Aircombat

[Don Glewwe]

Dunno…been here before (eg: the interweb) and not gotten much of a reception.

Figured the WW.com has survived long enough that I couldn’t be blamed for it’s demise, and that I could hope for some new/intuitive commentary on my (admittedly odd, unappreciated)  ideas regarding the behavior of pilots in a wargaming setting.

 

History has shown that when I speak I generally fuck up, so…I’ll start by being silent.

[Steve Burt]

Well, perhaps if you posted your ideas we could comment on them?

 

[shelldrake]

Steve Burt wrote:

Well, perhaps if you posted your ideas we could comment on them?

 

What Steve said.  Let the forum know what it is you want and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Is if for air combat in general, or a specific time period?

 

[Don Glewwe]

Thanks for the kind words.  I’ll give it a go…

 

“Is it for air combat in general, or a specific time period?”

It’s for early stuff (guns only, no missiles).

 

The premise is that the decisions/thinking done by fighter pilots can be seen as the same as those of martial artists engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

The proposal is to treat gaming aircombat in the same fashion as hand-to-hand combat (in similar 1:1, RPGish level rules).

The display of the action on the tabletop and (more importantly) the decisions made by players would be the same.

[grizzlymc]

So, instead of a clunky flight simulator, you order your plane to be agressive or evasive, flown to the limit, or with a margin of safety and whether you are conserving ammo or spraying every passing shot?

Modify for pilot skill, odds in hex, plane stats and roll on crt for result?

Can you get it so fast that we can get serious numbers of planes undeer each player?

[Steve Burt]

Don Glewwe wrote:

Thanks for the kind words. I’ll give it a go… “Is it for air combat in general, or a specific time period?” It’s for early stuff (guns only, no missiles). The premise is that the decisions/thinking done by fighter pilots can be seen as the same as those of martial artists engaged in hand-to-hand combat. The proposal is to treat gaming aircombat in the same fashion as hand-to-hand combat (in similar 1:1, RPGish level rules). The display of the action on the tabletop and (more importantly) the decisions made by players would be the same.

 

So are you saying the display on the table top would be the same as a normal air combat game. or the display would be the same as a martial arts game?

How do you take account of altitude, which is a big deal in air combat?

[Timmo]

I’d be interested to know more about the idea and how it develops. I suppose the principle difference in air combat is that an attacker might be higher and behind the target whereas I think that duelling martial artists are fighting each other face to face.

In air combat the attacking plane often has somebody looking out for him (his wingman).

In air combat the primary advantage is altitude i.e. being above an enemy – if a game fails to address that then it doesn’t reflect air combat.

[Steve Burt]

grizzlymc wrote:

So, instead of a clunky flight simulator, you order your plane to be agressive or evasive, flown to the limit, or with a margin of safety and whether you are conserving ammo or spraying every passing shot? Modify for pilot skill, odds in hex, plane stats and roll on crt for result? Can you get it so fast that we can get serious numbers of planes undeer each player?

What you’ve just described above is more or less how ‘Bag the Hun’ works (there’s also bonuses for altitude and formation); The rules concentrate on pilot initiative and skill. So the rules let a player control a dozen or more planes, and makes it clear why formation are good. It’s also the only air combat game I’ve seen which allows semi-hidden movement with ‘bogeys’ so that you can actually spring ambushes from up-sun or out of clouds.

 

[grizzlymc]

I thought that BTH used a flight sim approach, is that not so?

[Don Glewwe]

“So, instead of a clunky flight simulator, you order your plane to be aggressive or evasive, flown to the limit, or with a margin of safety and whether you are conserving ammo or spraying every passing shot?  Modify for pilot skill, odds in hex, plane stats and roll on crt for result?”

That’s a good description of the concept, yes.

 

“Can you get it so fast that we can get serious numbers of planes under each player?”

Dunno about the speed – playtesting would show, I suppose.  Much more than a flight each (4-6?)  – while possible – may bog down a bit, though a time constraint (once familiar with the rules) could serve to keep the action going.  Since the exact movement/positioning of the aircraft is not within the decision loop, imposing a ‘hasty’ choice would not be excessively taxing?

 

“So are you saying the display on the table top would be the same as a normal air combat game. or the display would be the same as a martial arts game?  How do you take account of altitude, which is a big deal in air combat?”

The display would match that of a martial arts game.  The table would be divided into ‘engagement areas’ representing effective combat range (hexes suffice).  The exact positions of aircraft are not shown (same as the frozen pose of a foot mini).  Relative positions between aircraft (who can shoot and/or has an advantage) are represented numerically instead of by pointing the models at each other.  Gun-range altitude differences would be included in this number.  Larger altitude bands would be done the same as flight-sim games (adjustable stands, chits, dials, …?).

 

“I suppose the principle difference in air combat is that an attacker might be higher and behind the target whereas I think that duelling martial artists are fighting each other face to face.”

I see the equivalence as mostly within combat range – this may be 5 feet for hand-to-hand and, say, 500″ for WW1 dogfighting.  For each, the activity within that area is fluid.  In hand-to-hand gaming, the exact stance/position isn’t controlled (or displayed) and it is left to the players’ imaginations to describe the footwork/cut-and-thrust.  I’m thinking of doing the same with aircombat.  Numbers and dice rolls are, admittedly, not as visually sexy as going through the motions of a tricky High Yo-Yo or some such – but swordfights or pulp-action derring-do are gamed with numbers and dice without a demand from players that each heroic action (or fumble…) be displayed with the minis.  Imagination can suffice for exciting dogfights in the same manner…or not? Thus the experiment/exploration – could easily crash and burn, but it’s worth a go, imo.

 

“…more or less how ‘Bag the Hun’ works…”

I’ve got (and enjoy) BtH.  The difference in approach/concept lies mainly (only?) in that I propose doing away with the specific movement/positioning of the models as a means of determining combat possibility/quality.  Every other layer/detail of existing aircombat gaming can be included (to match player interest/desire in such things).

[grizzlymc]

Are you gweirda from The Place We Do Not Name?

[Don Glewwe]

Guilty.  hmm…I thought I’d used the moniker here (to identify myself fairly) but see I am mistaken.  sorry…

 

So, yeah: nothing new here, really…just thought I’d open the (smelly) can o’ worms that I put on the shelf a couple years ago and see if anything useful can come of it.

[Steve Burt]

grizzlymc wrote:

I thought that BTH used a flight sim approach, is that not so?

No, definitely not. In BTH a better (or one with altitude advantage) pilot can (and often does) move twice, reflecting their better skill. Movement also has a variable component, which again better pilots can control.

This upsets some people who want a flight sim, but the end result is a game which is uncannily reminiscent of actual pilot memoirs, with enemy appearing ‘out of nowhere’ and wingmen losing touch with their flight leaders because they failed to follow a maneuver. It also shows very nicely the importance of formations and altitude.

[Steve Burt]

Don Glewwe wrote:

.“…more or less how ‘Bag the Hun’ works…” I’ve got (and enjoy) BtH. The difference in approach/concept lies mainly (only?) in that I propose doing away with the specific movement/positioning of the models as a means of determining combat possibility/quality. Every other layer/detail of existing aircombat gaming can be included (to match player interest/desire in such things).

This is certainly a very interesting way of approaching things – it’s bit like the way the ‘Ace of Aces’ games work, where all you care about is relative position of the planes. Of course, that easier when you only have two planes – it can get tricky when you have a dozen. I’d be interested to hear how it works in practice.

[Don Glewwe]

“…it can get tricky when you have a dozen. I’d be interested to hear how it works in practice.”

So would I.  ; )

 

So far I’ve allowed each pilot (or crew, in the case of two-seaters) to only track/target one other aircraft (or formation), so it’s not too messy.  The numbers (if any) get modified by whether the target is either: tracking you as well, tracking someone else, or not tracking anyone.

The only way to shoot at someone is to target them, and this leaves you vulnerable to others – that’s where your friends (hopefully) come in: an enemy lining you up for a shot is equally vulnerable to your wingman.  Taking risks is what it’s all about.

[grizzlymc]

Please explain further.  I felt your stuff on The Place We Do Not Name was interesting but somewhat stillborn  by the “Thats not how we do this round here” responses.  What interests me is the scaleability of the mechanics.

[Don Glewwe]

“Please explain further.”

About what, specifically?  If left undirected, I’ll ramble on forever…

 

“What interests me is the scaleability of the mechanics.”

Do you mean: Can they handle lots of aircraft per player?

Since the decisions made are at the level of the individual pilot, the more a player controls the greater the time required.

The fact that the decisions concern broad, tactical choices (as opposed to specific aircraft movement/positioning) the time needed could/would be less than that required for planning/plotting/executing moving the models – that’s just a guess at this point…

 

[grizzlymc]

Ramble away, that’s what a forum is for.

[Don Glewwe]

I respectfully disagree: rambling is what a blog is for.

As much as I enjoy hearing myself talk, this idea has been bouncing around my head for years now without finding a solution, so getting other opinions/feedback is, I think, the way to go.

[grizzlymc]

Well, at least ramble enough to get the ball rolling.

[Don Glewwe]

I honestly don’t know what to add to the basic premise already stated, beyond laying out all I’ve scribbled in the past.

 

Anyone who’d like to see some of that can visit

http://brawlfactory.net/air-combat/

 

Since all of that has been -for the most part- done solo, the concept could hardly be considered criticized, much less tested.

[Don Glewwe]

Since I killed this thread, I feel obligated to attempt resurrection by steering it towards a (hopefully) less controversial subject: tailing.

 

In general, how much of an advantage is gained by a tailing position (ie: the rear of the target aircraft is to the front of the tailing one) as applied to two effects:

– movement order = seeing what the other fellow does and being able to react accordingly.  Assuming all other things are equal (pilot experience/ability, aircraft performance, etc…) how much of an advantage (expressed as a percentage?) should it give game-wise to the tailing pilot?  How much (if any) weight should be assigned to range and/or altitude?

 

– gaining and/or improving a firing position = the ease/difficulty in making the relative positions (shot-wise) at the end of the turn better than they were at the beginning.  Dunno for sure about this one…came about while considering the different troubles a pilot would have starting either behind his target or in front of it (and everything in between), and as such it would include more than just tailing (being behind) …or would an advantage/bonus given only to that (and ignore the ‘in front’ option) suffice?

 

As usual, I’m sure my poor writing skills have made a muddle of the issue(s)…thanks to any who try to slog through them to comment.

[Author]

Posts