“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 can go with that, and even a newcomer should be able to get into the game. But as I said, the presentation put me off. The additional image in Photobucket could really be on the web-page, so are instantly available.

“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!).
Ah, now we get into my territory… Would your cousin be offended if I offered to redo your web-site? I could redo a single page, such as the Dogfight, or the Space Marines. These could then be used as a template for the rest of the site. I could send you a redone version, that you can view on your own PC. If you like it, you just need to upload it to your server. The only thing I ask in return is to put a tiny “Site designed by alloydog” somewhere at the bottom. I have done sites for friends (example, http://www.16ld.org/ ), but it carries more cred if a stranger, so to speak, likes your work. What say thee?

Oh, and one other thing, stick with “Dogfight!”, not “Dogfite!”

“The additional image in Photobucket could really be on the web-page, so are instantly available.”
I’ll see if I can have those fit in.

”...I offered to redo your web-site?”
PM sent regarding this.

”...stick with “Dogfight!”, not “Dogfite!” “
The latter was an attempt to provide an entry-opportunity for interested gamers to try the concept on a quick-and-easy basis.  Are you saying that the offering misses the mark, or is not worth the attempt?  (or do you just not like the silly name?)

“or do you just not like the silly name?” Sorry but yeah! I guess it’s a throw back to when I was a kid. Shops and businesses started having names like “Kwik Save”, “Kwikfit” “Kwality” and so on. Still makes my teeth grate…

Yeah…it’s aimed right at that sort of cutesiness—right down to the blue-and-yellow…pretty lame humor, I admit.  I wonder if everyone gets the joke?

Truth be told: I’m not altogether fond of the name (dogfight)—it was just thrown up as something to title the thing with when I first put it out to the public and needed a name other than my wordfile “ww1”.  “Aerial Craps”—as a subtitle—at least comes closer to describing the concept of the game, but doesn’t do anything to communicate the era (and I’m also not sure how universal the dice-game is as far as recognition goes).

Dunno…it’s just one more thing on the (very large) pile of “Things to do if/when the concept plays out” that I’ve set aside so as not to get too wrapped up in the shiny bits before the foundation has been designed/set and proven able to support them.

As far as the idea of an intro version for trial goes: any merit or just taking up space?

Quick-and-Easy Hex-Mat construction

Thought I’d pass along a very clever idea for laying out hexes on a cloth that was shared on TMP:
http://www.terragenesis.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5861

Since my games require larger hexes than most (to fit at least four models comfortably) making a playing surface is probably something that will need to be done in order to play—the above method is perfect for the job, and I’m grateful to Jim for sharing it.

Thought I’d celebrate 1000 looksees by mentioning that there are a couple varients/versions/modifications of the original game in the works that I hope to post/share sometime next month.  Inspired by how well the WAD version came out, I decided to apply some of its facets to Dogfight! -simplifying much of the maneuver system (at least for the basic game) and -hopefully- making the thing go a lot faster (not that I think it was slow to begin with, but…).

Anyway, stay tuned (for those who may actually read this stuff when they click on to look) and, as usual, I look forward to any/all comments.

I’ll take the 1200-th post.

I know, I know: the updates.  I’ll get to ‘em… ; )

Played the WAD-version three times this past weekend at a Con: I thought the games went well…dunno what the players thought.

Made me think that I need to work on speeding gameplay up -or at least to provide for the option, ie: if players want to get embroiled in the details of a certain occurance it should be possible, but it should also be possible for them to say “heck with it -just roll a die and say such-and-such happened and let’s move on”.

The draw-from-a-hat activation is definately a drag if there are multiple players on a side -I don’t recommend doing WAD games with more than two per side…waiting around for a turn can be tedious if you’re not Chance the Gardener.

Where does the time go?  Dunno how many (if any at all) peek into this -those 2000+ looks could just be bots or something- but on the off chance that there are some who are actually interested in these games I thought I should post something just to keep the dust from building up too deep.

I’ve been concentrating on the WAD version since that seems to find an audience at Cons / Gamedays easier than the more ‘serious’ game.  Here are a couple of things I’ve added / modified in the past few months (that haven’t found their way into the downloadable version -the recent death of my computer has put updating those files into a big ‘not-too-soon’ pile…):

TURNING / MANEUVERING
In order to reflect the difference between the dogfighters and boom-and-zoom fighters, the cost of turning and maneuvering is increased with speed.  At speeds of 7-9, 60 and 120 degree turns lose one point of speed, and 180-degree turns and maneuvering lose two points of speed (in addition to failing on 1s and 2s).  At speeds of 10 or greater, 60 degree turns fail on 1s and 2s, 120 degree turns lose two points of speed, and 180 degree turns and maneuvering are not allowed.

In all cases where movement dice are rolled to test for turning or maneuvering and extra point of speed is lost for each failure rolled -these can be bought off with Pilot Points, of course.

Also: When maneuvering, any 6s rolled buy an extra Dogfight Die for any attack made that activation.

COMBAT
Attack Dice are sum of Gun Dice, Dogfight Dice (if maneuvering), and Pilot Dice minus the target’s Dogfight Dice (if maneuvering) and Pilot Points -the number of Pilot Points cannot exceed the number of available Dogfight Dice+1.  Any remaining Attack Dice (after subtractions, if any) are then modified by penalties/bonuses.

Crits for Hits: The attacker may, after rolling, trade three hits for a single roll on the Critical Hit table.  In addition, any number of other hits may be used as modifiers to that roll (+/- 1 on the roll per hit) intstead of being rolled for damage.

Critical Hit table:  The ‘Gun’ hit is replaced with a ‘Fuel Leak’ = target player treats as either ‘engine destroyed’ (ie: switches off engine) or must roll as if smoking each activation (ie: burns on roll of 6). The order of the results is now: 1 = engine destroyed, 2 = fuel leak, 3 = engine hit, 4 = structural hit (current row), 5 = major structural hit (current and next rows), 6 = pilot hit.

Pilot Critical Hit: A second roll is made - 1 = lose one Pilot Point, 2-3= lose half Pilot Points (round up), 4-5 = lose all Pilot Points, 6 = dead.  Also, the number rolled on the die (if not a 6) equals the number of Movement Dice added to the aircraft.

There’s other stuff, but -as I said- I’m not sure anyone’s looking at this anyway, so won’t worry about whether it’s complete.  As always, I assume that if anyone is truly interested they can always post a question here or send me a message/email.

I’m in the process of creating / adding a new AAR to the Photobucket file.  It’s of the ‘Hawker v Richthofen’ battle that took place 23 November 1916 that I plan to run at a local gameday on the 20th.  Two playtests so far (the second will be the AAR shown) and I’m fairly happy with the outcome / balance.  I may experiment with adding more aircraft (the Roland observers and Nieuport scouts that were in the area earlier) to accomodate more players, but I’m not sure…the game really works well, I think, with just two players (one per side) and I’m reluctant to fiddle with a working scenario ( -if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, right?).

I realize the oddity of an aircombat ruleset that is geared towards two-player games.  It certainly has little convention appeal (unless players enjoy watching the unfolding of the storyline while they wait their turn), but fills, IMO, a huge, gaping hole in the genre allowing the gaming of a reasonable-sized engagment without the need to gather a dozen or more players.

I must confess to a certain degree of frustration in getting the idea / message across to aircombat devotees.  oh well…

Hmm…seems like lots of looksees lately.

Anyone willing to post an opinion/comment?

Hi all…

Just finished to read the rules and the designer note, I would say that I like AERIAL CRAPS (Dogfight!), I would also say that I like it very much!
The design theory at the basis of the game is exactly what I was searching for. Some of the game mechanics appeal to me very much in particular the use of large hexes (and consequently the Movement System) and the growing of Combat Value as the pilot focus on the action.

I would thanks Don for sharing his Ideas and for doing this for free…

I hope I will try the game soon (I already own most of the needed stuff) and I will let you know a more precise opinion about it.

By the way I have some questions after the first reading:
1) page 9 (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) - the x in the 12, 13, 14 columns mean that you may not do the choosen level of turn/steps at that speed?
2) page 9 (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) - why there isn’t a CV bonus under maneuver row crossing speed 3 column?
3) page 11 (2.70 STRESS TEST) - last text row: ...speed = -1/pt > max dive… do you mean max dive speed?

A little criticism… (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) maybe it’s better to have the target number directly in the cell (maybe in the form MT level/target number/bonus CV - i.e. 2/6+/(2) ) so player don’t need to cross references 2 table to discover how high they need to rolls.
Finally not a friendly reading (but I am Italian so probably this don’t help) but since I have not payed for what promise to be a good game, for me it’s OK.

Can’t wait to see more…

Ciao,
Fabrizio

PS please be patient for my poor English

”... AERIAL CRAPS (Dogfight!)...”

To make clear to those who may be lurking: ‘Aerial Craps’ is the same game as ‘Dogfight!’ that is currently online - Fabrizio is referring in his post to a copy of the latest (renamed) rules that was sent to him.  I hope to make it (along with other stuff) available on the ‘Brawlfactory’ site within the week so that any interested can all be on the same page of the discussion - apologies for the laziness, but since it looked like I was just talking to myself anyway I didn’t worry about keeping things up-to-date on the webpage.

My thanks to Fabrizio for taking the time to post.  As to the specific questions:

1) page 9 (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) - the x in the 12, 13, 14 columns mean that you may not do the choosen level of turn/steps at that speed?
Yes.  The Gs pulled for that tight a turn are, IMO, prohibitive for the era (6+).  As with all the numbers/ratings in the game, it is only my opinion that created them: anyone is free to modify them in order to make the game into something that they enjoy.

2) page 9 (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) - why there isn’t a CV bonus under maneuver row crossing speed 3 column?
The CV is roughly based on a scale whose inputs are the rate, radius, and distance-travelled by an aircraft - it just ended up that at that speed the equation resulted in a ‘0’.  As that is only the minimum-required movement-level (0) for that speed, the player is free to choose a higher level (and/or use aerobatics) in order to gain a greater CV bonus.

3) page 11 (2.70 STRESS TEST) - last text row: ...speed = -1/pt > max dive… do you mean max dive speed?
Yes.  Apologies for the poor/lazy writing.  As noted above: As far as I knew I was the only one reading this stuff, so I didn’t take the time to polish it for public consumption.  The purpose of the public exposure is to gain feedback/discussion on an idea, not to reveal or revel-in a finished product.  I realize that makes it tough going (as my writing skills are poor even when I try…), and really appreciate any effort made at slogging through them.

A little criticism… (2.511 MT LEVEL TABLE) maybe it’s better to have the target number directly in the cell (maybe in the form MT level/target number/bonus CV - i.e. 2/6+/(2) ) so player don’t need to cross references 2 table to discover how high they need to rolls.
Agreed - my only concern would be putting too much info in the boxes = making it hard to read?  Dunno…this is a case, perhaps, of ‘designer familiarity’: memorizing the four target numbers for the levels (2, 4, 6, 9) is easy for me since I made the silly thing! 

The original table showed the target numbers, and is the same as the optional one (pg13, or in the ‘advanced rules’ in Dogfight!), but presented too many choices to introduce the game to players.  To help the speed of play, I found it better to have players choosing amongst three levels (0 being the default position) rather than thinking about target numbers: it helps (I think…) establish a framework of levels-of-risk.  Also: the MT-level (as opposed to the target number) is used as a modifier in the rest of the game for spotting, orientation, and combat - so I felt that having that number (0-3) be the one on player’s minds was important.

”...not a friendly reading…”
Again, my apologies - you’re not the first to say so!  If the game ever gets to a workable/finished state I will hire a wordsmith to craft something worthy of the paper it is printed on.

“Can’t wait to see more…”
Hope springs eternal.  No surprise: I like (and am proud of) the fundamental ‘engagement areas’ and ‘fog of movement’ that are the key elements of the game, and -along with the addition of Mike Clinton’s ‘Pilot Points’ (at least that’s where I first saw that sort of individual-asset-allocation system: in ‘Watch Your Six)- I think make for an interesting -and very different- challenge for the aircombat gamer.  Extending the concept into WW2 is, I think, easily done and in the works.

The latest versions of the rules were posted on the ‘Brawlfactory’ site last weekend, and a reading of ‘Aerial Craps’ substantiates my thought/warning concerning the quality: blech! ...reminds me of a description I once heard for a net = holes tied together with string.  I’m not sure even I could play a game using them, so will be heartily surprised if anyone else manages it, oh well…

Still: As stated often, the purpose of all this is public exposure/discussion of the the idea/concept behind the game, and not the game itself, so I only feel slightly bad about the presentation…

Tinkering / toying with an idea that may speed up WAD a bit, as well as increase player involvement during others’ turns.  This is just at the brainstorming stage, so more questions than answers…

I’ll call it ‘Charge if Charged’:
If attacked, a target aircraft would have the option of defending itself by dogfighting with the active aircraft (this would cost it its next activation, ie: it must have a card left in the deck).  The two players would each roll their respective Dogfight dice plus additional dice equal to the number of currently available Pilot Points (this would not use those Points, though - the idea is simply to create a comparison of ability).  The rolls would be compared Risk-style (high v high, discarding any excess dice of the player that rolled the greater number) to determine the winner of the dogfight, who would then be allowed to make an attack (as with normal combat).

Conditions:
Both aircraft must be maneuvering: the attacker initiates the challenge by doing so, and the defender accepts the challenge by doing the same.  Success in the required MTs is assumed: if either fails the other moves with it to the random exit hex and makes its attack.  Any sixes rolled in the MT count as extra Dogfight dice: both in the challenge and attack.

Optional: The defender must spot the attacker in order to accept the challenge? This could be done by rolling a six on a die - the number rolled being equal to twice(?) the available Pilot points.  As with the challenge, this would not use those Points.  A failed spot would not use up the target’s next activation.

Effects: Not sure if the time to resolve the challenge (and spot) would be less than the subsequent activation of the target later in the draw -the acceptance of the challenge implies that the target would have made an attack on its turn anyway- but it would certainly remove the ‘just sit there and take it’ aspect of the sequential activations and double the number of active players around the table.  dunno…like I said: just a germ of an idea at this point.

A varient could be ‘Charge in Support Of’:
All Crew guns would have the option of firing on an (activated) attacker -similar to the current defensive fire rule- even if not the target of the attack.  I’m thinking of a way to represent the mutual fire support of 2-seaters that maintain formation as well as the ‘circle the wagons’ tactic of aircraft like the Fe2 (or, for WW2, the Me110).

Conditions: The firing aircraft must be in the same group and/or must succeed in a spot (w/crew points) ?

dunno…the ‘speeding things up a bit’ goal fits with the theme/purpose of WAD, but I must confess there’s also more than a little bit of ‘make the game a tad more representative instead of just a flivver’ in my motives for tinkering.  Obviously, as long as it’s fun it’s all good…but I wonder whether it would wreck the existing form by trying to tack on more ‘realism’ than it can (or should) handle?

It could be that the the future will yield a hybrid of Craps and WAD…?

Further thoughts (no point in making a new post…I’ll just keep adding to this one):

Make the act (C-if-C’d) mandatory -or, at best, require a test (using PP) to allow the player to decline the challenge.  Why?  Because the player isn’t the pilot, insofar as the immediate threat to the player’s tactical/game objective is not as great as the one to the pilot’s life, and therefore the ‘5-mile-tall general’ should not be able to risk the pilot’s life - rather, the little fellow in the model should have the power to throw a wrench in the ‘best laid plans’ of the player in order to save his own skin.

While not as powerful a motive, the Charge-in-support-of rule for crew guns would also carry a compunction for those who would choose to do nothing as their flight-mates were attacked.  Again: the player (safe with beer in hand) would perhaps prefer that the ammo and points were saved for later, but the little guys with the guns would, I think, pull the trigger and fire at the enemy.

General game-theory thoughts (made by myself on another site):

Transfering one’s tactical intentions (as a player) into gaming surface results (be it on a board, tabletop, or screen) is the same in any board, mini, or computer game that has the players ‘flying’ the aircraft, ie: moving, positioning, and facing the counter/model/pixels in 3d space in order to determine the current/relative battlefield value.

The chief (if only) challenge faced by players in those types of games (what I term ‘flight-sim’ games) is one of time-motion, ie: the ability tested is the assessment of the 4d picture/environment and the physical motions required to place oneself in an advantageous position within that environment using the tools of the specific game (plotting, choosing maneuvers, manipulating templates, or pushing buttons/joysticks).

‘Flying’ the model in such a (flight-sim) game and taking on the time-motion challenge is the facet of aircombat faced in that situation. Doing so is fun -I’ve no argument with that. The trouble I see is in how the focus on ‘flying’ has created a (false, IMO) yardstick for achievement/value in the genre.

The emphasis on flight simulation -caused in part, IMO, by the simple fact that the scale of aircombat (motion v. combatant size) allows the physical representation of the action on the playing surface in a way not practical in other one-on-one combat genres (at least with board/tabletop games)- has directed design/gaming energies down the path of this single facet at the cost of explorations/valuations of other roads. Put another way: An aircombat game is judged ‘good’ if the player feels like a pilot -but only with an emphasis on the physical skillset of manipulating the controls to move and point the plane. Again: while that can be fun, I don’t see it as the only option.

I’m wondering about (and exploring) games that present different challenges of the genre to players, and whether those, too, can be fun.

Putting players in a position where the only road to success in the genre is in learning/mastering a game’s interface in order to move/position the aircraft is, IMO, presenting an (unnecessary) obstacle in front of those who may very well find fun/enjoyment in gaming WW1 aircombat but balk at the required admission fee.

Other genres do not require such things from their players: hand-to-hand combat games don’t always ask players to move the arms and legs of their alter-ego-warriors -it’s possible (and done), but games can easily be found that do not have that facet as a chief part of their mechanics. In those games, the broader tactical decisions made by the warriors (what I call the ‘what’, as opposed to the ‘how’) are the focus of the challenge presented to players, and the fun had is in meeting/conquering that challenge.

Again: the purpose is the expansion of the available routes to gaming fun. Not every (potential) player has the time-motion skill/aptitude -or enjoyment of same- to find fun in gaming the choice of whether a circle-6 parry or lunge is the proper move to make in response to an opponent’s attack, yet they can handle (and enjoy) a game that has them ordering their warrior to combat a particular foe: the particulars of how the little fellow executes that order are left to his training and experience and are not a part of (or bother to) the player’s concern.

One could certainly argue that without the performance of a successful parry (or lunge or whatever) the warrior will fail and that therefore those skills are critical to his success. I’d agree. I’d say also, though, that the representation of those skills within a game can be handled in a wide variety of ways that includes -but doesn’t necessarily require- the direct physical manipulation of those motions/skills by the players and their subsequent display on the playing surface.

Gaming aircombat faces the same challenge.  While flying / positioning the aircraft is (like the parry or lunge) a critical facet of the action, it needn’t be specifically represented in a game nor something a player need spend time / energy on. My thought/idea is to make the time-motion skill of the pilot be an RPG-syle statistic rather than have it be the chief skill represented by the player occupying the majority of the decision-making during a game (as it is with pretty much every flight-sim style game) - the flying of the aircraft is, IMO, a task/skill handled by real pilots via training and experience on an almost instinctive/reactive level and that having players handling the task/skill via conscious, methodical plotting/calculation is not a good representation of the time-motion challenge.

The level of abstraction I’m considering removes pretty much all details of the flying. The specific behavior of the aircraft is not detailed or controlled in any way by the player: whether the little fellow does a wingover or a barrel roll or a high-yo-yo is moot. The only important piece of information -the one I believe is on the pilot’s mind- is the aircraft’s position relative to the others involved in the combat, and that data can be communicated to the player(s) abstractly (instead of physically).

The time scale of the game would be the same as in a typical flight-sim (within an individual’s decision-loop…2-3 seconds, perhaps?) and the level of control would still be at that of the individual pilot (ie: players would control aircraft singly, not as flights or squadrons). I see it as, maybe, one step up from the usual flight-sim game as far as perspective goes, with the gaming area measured in hundreds of yards (instead of feet)?

The difference would be in the type of decisions made by players -instead of answering the question: “How do I move my plane?” (something I don’t believe pilots ask themselves…I don’t, anyway) players answer these sorts of questions : “Do I manoeuvre this guy so he can get at tailing bonus at that guy the next turn, do I go for the objective, risking getting shot at or do I take a long range shot at that guy? Do I take the risk of pressing the flight envelope in order to get at tail shot at that guy? Is the benefit of getting the shot worth the risk of a high speed stall? is my pilots piloting skill good enough to make the roll? and do i feel lucky? What are the consequences of a stall? is there altitude enough to have a fair chance of recovering the plane? Am I vulnerable if I stall?” (Note: These questions were presented/posted by another contributor on the original thread/forum, and photos showing examples of these ‘meaningful choices’ can be seen at http://s575.photobucket.com/albums/ss191/brawlfactory/Aerial Craps/Meaningful Choices/ )

The information needed to answer those questions (and the means to resolve them) does not require (IMO) the physical placement/movement of the models - there’s no need to spend gametime plotting/moving/positioning the models or occupying player energies in making those flying decisions that -as mentioned before- I believe are handled by real pilots on an instinctual/reactive level. You can include those decisions in a game - but do you have to?