homebrew miniatures

[dglewwe]

new to the forum.

i'm designing/playtesting a set of dogfighting rules (using tabletop miniatures), and am searching for ears to bend and opinions on the topic: please let me know if you are interested in providing either one (preferably the latter...).

thanks.

[Yeoman]

Hello dglewwe! Welcome to the aerodrome!
Well what exactly would you like to know?

There are a lot of good rule sets out there at the moment and the biggest and arguably the best set is free (Blue max / canvas eagles).

If you are going to make models of aeroplanes for your game then may I suggest 1/144 scale ?

Whats your biggest hurdle at the moment?

[Romani]

I am currently writing at long last the rulebook on my own rules set... ever since I played Blue Max a decade ago, wich was a great concept from the game mechanic viewpoint, but sadly limited I've been looking for a satisfying rules set ever since. I have found out that no game designer gets everything right, and no game is 100% perfect, so I decided to make my own combining the best from every game, my basis is the Blue Max/Canvas Eagles "game engine" so to speak, but heavily laden with detail.

Having said that, games are like models... you build to your own satisfaction, a rules set is designed with an objective in mind...and should be judged on how well it accomplishes the desired goal. For all its faults, Blue Max never pretended to be more than a "beer and pretzels" game, and does it admirably.

I encourage you to post your rules here, I will happily pick on them like a vulture gorging itself on the carrion of a cow that has been dead for two days Any good idea you have will promptly be stolen and incorporated into my own rules


Tabletop wargaming is something that is not given the attention it deserves in this forum... probably most of those that are into WWI aviation think we are a bunch of geeks... ignoring the long and distinguished tradition of the Kriegspiel... in this age, computer flight sims rob all the spotlight... but let's face it... flight models are not (yet) the real thing.. and a flight sim only teaches you what was like to fly in one those crates, wargames on the other hand, allow us to replicate what the air war was like... and hopefully give us a better understanding of the past, besides, it's great fun to shoot your opponent down in flames!


But I digress... ok, tell us, it's your rules set miniatures, rule and trasnporter based, or hex mapboard based?

What is the scale in distance and time? Does it have an altitude system? I assume it's simultaneous movement? Pre calculated maneuvers like Blue Max, or the time honoured method of spendinng Movement points one at a time? Details, details! Enquiring minds want to know!

[dglewwe]

Yeoman wrote

If you are going to make models of aeroplanes for your game then may I suggest 1/144 scale ?

going with 1/285 - 1/300 scale miniatures: the small base size allowed (-i'm using 1-1/4" nuts) lets me fit more gaming area on a table ( 6' = approx 2miles) and more models into a single space/hex for a "scuffle". i'm currently trying 7" hexes (down from 8") --i want to use as small a hex as possible (so that more can fit onto a table) but don't want to end up with an unmanageable crowd crammed into a hex that makes it difficult for players to access their plane for movement/adjustment. i have to keep in mind that varying altitudes can place many more models into a single hex, even though they may be separated by large vertical distances. playtesting will (hopefully) answer the question as to final, workable hex size.


Whats your biggest hurdle at the moment?

getting playtesters! i've really only just started, however, so i can't complain. convincing passers-by (at a local game store) that this is not a normal "flying" game and that they don't have to know what a wingover or an aileron is to play is the key.

aside from getting outside feedback (which playtesting and being here works to satisfy) my biggest difficulty is assigning performance numbers to the various aircraft when --in many cases-- there is no data (or conflicting data) to support the anecdotal evidence found in books. case in point (which i raised in the "aircraft" thread): the fokker d7 is lauded almost universally as "the best", yet it's numbers (wing loading, power loading, aspect ratio, etc...) are mundane. handing it, say a "+2" for maneuvering doesn't seem justified --and worse, having no standard (beyond hearsay) upon which to base bonuses/penalties leaves other, not-as-popular aircraft out in the cold.

i realize that it is only a game, and that as long as all involved can agree on the numbers it's okay: but i hope to have at least a little bit of fact --or even just educated guesswork-- to back my numbers so that the rules can have a home outside my private circle of "we all agree on this so it's okay for us."

[dglewwe]

Romani wrote
...a rules set is designed with an objective in mind...and should be judged on how well it accomplishes the desired goal.

agreed. my objective is to make a (relatively) quick-playing game that captures the spirit of dogfighting. i've gone in a direction that has been --at best-- called "interesting" (in a spock-ish way with raised eyebrow and a quick glance to locate the nearest exit...!). if you can fight your way through my mangled attempt at explaining, i would appreciate comments.


i was, for a long time, going in the direction of flight mechanics: making rules that allow a player to "fly" his model. a year or so ago the thought hit me: i don't want to make a flying game, i want to make a dogfighting game. most (all?) air combat games are hung up (almost exclusively) on flying: if you removed the parts of the rules that dealt with moving/maneuvering the plane you'd have little left. i know: "duh, of course!" is the natural reply --but stay with me...

apply the same rules-system to another genre --say hand-to-hand combat: the game would have players plotting each footstep and arm movement to determine if perhaps a blow can be struck. --or having a tank battle where players plotting the degrees of turret rotation affects/determines the quality of shot they get off. i think games like that would be tedious beyond belief and only have the most devoted adepts as regular players --and you see very few like it outside the air combat genre. not only tedious, but --to me-- missing the big litmus test of successfully capturing the "feel" of the situation that is being represented in the game.


my attitude is that the pilot of the aircraft in the game knows how to fly (at varying skill levels that can be incorporated via modifiers) --the player doesn't (and shouldn't) have to. the challenge i put to players is in deciding what to do (from a tactical standpoint: tail someone, get the sun at your back, run away...), and then choosing the risk level taken to achieve that goal. whether the "how it's done" is a slip or wingover or immelmann is moot: all i care about is how successful it was and what (if any) shooting/tailing advantage was gained. aircraft (and pilot) abilities do still affect/limit the range of things that can be attempted --flying near stall will restrict your options considerably, for example; or (as the guy last night found out): blasting along at top speed in your se5 as you dive head-on towards poor stachel desperately climbing in his out-of-date pfalz will send you zooming past, unable to turn hard enough to stay within gun range --at least not without taking a considerable risk, which the player elected not to do. it's that sort of risk-assessment/taking decisions that i'm aiming to have players busy with --not trying to pick which maneuver card will maybe land them on somebody's tail.



I encourage you to post your rules here...

how is that best done? attachment? post to a file area?

I will happily pick on them like a vulture...






...flight sim only teaches you what was like to fly in one those crates...

i've never driven a sim on a really powerful system, but i do know that (as far as open-cockpit stuff goes) computer flying is to the real thing as dryer lint is to sex.