This is my current obsession, and the one (semi-)serious historical miniatures game in the Factory.

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

The rules take a more generic view of aircombat so that regular grounder-pounder gamers can try/enjoy the genre without having to go to the trouble of learning to fly the airplane as in most other games (via its specific mechanics/system).

Rather than present the technical challenge of time/motion, this game tries to represent/capture the uncertainty, risk, and peril of sitting in a flammable collection of sticks and cloth a mile or more above the trenches while someone in a similar contraption is shooting bullets at you.

It is very much a work-in-progress—therefore any comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Ten days into this experiment / venture, and I see that there have been a few curious peeks.

Since part of why I’m doing this is to gain some feedback, I’m wondering if anyone has taken a look at the game(s), and—more importantly—is willing to post their impression of them?

Remember: this is not a finished product behind which I stand unmoving to criticism, but is, rather, a work-in-progress about which I’m sincerely interested in hearing opinions and/or questions.  Any time / effort expended to tap out a post (or, if preferred, a PM or email) will be greatly appreciated.

EDGE(CV) INCREASE FOR QUICK-PLAY

Tried a little modification in the “Dogfite!” game played yesterday at a local gameday, and thought I’d pass it on:

Instead of the 1, 2, and 3-points of edge(CV) awarded for a 1, 2, or 3-level bet (MT), I increased the latter two to 3 and 6 points, respectively.  That gave aircraft a quicker increase to a more deadly level of fire, and let the players shoot each other up (which, let’s face it, is fun, right?) right from the get-go of the game.

Those with more time for a game (and more interest in the challenge of taking the time required to develop a good shot on a particular target) should stick with the original numbers.

The specific numbers used for edge(CV) bonuses for the various maneuvers/aerobatics is one of those things that—if thought to be too high/low—can be changed easily to suit individual taste.  Like all the other numbers assigned to stats and rolls and such in the rules: they’re just there to test the concept, and are not carved in stone—I welcome (and really want to hear) opinions/criticisms/ideas on whether a number is felt to be correct or not.

100 looksees, yet no comments.  dunno what to think of that.

The real key to the game/rules concept is in treating aircombat the same way ground-based skirmish games do—especially those that deal with hand-to-hand combat, as opposed to those dominated by ranged combat—I know, I know…aircraft have machineguns = ranged combat…BUT the THINKING of the warrior is, IMO, the same for a swordsman as it is for a fighter pilot, and since the player is the pilot…getting him/her to think like a pilot is a worthwhile goal.

DOWNLOAD UPDATE

Just a quick note to say that a player reference card has been added to the download menu: two print up on a single sheet, and should fit on the back of the aircraft log—which has been tweaked a bit so that a player can record / run three aircraft (or six if the log is printed on both sides instead of putting the ref.card on the reverse).

200 looks…and no comments?

I confess to bafflement when contemplating this.
I expected something…anything…in the way of questions, opinions, or at the least a “drop dead”.
It’s on the web: it’s free, it’s anonymous…I’m intrigued/confused by the silence.

dunno

I agree, strange. I haven’t had time to take a long look, but surely one of the 200 has ...

FWIW, I ran a couple versions of the game at a recent con ( http://fields-of-honor.org/index.php ) that were well-received (by the limited number of players…).

The first was a 2-person trial using the simplified (Dogfite) rules that -even though only involving four aircraft (2 each)- played well and produced some viable tension.

The second was of a new version (once a tinkerer, always a tinkerer…) of the game that combined elements of TFL’s “Algy…” and Mike Clinton’s “Watch Your Six!” as well as my own “Dogfight” to create something that is a more brawl-ish/beer&pretzel;-style of game.  It went really well, and I think most involved had a good time.  A couple problems were found (sorry, Troy, for being the guinnea pig…), but overall the game was a success and it will find its way onto the Factory’s download page.  Those who’ve tried “Algy…” will, I think, find it enjoyable—I’m seriously thinking of writing TFL to suggest marketting/offering my “no-flying” option…I think it would appeal to a greater portion of the gaming public than the glut of existing rules that fixate on moving/pointing the little model, though fighting the deeply-entrenched myth that aircombat games MUST include pointing the airplane is an uphill battle that I’ve found frustratingly difficult to maintain—especially so since the main (only?) offering of support for the point-and-shoot flight-sim style of game has been ” ‘cuz “.  Oh well…

The looksee-count climbs towards 300 hits and still no comments/replies/questions…dunno what to make of it, but will try a different approach (other than the general “Here it is what do you think?” line used so far) : post a specific statement and see if any response is generated…

May as well start with a big one: The myth in aircombat gaming that the position and pointing of the little model is crucial/critical to the genre.

It is this widely-held belief that my system challenges on the ground that aircombat is akin to hand-to-hand combat.  A dogfight between, say, two WW1-era aircraft in a 200-meter box contains the same sort of action as that found between two swordsmen/martial-artists in a 2-meter box.  The scale (time and distance) of the two may be different, but the relative actions are the same, ie: a wingover taking 5 seconds is equivalent to a circle-6 parry or sidestep-duck taking only a half-second (or less).

The criticisms made of this contention of equivalence have, in the past, been of a physical nature and have (IMO) been rebutted: Flying is 3D…flying is restricted by the laws of physics…you have to point the aircraft to shoot…  all these things are shared (in kind if not in degree) by hand-to-hand fighting.

More important, as far as game-design is concerned, is the equivalence of the two in the warrior’s HEAD.  A martial artist does not think much (if at all) about hand/arm position or footwork: the body movements are viceral, almost-instinctive reactions in execution of the tactical intentions/directions provided by the head—and in most (all?) games of that genre the questions asked of players (and therefore the decisions/inputs made by them) are on that level, ie: Where will I go? (not: How will I get there?), or “Who will I attack? (not: How will I attack?)—questions/decisions on WHAT to do, not HOW to do it.

Pretty much every other game system (outside aircombat) assumes that the little fellows on the tabletop know how to do their particular piece of business, and that it is not up to the players to micro-manage details that were handled in boot camp.  Leaving out the details of “how” means that the display on the tabletop is simplified: a figure is moved to within combat range of another, and an abstract system (usually involving dice) is used to determine the results—it is important to note that any time scale can be applied to a round of fighting, so that the result is not necessarily “You lose, you’re dead” in a single throw of the dice, but can just as easily be “You mis-stepped and are at a disadvantage now” on the scale of “bad things that can happen”.

Anyone who thinks that the frozen-pose figures used in groundcombat games represent/display the immediate-moment position/facing of the troops is crazy: the furious action taking place while two people engage in a fist/sword-fight is in no way shown on the tabletop.  The dice-rolling used to abstractly represent that action is obviously not as visually-appealing as using poseable figures that display each cut-and-thrust/bob-and-weave—those details are left to the players’ imaginations…and by the continued sale/play of those games: quite successfully.  Gamers are satisfied with the restrictions imposed by the game mechanics—and I seriously wonder if they’d play a groundcombat game that used the sort of micro-managed physical movement/display system in aircombat rules?  Would you enjoy gaming a fistfight wherein you had to plot each and every move of arms and legs and body?...and measure/determine the success of a punch by cross-referencing your fist’s plot with that of your opponent’s face? Such a system describes the action involved accurately, but misses (IMO) the heart/soul/mood of the thing—as well as (and more importantly) the challenge faced by and the decisions/thinking of the combatants: and since the players are (supposedly) representing those combatants, doesn’t it make sense to have the challenges/decisions of the former more closely align with the latter?

Now, take all that said of groundcombat (and how you view and play it) and apply it to aircombat.

The point-and-shoot style of flight-sim game common to the genre does present a good mechanical/physical description/representation of the action, but misses the boat when it comes to the thinking of the pilot, re: the challenges/decisions that are faced/made.  Visually, a flight-sim game is attractive—but the lack of such display/control in groundcombat games (whose actions are, IMO, equally dramatic/heroic) does little-to-nothing to hurt their attractiveness to gamers.  In fact, I would stipulate that the lack of micro-management in groundcombat games helps the genre by getting the players’ energy/time away from the fiddly-bits of physical/mechanical motion and raises their attention to the tactical/thinking level that is in closer alignment to that experienced by their little warrior-alter-egos on the tabletop.

For a glatitorial-style, boxing-ring-type match, the detail level of a flight-sim game may work (though I would still argue that it has the players doing things -ie: flying the aircraft—that real pilots don’t do)—but I think that that narrow POV has led aircombat gaming into a cul-de-sac of scenarios that are nothing more than “Here’s the enemy in your face…now, fight!” wherein a player’s choices are severely limited, and produce AARs that require the skills of the best Beltway-spinmeister to craft into something that sounds reasonable (ie: this could have happened).

That many of the current flight-sim games are fun I in no way dispute: fun is fun and cannot be debated.  What I’m looking to do is engage in a discussion/exploration of expanding the POV of aircombat gaming into the area occupied by the rest of the hobby, with the goal of (perhaps) producing a more common, user-friendly vehicle by which non-aircrazy gamers can enter the genre as well as (and more importantly) create aircombat games that address the challenges faced by pilots and present those challenges to players to deal with without burdening them (and taking up valuable gametime) with the tedious business of flying the aircraft—something real pilots don’t bother with…so why should gamers?

There: if that’s not a thrown gauntlet I don’t know what is.  So…any comments?  ; )

PS- I wish to emphasize (as I’ve done at other times on other sites) that the stridency of my presentation is in the interest of promoting a healthy debate, not to proselytize.  I don’t see myself a putting forward MY idea, just AN idea…if it’s shown to be bunk, then so be it—I’ll not suffer for its loss.  So: no need to hold back out of regard for my delicate sensibilities or because I’m taken to be a zealot against whom reason and debate are useless tools and a waste of time.

”...a new version (once a tinkerer, always a tinkerer…) of the game that combined elements of TFL’s “Algy…” and Mike Clinton’s “Watch Your Six!” as well as my own “Dogfight” to create something that is a more brawl-ish/beer&pretzel;-style of game.”

As promised, the rules for the new “WAD”  version / game are available for your (anonymous) viewing pleasure:

http://www.glewwe-castle.com/brawl-factory/WAD - rules1.pdf

The reference card and aircraft log downloads can -if desired- be accessed from the main game-page by clicking on the appropriate pixels.

This is just the first-draft of the rules…I’ve already made changes (which I will post here soon…probably tomorrow if I don’t have to work…), so please use the usually-recommended dose of salt when making judgements: if these things were done-and-finished products I’d say so—as it is I think I’ve been honest about how raw they are and that I am only putting them in the public eye to gain feedback and constructive criticism, so: let me hear your thoughts / questions / irate bitch-fests…whatever.

WAD edit

As mentioned, I’ve messed with the rules already!  The orginal combat system made a one-on-one, tail-chasing fight between an SE5 and a Dr-I an even match-up—actually, the edge went to the SE because it could take more damage.  While I stand behind the idea that this is a B&P-style game and not a historical simulation, such a glaring error needed to be fixed.  So, the changes…

All guns are worth two firing dice.  The advantage of the SE in firepower is given, instead, as a “stability bonus” = each gun is worth three dice if the aircraft is NOT maneuvering.  This makes “firing passes” (especially diving ones) the better choice for them, and makes locking horns with a Dr-I (rolling 2 attack dice v the triplane’s 6) the sort of mistake more in keeping with reality.  It’s not a great solution insofar as it hasn’t a very good (if any) or consistent foundation, but it works…

The other edit has to do with the generation/adjustment of attack dice: Pilot dice are left out of the original total—only the firing and maneuver dice are determined/chosen by the attacker.  Then, this number is reduced by the combat Maneuver Dice of the target IF the target is maneuvering -the target no longer rolls maneuver dice as defense dice.  The attack dice are then modified by the following factors:

Penalties:
1 - Movement: Halve the number of dice if the firing aircraft moved more than one hex or level.
2 - Deflection / Closing: Halve the number of dice if the firing aircraft is not maneuvering and is
    taking a front or side-shot (ie: the target’s facing is not matching firer’s).
3 - Range: Halve the number of dice if the target aircraft is in an adjacent hex.

Bonuses:
1 - Movement: Add half of the number of dice if the firing aircraft did not spend MP on moving any hexes and/or levels.
2 - Diving: Add half the number of dice if the firing aircraft dove or is diving this activation.

NOTE: All halving done above should be rounded up.  Also: bonuses and penalties should offset each other—ie: if a bonus and penalty are both applicable, simply ignore their effects instead of going through a series of additions/halving.

Once the total attack dice have been determined, the firing player may add as many of the available Pilot Dice to this total, and roll to attack.
The target player may (simultaneuously) roll as many of his aircraft’s available Pilot Dice in defense.

Another problem I’ve spotted ( -there are so many!  well…the thing isn’t even four-games-old yet…) has to do with continuous engagements within a hex.  In “Dogfight/Dogfite” speed loss will eventually catch up to one or both aircraft that enter into a fight: the thing will either go downhill (to replace lost speed) or one/both will stall out.  In WAD, rather than create a separate category of dice-roll for maneuvering in a hex, I just made it the same as a 180-deg turn.  Nice and simple, but…the requirement for the dice roll disappears once speed is <4, which means aircraft can go on forever (theoretically).  While this is, IMO, technically possible (fuel notwithstanding) from the standpoint that a plane could toodle around a 300-meter circle at a shallow enough bank/turn radius so as to limit its speed loss to an easily-replaceable amount—it doesn’t make sense from a dogfighting standpoint.

The problem is that WAD (unlike Dogfight) has no system for gaining increased combat advantage/attack dice for more vigorous flying (which gains more but costs more speed)—in WAD you either get your maneuver dice or you don’t, there are no degrees.  So: would adding the complication of choosing the degree ruin the flavor of the game?  It wouldn’t be hard to do, but there’s a part of me that thinks: If you want that level of detail, play the other game!  dunno…

PS- I’ve submitted these changes to the webmaster of the site the game is on, but since his other duties (however mundane…like work n stuff) include brewing beer, I defer to priorities, and don’t expect them to be immediately available.

PPS- As to the speed-loss problem: I’ve submitted a solution = to use Maneuver Dice in an attack, an aircraft MUST (regardless of speed) make a maneuver-dice test to stay in the hex.  How’s that sound?

There are now photos of examples of play as well as an AAR on the factory’s photobucket page for the WAD rules:

http://s575.photobucket.com/albums/ss191/brawlfactory/WAD/

“Dogfight!” CV (or “Dogfite!” edge) carryover

In one of the past musings/versions of the game, a reduction in CV/edge (subtracting three) was made at the beginning of a turn if the two aircraft were maneuvering in a hex and a shot had been made in the previous turn.  It was used to represent the attention of the attacking pilot spent on firing instead of following and, to some extent, to prevent accumlated CVs/edges from getting too large -judged to be of little merit (and imposing a limit of “10” to the CV/edge), it was dropped.

Now I’m wondering if it should be returned to the rules to represent the difference in situations reflected in a low CV/edge: deflection or range.

Given a CV/edge of, say, three or four, taking a shot would reduce it to zero or one—this would represent the firing aircraft finding itself in a closing and/or high-deflection-shot condition: a quick burst is all you get and then you’re pretty much back to square one.  If, on the other hand, no shot was taken, the existing CV/edge would be retained and would represent the firing aircraft being in an advantageous/tailing position that -while affording no shot that turn- provides for the opportunity of obtaining a good position/shot in the coming turn(s).

What’s really happening is that the player with the CV/edge advantage decides which of the possible situations being abstractly represented by the CV/edge value is occuring in the game—sort of a Schrodinger’s cat thing.

It should be kept in mind that the carryover CV/edge represents both the possible shot if nothing is done by either aircraft in the coming turn and/or the advantage postition/maneuver-wise for the coming turn it gives the aircraft with the CV/edge.

Any thoughts / opinions are, as usual, welcome.

“The look-see count climbs towards 300 hits and still no comments/replies/questions…dunno what to make of it”
Trust me, the “look-see” count is low! One web site I had, I invited comments - over 5000 hits later, no comments at all. Many folk will look out of curiosity, and that’s about it, sorry to say.

OK, I’ve had a look-see… I comment as a very novice wargamer, and an experienced technical writer…

I doubt I’ll be playing it. I didn’t even get as far as reading the rules through-out.

Here’s why:

The web page is not very attractive, or easy to read. A mass of bold text is hard on the eye, and does not encourage the visitor to discover more. I downloaded the rules. Opening them, I was greeted by a brief introduction paragraph about the order of the rule-steps/actions. Then bang! straight into rules. Lots of technical stuff, no real explanations. Didn’t make me want to read further.

I get the impression that the game is aimed at experienced gamers prepared to invest in a few models, or at least have some suitable ones to hand. A newbie such as myself, might think, “Hmm, what happens if I buy half-a-dozen plane models, telescopic car aerials and other stuff, then find I don’t really find the rules that playable?”

One reason for the “no comments so far”, might be that someone is getting the stuff together to play, but hasn’t got around to it.

As for readability, a better introduction to the rules, and a n overview of the game-play would be useful, for folk like me. Numbered headings in the rules would make them more reader-friendly. On the web page, spacing out the text and a few more images would help - maybe some pictures where paper counters instead of plane models might draw in a few more inquisitive folk.

However, my cousin sent me over some WH40K Space Marines, after I mentioned to him I had some robots that “needed dealing with!” The “Beer and Pretzel Space Marines” rules seem to fit the bill.

alleydog: thanks much for taking the time to reply.  Nice to hear the looksee-count isn’t out of line.  Since I reference the thread in related sites (gaming and/or WW1 air history) I guess I thought most of the hits would be deliberate viewings from those links as opposed to “drive-by” peeks, and therefore held a greater chance of feedback.  Oh well…as long as they’re looking!

The web page is not very attractive, or easy to read.

I agree: but since the creation/maintainance/update of the site is handled by/through my cousin it won’t get any better, I’m afraid—I’m loath to ask for much more than I’m getting (considering it’s free for me!).

“I downloaded the rules. Opening them, I was greeted by a brief introduction paragraph about the order of the rule-steps/actions. Then bang! straight into rules. Lots of technical stuff, no real explanations. Didn’t make me want to read further.”

I suppose I should stick the introductory “Design Blather” back into the rules download, then?  They were together at one time, but I separated them (and recommended people look at the blather first—is that note buried in the mass of text and therefore not as prominant as it should be?) so that those who didn’t want to download/print the entire thing could get an idea of the game from the few pages of design notes…that was the idea, anyway.

“I get the impression that the game is aimed at experienced gamers prepared to invest in a few models, or at least have some suitable ones to hand.”

Admittedly, as an old-school, do-it-yourself gamer I look at things from a perpective wherein you get nothing more from a set of rules than an idea to work with: I feel that personal preference holds the key to gaming satisfaction, and don’t think it’s profitable to inject too much of “my way” into the process.  In a sense, the cheaper/tackier I present my thoughts, the easier it will be for players to alter (or chuck) them to suit local taste.  Some of what I offer is “ready to go”, but the aircombat stuff in particular is (as admitted in the intro) far from a tested/finished product, and so does require a bit of elbow grease/input from those who take the time to look at them and/or give them a try.  So, yes: I admit it’s a tough row to hoe…but figured I wasn’t getting anywhere on my own (I win most of the arguments I have with myself…) and so took the plunge into the public pool.  I figure anyone who downloads them is at least interested in the genre, and that a playtest—if desired—can be done with scraps of cardboard on the diningroom table (the same way I playtest games in the initial stages: making fancy pieces-parts makes it too tempting to retain rules/ideas that use them to justify the expense—better to have the test be done with disposal stuff).

”...an overview of the game-play would be useful…”

That’s the intended purpose of the photobucket AARs.  I could, of course, make more detailed descriptions regarding the game mechanics (which I did do for the latest WAD stuff).  I guess I was thinking that, should someone ask a question, such a thing was best done to cover a particular facet—rather than create a bunch of examples of things that (for all I knew) everyone understood perfectly well without my bothering to take up space with ponderous elaborations.

“Numbered headings in the rules would make them more reader-friendly. On the web page, spacing out the text and a few more images would help - maybe some pictures where paper counters instead of plane models might draw in a few more inquisitive folk.”

Thanks for the suggestions.

“However, my cousin sent me over some WH40K Space Marines, after I mentioned to him I had some robots that “needed dealing with!” The “Beer and Pretzel Space Marines” rules seem to fit the bill.”

Good!  I’d like to think you’d find some sort of reward from troubling yourself on my behalf.

Thanks again for the feedback.
don