Somewhere Over the Channel, 1940

[Just Jack]

All,

I played a monster dogfighting game this past Sunday: eight Spitfires vs eight Me-109s, four hours, 109 pictures, a lot of fun, but I’m worn out!

The report is very long, and I apologize for that, but I put quite a few insights into the rules in there.

And things got a little crazy…

For anyone interested, please check the blog at:
http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2015/04/somewhere-over-channel-1940.html

On a side note, I received my Pendraken package so I can finish my France 1940 forces.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Wowzer …I reread it and it’s still a wowzer.

[Just Jack]

Kyote,

Thanks man, I appreciate it!  Wowzer is definitely one of the goals I shoot for 😉

I hope folks noticed I put more details about the rules in this write-up, for those interested, and I still plan on doing up a ‘full-blown turn,’ step by step to illustrate how they work.

The game was a tremendous amount of fun and I’m looking forward to another this weekend, probably US Navy vs Imperial Japanese Navy or Army over/near Guadalcanal.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

That sounds fantastic Just Jack !!!

[Just Jack]

Thanks John.

Where’s Peepee, I mean, the good Mr. Robertson, and the War Panda?

Panda says he’s got aerial toys, I’m gonna talk him into playtesting these.

Of course I’ll never get any feedback; he’ll have a sea mat complete with reef poking through at low tide, a school of dolphins, a fishing skiff, a pair of star-crossed lovers in a rowboat, flocks of gulls, cumulonimbus clouds, you’ll be able to see the pilot’s eyes, streaks of oil down the sides of the aircraft, little Christmas lights that blink on an off to look like sparks escaping the manifold, flight stands that not only telescope to show altitude and twist to show attitude, but hey, lookee there, Panda’s flight stands even let you show the plane inverted!  But no actual gaming 😉

What have you been up to, gaming wise?  I know you’ve been working WWI, and every now and again looking for ol’ Elvira.  And I want more details on Bloody Broadsides, Sir.  I would love to have a coll pirate, ship to ship, ship boarding, and ship to shore, game.

V/R,
Jack

[Rod Robertson]

Just Jack:

That was a really clear and informative report and yes, I did notice that you included game mechanic descriptions in your report.  I really appreciated that. As weird as that string of ones was at the opening of the game, imagine how such a string of ones would have slowed and altered the combat of the mid-game.

What are the game mechanics which differentiate the rookie from the veteran or ace? If the die roll determines one side’s movements and combats? How does being a rookie, a veteran or an ace effect the game?

Cautionary note: I was really tired when I read your report and may have missed some obvious stuff as I kept zoning out. I will read it again when I am a little more lucid  and then re-post. Thanks for posting.

cheers and good gaming.

Rod Robertson.

[Don Glewwe]

“…flight stands that not only telescope to show altitude and twist to show attitude, but…even let you show the plane inverted!”

Is there any other way?  ; )

 

Loved the report, looking forward to more.

 

re: problem of big table / slow start

Mike Clinton came up with ( -or at least his game is where I first saw it*) a clever/easy way to set up a scenario based on pilot quality/experience that determines if a pilot will start out as  ‘hunter’ or ‘hunted’, and places the models such that the bullets will fly early on – if not on the first turn.  Not for historical scenarios, of course, but a quick way to get the models on the table ready for action.

 

 

*Watch Your Six

 

[kyoteblue]

Just Jack, it’s spring/tornado time in Oklahoma and Joyce has me working in the yard, so no time to really game and take pictures.  Damn it. So I need to have Yall game and post about it !!!!   Waiting for you Pacific game !!

[War Panda]

he’ll have a sea mat complete with reef poking through at low tide, a school of dolphins, a fishing skiff, a pair of star-crossed lovers in a rowboat, flocks of gulls, cumulonimbus clouds, you’ll be able to see the pilot’s eyes, streaks of oil down the sides of the aircraft, little Christmas lights that blink on an off to look like sparks escaping the manifold, flight stands that not only telescope to show altitude and twist to show attitude, but hey, lookee there, Panda’s flight stands even let you show the plane inverted!  But no actual gaming 

 

Hey ….dolphins take a long time to be painted correctly you know 🙂

I rarely check outside of my regular haunts here so I didn’t spot this till you PMed me

BTW Jack can you email me the rules so I can take a look. Thanks

 

I’ve responded to this excellent AAR elsewhere :O but I just want to plead guilty but insane to the accusations of getting involved in the play testing…

 

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Just Jack]

Rod, 

“How does being a rookie, a veteran or an ace effect the game?”
For the record, there’s also ‘Regular.’  Right now, here’s what I have:
-The better a pilot’s quality vs an opposing pilot’s quality, the better chance he has of getting locked onto an opponent’s tail, or preventing an opponent from locking onto his tail.  I.e., an Ace will find it very easy to get on the tail of a Rookie, while a Rookie will find it almost impossible to get on the tail of an Ace.
-If a plane is shot at, one of the possible effects of that shooting is that the plane receives no damage, but the  pilot is forced to take evasive action (breaking left or right, determined by die roll).  An Ace and a Vet are able to recover quickly, and thus operated freely in their next turn, while a Regular or a Rookie take longer to recover, and thus are required to perform a mandatory straight and level move (move forward four hexes, not changing altitude or attitude).
-There is no difference in the classes for shooting or maneuvering, though I am pondering making Aces and Vets a little more flexible with shooting.  That is, in a ‘normal’ activation, half your airplanes may move, then fire after movement (if eligible via LOS and range).  I’m thinking about allowing Aces and Vets the ability to shoot before movement (though they can only fire once per turn).

Don,

“Is there any other way?”
I’d love to, but I’m cheap and lazy 😉

Are you speaking of Check Your 6?  I’ve played it, but I don’t have the rules.  In any case, I am looking at throwing in some simple, ‘canned’ scenarios to 1) speed contact up, and 2) make it more interesting than ‘I put my planes on this edge and you put your planes on that edge.’  I do like the idea of pilot quality factoring into the initial positions, but need to make sure it’s not too powerful.

I’m glad you liked the report, and thanks for posting.

Kyote,

“…it’s spring/tornado time in Oklahoma and Joyce has me working in the yard…”
Enough with the excuses, old man!!! We want Elvira, though I won’t type it out 1,000 times like a certain, obsessed individual here 😉

Panda,

“BTW Jack can you email me the rules so I can take a look.”
You will kindly wait your turn, Sir!  That is, I’d love to, and while I started with a nice, clean document, after three games I’ve got ideas and concepts scattered all over the place in batreps on the blog, posts on forums, and pieces of paper in my house.  Bear with me, let me play another game or two, get everything packaged up nice, then I’ll start launching them out.  Probably another two weeks.

V/R,
Jack

[Don Glewwe]

“Are you speaking of Check Your 6? “

No, it’s ‘Watch Your Six”, a WW1 game, but the concept applies as well, imo.  The advantage of better pilots is significant, but not overwhelming.

 

An interesting aspect of the system is creating sort of a pre-game for players, presenting the choice of how many squadrons/flights/sections (or solo planes) to field.  Too many and lesser pilots left on their own may get bounced, but too few (or only one) limits the number of spotters/maneuver elements – as well as risking all on the dice throw of the best pilot(s).

 

[shelldrake]

As a huge fan of dog fight games I will watch the development of your rules closely, but the length of the game sounds a bit long at the moment.

Re solo play: Without going in to too much detail, do you have a set of manoeuvres that can be used by the planes? If so, you could make a deck of cards or a chart for each plane and draw a card or roll on a chart each turn to see what the enemy pilots do. This might speed up the game a lot.

I used the card method with Airwar C21 and it worked really well.

 

 

[Just Jack]

Shelldrake,

Sorry man, I missed your reply!  I think TWW is getting enough traffic now that we may need to increase the number of posts visible on the front page (or can we do that already and I just don’t know how?).

Don’t worry, I’m working on the length of the game, but it’s starting to seem like the sweet spot for a quick game (let’s say an hour, or just under), is going to be a 4 on 4, maybe 4 on 6.  The only way I’m seeing to shorten the game is to make head-on or perpendicular attacks more deadly (tail attacks are already pretty deadly, with 3K if you’re locked on the tail).  So far the game length is attributed to the ‘dogfight’ itself, i.e., the constant turning and making the best of bad shots (to force the enemy into evasive action, which splits up their formations, and results in the next-turn ‘mandatory straight and level’ for Rookies and Regulars) to finally get on the tail and put the enemy out.  This particularly true with the WWII gunfights; the modern(ish) air to air missiles have a pretty decent chance of hitting from the head-on aspect.

There are not standardized maneuvers; each plane gets a certain number of movement points based on aircraft type and type of move; for example, to travel straight ahead, level, one square/hex costs one point.  To do the same thing, but climb one altitude level, costs two points.  You can move straight ahead and dive, moving two hexes (because of the dive) for one point, or you could move ahead one hex and turn 45 degrees for two points.

I will say that not having standardized maneuvers does slow things down.  I have more flexibility to do what I want than with standardized maneuvers, but the cost is moving the bird one hex at a time, counting out the points, realizing that doesn’t put me where I want to be, going back to the start position (make sure to mark where it was or you’re really screwed!), try it again.  I might try one with standardized maneuvers; the only problem is trying to cover every possibility, i.e., give the player as much flexibility as possible.

I haven’t done the card thing for solo play, though I believe you still could, so long as the maneuvers are worked out with the movement points (the most frequent movement type is ‘normal,’ and fighters get 7 movement points).  I’ve never done this though, as I’m always worried I’ll pull a card that doesn’t make any sense for the situation.  So what I do is come up with two, maybe three (but usually two), courses of action and do a simple up/down die roll (1-3 he does this, 4-6 he does that).  It works for me, it’s quick, and the choice always makes sense as long as I gave him only choices that make sense 😉

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Hey we need a new ARR Just Jack !!!! I’m up to my ears in flower planting for Joyce !!!

[shelldrake]

Just Jack wrote:

I will say that not having standardized maneuvers does slow things down. I have more flexibility to do what I want than with standardized maneuvers, but the cost is moving the bird one hex at a time, counting out the points, realizing that doesn’t put me where I want to be, going back to the start position (make sure to mark where it was or you’re really screwed!), try it again. I might try one with standardized maneuvers; the only problem is trying to cover every possibility, i.e., give the player as much flexibility as possible. I haven’t done the card thing for solo play, though I believe you still could, so long as the maneuvers are worked out with the movement points (the most frequent movement type is ‘normal,’ and fighters get 7 movement points). I’ve never done this though, as I’m always worried I’ll pull a card that doesn’t make any sense for the situation. So what I do is come up with two, maybe three (but usually two), courses of action and do a simple up/down die roll (1-3 he does this, 4-6 he does that). It works for me, it’s quick, and the choice always makes sense as long as I gave him only choices that make sense V/R, Jack

Rather than a set of standardized manoeuvres, you could have a series of partial movement for determining enemy movement: i.e. you draw x number of cards based on their current movement points which when laid out gives you the full movement of that plane for the turn.  For example, with a movement of six, you draw six cards. when played in the order they are drawn you might get: forward, climb, forward, forward, left turn, forward.

Maybe have separate decks for forward movement, climbing or diving, turning and special. You can draw only once from the climb/dive and turn deck, the remainder being forward movement unless the plane is in danger, in which case one special is drawn instead of one of the others.

To keep it even more unpredictable, the climb/dive deck can include level flying, the turn deck not only has left/right turns, but different types of turns (large looping turns or tight turns for example) and the special has things like jinking, barrel rolls, immelmans etc.

And as mentioned, if making this many cards is a hassle, a simple series of charts/tables will do the same job.

 

 

 

 

[Just Jack]

Kyote – I’m trying, man.

Shelldrake – I’m still worried that I’d end up either with stuff that was too vanilla, or didn’t make sense.  I think I am going to take a hard look at the standardized maneuvers though, which I had actually done with Bag The Hun.  Regarding cards, I suppose I’m just a creature of habit, I’m too used to my old standby ‘up or down’ roll.  But I do appreciate the point.

V/R,
Jack

[Author]

Posts