detail-oriented hand-to-hand game, but nothing near the sort of specific motion-plotting/executing thing done for most all aircombat games.

[Whirlwind]

Well, I guess it depends on what designers think what the most important elements to a game are.   In skirmish games on land, they key determinant of hit / no hit depends on LOS and cover, rather than seeing that the weapon is pointed in precisely the right direction; not that that isn’t important, but that it is less important than acquiring the target in the first place, plus misses are a matter of a degree or two, which is very hard to model in anything but a first person shooter video game.  Whereas at the most fundamental level of tactical air combat, what looks most important is the initial geometry of the encounter and then can the pilot get the aircraft into a position to shoot accurately.

Additionally, very few games are as perspective driven as you seem to be hinting at you’d like for an air combat game; they tend to merge the individual/commander with the weapon/unit.

Don Glewwe wrote:

Yes, aircraft movements take up a lot of space and time but, as with swords, that space and time is matched by what is being done by the other fellow. Since the relationship between action and reaction is the same it (aircombat) presents no unique aspect that requires a special treatment in gaming.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this.  Swords, javelins, rifles do not impose the same restrictions as use of an aircraft.  Radically different ballparks, even in 1-on-1 combat.  When multi-aircraft situations are taken into account, even less true than that.  Absolute differences are just as important as relative differences.

BTW, none of this is to suggest that there couldn’t be a very good game that doesn’t require (relatively) accurate plotting of aircraft position: just that I at least find it much harder to intuit what that game might look like.

 

 

 

[Don Glewwe]

Whirlwind wrote:

I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Swords, javelins, rifles do not impose the same restrictions as use of an aircraft. Radically different ballparks, even in 1-on-1 combat. When multi-aircraft situations are taken into account, even less true than that. Absolute differences are just as important as relative differences.

I don’t see how a sword* is not restricted as much as an aircraft in regard to its movement/position – physics govern each in the same manner.

*I do not consider the use of hand-held missile weapons to be in the same category as aircraft as I do hand-to-hand martial arts.

 

 BTW, none of this is to suggest that there couldn’t be a very good game that doesn’t require (relatively) accurate plotting of aircraft position: just that I at least find it much harder to intuit what that game might look like.

Take a look at these (esp. entries for 13 and 21 May for multiple pics):  http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/100-years-ago/

[Steve Burt]

6×4′ table

For WW2 1:600 scale aircraft, 1.5″ hexes, using Bag the Hun. A set which rewards formations and altitude in a way I’ve not seen in other rules (and also allows hidden movement and ‘bouncing’ of opposing formations). Models are mounted on stands which allow altitude to be varied so you actually fight in 3D.

For WW1, 1:72 scale aircraft and 4″ hexes, using a home brew variant of Canvas Eagles (use cards to specify moves instead of writing orders). Models mounted on telescopic stands.

[Whirlwind]

Don Glewwe wrote:

I don’t see how a sword* is not restricted as much as an aircraft in regard to its movement/position – physics govern each in the same manner.

Because the use of hand-to-hand weapons takes place so quickly that it is nearly instantaneous.  This is not true of aircraft fighting.  Plus the positioning of the models in 1:1 land skirmishes is actually more accurate than in air combat games.  What does a hex typically represent? A minimum of 30m or so?  There is already a lot of in-built fudge about position anyway.  Comparing it to the fine details of hand-to-hand combat stances isn’t a particularly fair comparison.

Speaking of which, you wrote earlier (in reply to John D Salt):

“I disagree: The development was gripped by a fashion for modeling the behavior of the aircraft instead of the behavior of the pilot. This formed the (seemingly unbreakable) notion that a game must center on the physical pointing of the weapon (usually the aircraft) towards the target in order to resolve any combat. The fact that this has been/is not the basis for any other skirmish (ie: 1:1 scale) game has been lost. Why?”

I don’t think a comparison with 1:1 infantry skirmishes is valid.  Much more instructive is the comparison with games in which 1 AFV = 1 AFV.  And these games do tend to focus on the physical positioning of the models: the behaviour of the vehicle (as a complete system) rather than the driver, in the terms you use.

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

Deleted.

 

[Don Glewwe]

Whirlwind wrote:

Because the use of hand-to-hand weapons takes place so quickly that it is nearly instantaneous. This is not true of aircraft fighting.

Again: The relative actions of an opponent parrying or doing a wingover are the same in each case.  The fact that aircraft take much more time and space is irrelevant since their opposite number takes up just as much.

 

Plus the positioning of the models in 1:1 land skirmishes is actually more accurate than in air combat games. What does a hex typically represent? A minimum of 30m or so? There is already a lot of in-built fudge about position anyway. Comparing it to the fine details of hand-to-hand combat stances isn’t a particularly fair comparison.

The details of a H-to-H combat stance have exactly the same influence on what a martial artist can do as the details of an aircraft’s ‘stance’ have on what a pilot can do.  The positioning of individual figures in land games doesn’t come close to that of models in aircombat games.  The equivalent would be to use a posable action figure to display every crouch and raised arm.

 

I don’t think a comparison with 1:1 infantry skirmishes is valid.

I’m sincerely interested in why.  I’ve been asking the question for over ten years and haven’t gotten an answer.

 

Much more instructive is the comparison with games in which 1 AFV = 1 AFV. And these games do tend to focus on the physical positioning of the models: the behaviour of the vehicle (as a complete system) rather than the driver, in the terms you use.

Tanks don’t move in a space that is relative to their ‘kill zone’ like aircraft and martial artists.

 

aack…this has become more of a hijack than a relevant tangent.  I suggest any further discussion be continued over on another thread…

Gweirda's odd POV

 

 

PS – Glenn, perhaps the same suggestion applies to your question?  Not dodging, just not wishing to clog up this thread.

[Whirlwind]

Don Glewwe wrote:

Again: The relative actions of an opponent parrying or doing a wingover are the same in each case. The fact that aircraft take much more time and space is irrelevant since their opposite number takes up just as much.

Again: they are not the same.  The reaction time to the stimuli is the same, the time taken to carry out a maneuver is vastly greater in the aircraft.  The fact that aircraft are moving through time and space is totally relevant, unless you are only going to model 1 vs 1 dogfights.  Melee between humans on foot is more or less static, 1 v 1 fighter combat isn’t.

Don Glewwe wrote:

The details of a H-to-H combat stance have exactly the same influence on what a martial artist can do as the details of an aircraft’s ‘stance’ have on what a pilot can do. The positioning of individual figures in land games doesn’t come close to that of models in aircombat games. The equivalent would be to use a posable action figure to display every crouch and raised arm.

I think that you are misreading the equivalences here.  The position of an individual trooper is accurate to about 1m or so in the average skirmish ground scale, aircraft position is fudged much more than this.

Don Glewwe wrote:

I’m sincerely interested in why (I don’t think a comparison with 1:1 infantry skirmishes is valid.). I’ve been asking the question for over ten years and haven’t gotten an answer.

But you have had lots of answers, you just don’t agree with them.  That’s fine, but rather different.

Don Glewwe wrote:

Tanks don’t move in a space that is relative to their ‘kill zone’ like aircraft and martial artists.

I don’t really understand what you are getting at here.  Particularly since you were objecting earlier to the treatment of aircraft instead of pilots.

[Don Glewwe]

Whirlwind wrote:

Again: they are not the same. The reaction time to the stimuli is the same, the time taken to carry out a maneuver is vastly greater in the aircraft. The fact that aircraft are moving through time and space is totally relevant, unless you are only going to model 1 vs 1 dogfights. Melee between humans on foot is more or less static, 1 v 1 fighter combat isn’t.

Again: The relative time/motion actions are the same.  The time to carry out a maneuver in an aircraft is exactly the same as that of the opponent: not ‘vastly greater’.  Melee between humans on foot is exactly as mobile/static as that between aircraft (relative to the respective ‘kill zones’).

 

The position of an individual trooper is accurate to about 1m or so in the average skirmish ground scale, aircraft position is fudged much more than this.

The position/stance of the trooper (within the combat box) is not modeled on the table at all, much less fudged.

 

But you have had lots of answers, you just don’t agree with them.

The answers I’ve gotten have been much like yours, and have been responded to and received no rebuttal, so I slog on.

 

I’m really not trying to break the Wheaton Rule.  I had/have an idea, that’s all.  If it’s implausible/wrong, fine – but I don’t see a reason to give up on it because of misdirected criticism that fails to address it.  My poor writing skills don’t help, I know.

[Anonymous]

Okay, obviously you two do not agree and seem at loggerheads.  Do you think you can show some common courtesy to the OP and take your “Yes it is”, “No it isn’t” echo chamber on the thread?  Please?

 
<p style=”text-align: right;”>Pissed off?  Oh you noticed!  As asked I removed my comment lest I hijack this thread more than you two have already done.</p>

[Whirlwind]

Don Glewwe wrote:

Again: The relative time/motion actions are the same. The time to carry out a maneuver in an aircraft is exactly the same as that of the opponent: not ‘vastly greater’. Melee between humans on foot is exactly as mobile/static as that between aircraft (relative to the respective ‘kill zones’).

Again, absolutely not.  I am a bit puzzled here.  You keep on asserting that a WW2 multi-aircraft combat in 3-dimensions is pretty much like Bruce Lee fighting Jackie Chan – it is “relatively the same”.

Don Glewwe wrote:

Melee between humans on foot is exactly as mobile/static as that between aircraft (relative to the respective ‘kill zones’

As written, this seems simply wrong, so I am guessing I just don’t get what you mean.  The kill zones of B-17s, Bf109s, F-14s, jackie chan and GI Joe are radically different and vary in space and time in radically different ways.  And they don’t have a static proportional relationship.

Don Glewwe wrote:

The position/stance of the trooper (within the combat box) is not modeled on the table at all, much less fudged.

As above.  I think you must be using combat box in a way I don’t understand.  The position of troopers in skirmish games is very clearly defined versus each other and the terrain.

Don Glewwe wrote:

The answers I’ve gotten have been much like yours, and have been responded to and received no rebuttal, so I slog on. I’m really not trying to break the Wheaton Rule. I had/have an idea, that’s all. If it’s implausible/wrong, fine – but I don’t see a reason to give up on it because of misdirected criticism that fails to address it.

Maybe, although I am not criticizing.  I am trying to convey to you that you aren’t conveying to me – and from what you have just written, others – how your idea overcomes the objections above i.e. I don’t see a reason to give up on my responses because of your “misdirected criticism” that don’t address them.

Best of luck to you with your idea.

 

 

[Mike]

Everybody ok here?

 

[Author]

Posts