In Clouds of Glory - WWI Tabletop air combat...

[GilmoreDK]

Hi there

I just want to share some pics of our homebuild WWI dogfight tabletop game.

The scale of the planes is 1/350 and everything is build from scratch in pvc sheets. Mounting poles for the planes is made from carbon fibre.

Were currently building a lot of new models and I will post some pics later but for now look at : In Clouds of Glory | Board Game | BoardGameGeek
















- Gilmore

[dglewwe]

I love to see models and dice, and those are very very nice, but...


I'm reminded of Pinkley's (sp?) line in the movie "The Dirty Dozen" : Very pretty, Colonel...but can they fight?

The admission that it takes more than one person to move an aircraft...the templates to handle (I assume for horizontal as well as vertical turns?)...the forest of sticks to reach through...the limited gamespace such manipulation dictates...

What sort of game does it produce? I admit that I'm not a big fan of the point-and-shoot style of aircombat game (which admittedly colors my opinion) but it seems to me that the further you get from speedy play and instant reactions the further you get from the mood of the genre.

dunno...maybe I'm just not seeing it right...being wrong is a chronic fault for me!

[GilmoreDK]

Hi dglewwe

You got some valid points partially right and partially wrong. Some more details:

- The game is off course slower in play than say "Wings of War" but it does some things very well:

- It illustrates the 3d environment of air combat very well - Altitude translates fluidly into speed which can be used to gain altitude again. This leads to zoom and boom tactics by energy fighters while the dogfighters slug it out while slowly losing altitude or speed. I have not seen this as well represented in any other air combat game. No "2D only" representation or counters showing energy, bank or altitude. Its all there by the poles and the 360 degrees nose mounts on the planes (speed is registered at the cockpit sheet as well as pilot skills and plane damage)

- It looks stunning...

Gameplay wise it often, when combat has evolved into a furball, needs two pais of hands to move a plane.But not for simple turns og straigth flying.

It takes just under 3 minutes tomove a plane on average. As a game is normally 10 rounds a 10 plane combat will take 300 minutes to play or 5 hours inclusive setup. More than other games, but more details are represented as well. I dont know how long time a 10 plane game of Wings of War would take but probably less than 2,5 hours.

As to the trees, they can be annoying but not more than that as the poles do not have a base but are sharpened and set directly in the styrofoam boards.

Were currently endin our late 1917 campaign and starting a ned summer 1918 instead, which is why we are currently building a lot of new planes as well as troop stands (made from1/350 Tamiya ship crew figures) and tanks (resin cast custom built).

- Gilmore

[CivvyCivvy]

Looks good and sounds interesting. Whose aircraft are you using?

[Sagittarius]

The Airplanes are looking really great. Especially if you take the small scale into account.
The combat system sounds a bit too complex for me but nevertheless very interesting. Altitude was crucial back then but no table top until now had it properly implied in its game mechanics.

[GilmoreDK]

Hi CivvyCivvy

All planes are built from scratch ...

Firstly a scale line drawing (3 view) is printed onto thin paper. Then the paper is mounted with photomount (glue that allows the paper to be removed again) onto pvc sheet. Then wings and fins are cut out.. The fuselage is made from a bigger chunk of pvc.

The Tanks and trucks models have been used to make a rubber form so we can make resin casts. But not the planes.

Decals are 1/285 scale but fits the bill anyway.

But i think that you could easily use 1/144 pewter cast planes - Even though they are heavy an would need a heavy mounting pole.

Anyther option we consider in the long run is a wwII version using 1/700 scale planes from Carrier kits .. Could make for some great scenarios with Kates and Vals supported by Zeros attacking US carriers anno 1942... Braving flak and Wildcats...

And the terraing is easily done with the blue sea...

- G

[dglewwe]

"It illustrates the 3d environment of air combat very well..."

True, but it still depends on the "point and shoot" of the models to determine firing. A good game, perhaps...but a representation of piloting (as opposed to the mechanical/physical movement of the aircraft) ...I don't think so --and since the player is the pilot (not the aircraft) the target is missed, imo.


"- It looks stunning..."

I agree...but I'm not sure it can fight.


"As to the trees..."

My comment was in regard to the stands themselves, not the terrain. A fight that involves anything more than a handful of aircraft will, I assume, create a "forest" of sticks that make the laying-out/moving of the models a PITA.



disclaimer: none of the above is intended to be harmful --my diplomatic writing skills are very poor. This is all just blather about games with toys --please don't take it any more seriously than that.

[GilmoreDK]

Hi again

DFgglewwe, if you by "point and shoot" means a game were the planes freely can move about and were the pilot has perfect situational awareness (such as Wings of War) you are wrong. Dont jump to conclusions as i have not described the game design at all, but lets use this to have a good design discussion - here is a short description of the gameplay:

- Each plane has a pilot with skills in piloting, shooting and sitational awareness as well as Macho (hit points/morale).
- The pilots roll for situaltionale awareness, modified for planes tha are have a tactical advantage (approaching from the side or better from the rear). This determines turn order.
- Then movement are resolved - Planes with low initiative (low situational awareness, being chased) move first. During this phase the players decide wether the pilots should press the planes to the edge of their fligth envelope.
The maneuvres possible by a plane is dictated by the type of plane, the speed as well as other factors such as banking etc.
Planes use different turning templates at different speeds as dictated by the plane type.

- making tight turns , putting planes into a spin or making retournements. If a pilot fails a piloting check the plane departs from normal flight in some manner depending on the situation and how much the check was failed. This departure could be a simple broader turn, stalling one wing or enter a spin.
- When flying normally (trivial maneuvering), no checks are made.

So, yes it will fight ..

But off course some design descisions has been made emphasising some aspects more than others - As everything obviously cannot be represented in a playable game.


As to the design of the mounting poles it is the lesser of several evils:

- Telescopic rods - a lot of air combat games use these, but they are to heavy to be very high and too clumsy and thus too easy to knock over.
This solution is for example used in an old miniatures game from the 80ties called "Dogfight".
- Using heigth markers - No visual representation of the combat area. Typical Avalon Hill approach.
- Hexagons on playing field - Makes Precision in movement easier but are too coarse in its "resolution" with only 6 directions (or 12 in some game systems) and demands clumsy rules for entering hexes and so forth. This game is "WYSIWYG".
- Lead bases with pianovire - Too easy to knock over.

The solution with carbon fibre is good because the are wery firmly set in the styrofoam landscape boards and thus can be wery high, and they wont topple. The forrest is less of a problem nd i havent seen better solutions as of yet.

[dglewwe]

"...lets use this to have a good design discussion..."

Thanks! I'm happy to do that --one of the problems I've had with my design is not getting any feedback / comments from "outsiders". It's difficult to create something that you hope people will like when there's no response...sort of like a chef who never hears from the dining room if his meal is thought to taste good or not.


What I meant by "point and shoot" is that it is the physical postioning / aiming of the model itself that determines if a shot can be made. I admit that that I did "jump to conclusions" in making that assessment, but the photos seemed to indicate that --with all the trouble taken to position the models (using templates and such)-- it is indeed the model placement on the tabletop that dictates firing opportunities.

Your turn sequence...

- Each plane has a pilot with skills...
- The pilots roll for situaltionale awareness...determines turn order.
- Then movement...players decide whether the pilots should press the planes to the edge of their flight envelope.
- If a pilot fails a piloting check...trivial maneuvering no checks are made.

...is very similar to mine, especially regarding the inclusion of pilot skills and --most importantly-- the testing against those skills for the success of difficult maneuvers which creates a level of uncertainty / stress for players and injects a level of decision-making / play into the game that is rarely found in aircombat games (many/most of which have the models move with the predictable precision of chess pieces). I was happy to see that someone else had gone down that design-road ahead of me!

The difference comes when you "use different turning templates at different speeds as dictated by the plane type" and rely on the physical placement / positioning of the models themselves to resolve the game-impact of the player's decisions / maneuver-success (or failure) --thus "point-and-shoot"-- whereas I use an abstract, numerical rating of the success / failure of the player's maneuver decision (and it's comparison to a similar number generated by his opponent's testing that turn) to determine if a shot can be taken. Two ways to the same end --I don't think either is right or wrong. Since a game's objective is fun, and fun is a matter of personal taste, a game can't be right or wrong, imo, just different.


"But off course some design descisions has been made emphasising some aspects more than others - As everything obviously cannot be represented in a playable game."

I agree wholeheartedly.



- Telescopic rods...this is what I use. I agree that the third dimension is best represented visually (as opposed to markers/chits/dials) because a spatial / physical means of communication is best. The idea that they are "too heavy to be very high and too clumsy and thus too easy to knock over" is not unique to telescoping rods: the fixed-rod solution (which you use) is subject to the same problems. You solved it by stabbing the rods into the terrain (thus making the tabletop itself the model's base) and my answer was to have a heavy base with a magnet to assiist the stability. Given a similar bump, I think both succeed. The fact that fixed-rods are always at full height makes the odds of them getting bumped greater. Given a harder shove, I would fear that your nice terrain would get ripped, perhaps? I would also wonder what condition the tabletop would be in after a year of gaming...

Bottom line: representing the third dimension is a tough nut to crack, and there are no perfect solutions. We each, I think, have made something that works and is satisfying: and that is as good a measure of success as any other I can think of.


- Hexagons on playing field... are admittedly coarse, but I can see how such a restriction in movement options could perhaps be used to inject manveuver uncertainty into a game?


Depending on the "WYSIWYG" concept for resolving success / failure is --while admittedly superior visually-- places too great an emphasis of player energy / input on the movement / placement of the model. Since I believe that the equivalent pilot activity (the movement / placement of the aircraft) lies very low on his energy / concious-input list of priorities, I don't think that having it be very high on a the player's list of priorities is the best (or at least: only) way to go in presenting gamers with the challenge of aircombat. Put simply: players shouldn't think about flying anymore than pilots = very little. imo. This idea is not presented as anything great or earthshattering: just a concept to ponder to gain a different POV of the subject that will hopefully allow a fun game to be built around it.


We're talking playing with toys, here: I hope no one gets upset by anything that is presented in the spirit of exchanging / exploring ideas.

[CivvyCivvy]

Well done. As scratchbuilt wargames models they seem to fit the bill.