CA

I’m always glad to receive any posts about IT and IB. No ‘expertese’ required. I am miles from being any kind of expert on combat aviation (or anything else, come to that!).

I find the discussion about refresh rate interesting as the idea of redeploying less often NEVER occured to me in the (nearly) 8 years since I designed IT.

However, I am from the KISS school (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and I too will perservere with turn by turn redeployment (for now) but I certainly appreciate the divergent thinking.

NL

Guys

I’ve just had a thought about this redeployment business.

If you have a system where aircraft remain on the board from turn to turn how do you cope with an aircraft who makes it into a cloud square? He could remain in that square ad infinitum.

If he is armed with RH missiles and his opponents are not he could sit out the game in safety firing RH missiles at all and sundry.

I’m sure there are ways around this but I thought it an interesting problem.

Nelclaret

After much playtesting and tinkering, I’ve come full circle back to your original method of deployment.  I can’t think of a better way, and it just fits the game.  I still find it a little frustrating not to be able to plan from turn to turn, but really I could play another game that takes 3 hours to set up and 18 more to play.  Or, I can just play this and enjoy it for what it is, a fun, fast aerial combat game. 

In fact, I’ve done some conversions for fighting in the Star Wars universe (X-wings vs Tie Fighters and the like) and fantasy aerial battles with dragons breathing fire at each other.  I’ll post these soon when I get them finished so others can fiddle with them.

Thanks for spending the time, though, to look into alternate methods.  Great support of your game!

Codexier

STAR WARS!! (slaps forehead!). Why didn’t I think of that! Great ! Not to mention fire-breathing dragons…

I look forward to your variant(s) - I suggest you post as a new topic to maximise exposure. I’m partial to a bit of sci-fi/fantasy. You will find some scenarios on ‘Transformers’ and ‘Independence Day’ as well as a system for superhero/supervillain combat on the forum somewhere. I do have a half-backed idea for a Star-Trek based game after I finish ‘Instant Spandaus’ (WW1) but ‘Star Wars’ sounds an ideal candidate for the Instant system.

Thanks for your kind words about Instant Thunder. I am impressed that you went to the trouble of playtesting variations on the deployment rules.

Regards

NL

Here are some miscellaneous Q & A that I have thought of recently for Instant Thunder.

Q. RIPPLE FIRED MISSILES

If one missile strikes the target square before the other do you a) resolve the outcome of that missile attack immediately or b) await the outcome of both missiles’ flights and apply the results simultaneously?

A.

Hmm. Up until now I have used option b). However, there is an important point here. If you apply the missile results simultaneously against a target that tries to dodge then you will be using the same ‘dodge number’ for both missiles. However, if you use option a) then the first missile could cripple the target, which would make it a lot more difficult for it to dodge the second missile.

Somewhere in the rules there is a line about combat results being applied immediately before moving onto the next. With that in mind I am ‘ruling’ that a) is correct (and I will have to remember this and change my ways next time I Ripple Fire!).

Q. COUNTERMEASURES

On the same subject how do countermeasures work against Ripple-Fired missiles?

A.

As per the rules, whilst both missiles are in flight they both test separately against a single countermeasure employed by the target.

With the ‘ruling’ above, if the target survives an attack by missile A (resolved immediately) it still has the option of deploying countermeasures against missile B.

Q. CLOUDS

The rules state that if opposing aircraft are in the same square then neither of them can shoot or be shot at. Does this apply to a cloud square also (for RH missiles)?

A.

Yes.

NL

Here’s one that I suspect many of you may have pondered.

Q

Considering that the vast majority of targets ‘never see the one that gets them’, why are there no spotting rules in the ‘Instant’ games?

A

In my experience of playing many boardgames on the subject the most headache-inducing procedure was trying to keep track of who had spotted who. I therefore decided that there would be no visual or radar spotting rules (and this will hold true for Instant Spandaus, as well).

However, having thought about this you could rationalise some aircraft behaviour in the game in these terms:

EG imagine aircraft A is deployed into 6 of Spades and an enemy aircraft B is deployed in 7 of Spades. Now, aircraft B is in the optimum cannon range for a shot and it behoves A to move out of trouble, or to try and turn the tables. However A’s attempts fail due to high cards drawn.

What is going on here? Why didn’t A move?

BECAUSE HE DIDN’T SEE B!

(That’s my take and I’m sticking to it!) 

NL

One question about Instant Bandits - why is bomber defensive fire handled by the gun guessing game? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just give each bomber a defensive fire rating based on the number/caliber of turrets and say draw two cards at distance one, or four at distance two for a hit? It would seem a bit quicker, and gives an easy way to represent the skarj Musik gun installation or night-fighter radar, by inflicting extra card draws or lowering the target number to represent the difficulty of firing back against the opponent.

The “slanted music” installation, was a set of guns mounted in the fuselage of some aircraft at a 20-40 degree angle. Thus they only needed to get behind and below the bomber, then look up for a no deflection shot. Rather useful against British bombers that tended to lack belly turrets. (Can you tell I have a book on the luftwaffe?;)

Hi CA

Thanks for the question (there’s nothing worse than someone armed with a book…!)

You have hit on the one major area of dissatisfaction I have with the IB rules - namely the massed Defensive Fire of Bomber formations (which could, in theory, lead to 8 guessing sequences against a single attack). If I ever do an Instant Bandits second edition then I might well look at streamlining this (eg so there is only one guessing sequence but with bonuses for additional Bombers partaking). 

On a personal level I am happy with the ‘guessing’ mechanism at it retains consistency with other gunnery in the Instant system. However, in some of the specifically solo scenarios I have designed (mostly for IT) then shooting from the ‘automated’ side is indeed handled in a very similar manner to the way you describe.

If you check out the appendices in IB you will find in the DIY section the ‘formula’ I used for Defensive Fire, although I freely admit that I had to adjust this in some cases, for playability.

As ever, you are free to adopt any system you prefer. If you do come up with an alternative for Defensive Fire I hope you can find time to post the stats here so we can all have a look.

Regards

NL

ANOTHER WAY TO PLAY

I have often said that you can use models, counters or even a pencil and paper method to play an ‘Instant…’ air combat game.

Here is another way I discovered when writing up the detailed narrative battle reports.

Use your PC!

Draw up a grid for the map (or cut and paste the diagram in the rules). Sit in front of your PC with a deck of cards and play the game from there, typing in then overtypying as the aircraft move. It’s what I did in real-time for all the narrative battles!

Now, if some clever soul out there could convert the system into a PC format (eg with graphics or aircraft, missiles etc)...

NL

Q.  Where in the rules does it tell me how many countermeasures (chaff and flares) a particular aircraft carries ?

A. Nowhere. I suppose it would be possible to research this and incude it in the stats but it would be a big job and, for me, not worth the effort as I do not fight many scenarios with countermeasures.

As a guide, in circumstances where countermeasures are carried I allow 8 of both chaff and flare where the carrier is technologically advanced (eg US, NATO etc). For third world countries or where supplies are low I allow 4 of each. Where the carrier is somewhere between the two I allow 6 of each.

I emphasise that this is a very rough guide only. There circumstances where other allocations may be appropriate. One that springs to mind is the Falklands in 1982 where UK Harriers flew with a bundle of chaff in their air-brakes. When threatened by Argentine Mirages carrying (potentially) radar-missiles the Harrier pilot would blip open his airbrake to release chaff. To replicate this I have allowed Harriers in IT scenarios where they face RH-armed Mirages to carry 1 chaff!