Gaming WW1 Aircombat

[dglewwe]

What do you want?

What facet of the action are you seeking to experience?

What challenge of the genre raises your competitive spirit?

What decisions do you want to be faced with?


As a "dice rolling designer", I wonder whether what video/computer gaming players want is being answered sufficiently (or at all), and if -perhaps- the response to their desires wouldn't be better met by tabletop/boardgames?

[Mogadeet]

I want a game that plays realistically and rewards skill rather than rolling. I really like using counters and a hex grid, and board & chart games are invariably the most fun.

I loathe computer or PC games.

I want the game to have a detailed, well-defined, and accurate depiction of the aircraft as well. When I read an actual account of an air battle and find that something very similar happened in a game I played gives me a special thrill.

That's why I play Canvas Falcons.

Mogadeet

[BarkhornXX]

To each his own I suppose. As for me, I've left board games behind long ago as a well done PC sim provides a you are there immersive experience - at a moments notice.

- No set up
- No bookeeping
- No rules to memorize

Sorry, I just don't understand the appeal of a board/dice game when trying to simulate aircraft flying in a 3D space.

[dglewwe]

Mogadeet wrote:
"I want a game that plays realistically..."

How so? Which facet of aircombat should be represented well?


"... rewards skill rather than rolling."

Agreed -but skill at what?...ie: what part of what a pilot does and/or decides should be the focus of the game?


"When I read an actual account of an air battle and find that something very similar happened in a game..."

I agree that believable / plausible AARs -ones that don't require a spin doctor to shape the gameplay into something reasonable- are a good indicator of whether the game successfully captured the historical action.


"...Canvas Falcons."

Sorry, my google-fu (and memory!) is weak: is there a site/link to a description?

[dglewwe]

Barkhorn wrote:
"To each his own I suppose."

Variety is good!


"...a well done PC sim provides a you are there immersive experience...simulate aircraft flying in a 3D space."

What part of the experience is represented / sought? I have serious doubts as to the flying bit: a computer sim may do jets/glass-cockpits well, but throwing an open-cockpit biplane around the sky...? YMMV, but I don't see/feel it.


"...at a moments notice."

The convenience is certainly a plus, no doubt there. I would add -in addition to the setup time- the need to find at least one opponent: I imagine the online community is large, and there's always an AI foe at the ready!


"...I just don't understand the appeal of a board/dice game when trying to simulate aircraft flying in a 3D space."

It's a matter of focus/intent for the game. Since, IMO, nothing captures/represents the flying part well -at least in a manner similar to how that facet of the challenge is handled by real pilots- you're left with trying to capture/represent some other facet/feature of the action and/or decision-making process of the player/pilot, and board/miniature games with dice can do that...maybe... ; )

It depends on what you're looking to game/experience. Different means for different ends. Not better or worse, just different. What I'm after here (in my usual, poorly-worded fashion) is discussing the different facets/features of the genre that appeal to players from a gaming standpoint, and how those can be best represented: perhaps sometimes with computers, perhaps sometimes with dice. dunno.

[Mogadeet]

Sadly, I can't split up my reaction into sections like that. I approach the game as a whole, and react to it as a whole.

Realism? When the performance of the aircraft, i.e., following the rules of flight, result in aircraft movement that seems aerodynamically correct and gives a feel of the aircraft that confirms or supports written accounts of the flight and use of it, then that is realism.

Luck vs Skill? If your die rolling sucks, but you do everything right and it comes out just fine, that is a sign of skill-orientation.

But, really, I can't split it up into sections and remain coherent, because I don't see the game that way. Kind of like asking a color-blind person to describe "Red."

PC games require hand-eye coordination that is sadly lacking in me. I don't like a game that challenges my body, and eyesight, I want to challenge my mind. And I like the social interaction with the other players too. Playing with friends is part of the fun. Gaming is a social experience, not a solitary one. That's why I don't like solitaire games.

Mogadeet

[Kirk]

First, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it be on a tabletop or PC, there are no "realistic" WWI combat simulations. Until you're up in the air with someone actually shooting at you, all you have is a game.

That being an assumption, my goal is simply to have fun. To have fun with a WWI air combat game there has to be some amount of detail (a good plane should defeat a bad one), the game has to play relatively quickly (I don't like games that are so detailed it takes a week to do a simple turn), the game should be relatively simple so more people can enjoy it, and there should be enough variability in aircraft and missions to provide lots of replay value.

So far no game I've played has been perfect, but Wings of War comes the closest to what I enjoy. It's simple, colorful, and there are large numbers of aircraft/missions. It still has it's drawbacks (I've invented quite a few house rules to dial up the detail a bit) but then so does every other game I've played. the most important house rule I've added to our games is role playing. I've found that role playing puts you "in the cockpit" far more than any other volume of rules ever can. Why? See my first paragraph. If you care about that pilot who's flying your plane you perform differently, and more realistically than for any game where the counter is just a piece of cardboard. WWI air combat was all about fear and making decisions under massive physical and mental pressure and role playing is probably the best way to simulate that.

[dglewwe]

Mogadeet wrote:
"Sadly, I can't split up my reaction into sections like that. I approach the game as a whole, and react to it as a whole."

I have no idea what that means.

"Realism? When the performance of the aircraft, i.e., following the rules of flight, result in aircraft movement that seems aerodynamically correct and gives a feel of the aircraft that confirms or supports written accounts of the flight and use of it, then that is realism."

So you're looking for a flight sim, not an aircombat game?


"Luck vs Skill? If your die rolling sucks, but you do everything right and it comes out just fine, that is a sign of skill-orientation."

Again I ask: What skill?

[dglewwe]

Kirk wrote:
"First, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it be on a tabletop or PC, there are no "realistic" WWI combat simulations."

I'm with you there.


"To have fun with a WWI air combat game there has to be some amount of detail...the game has to play relatively quickly...the game should be relatively simple so more people can enjoy it, and there should be enough variability in aircraft and missions to provide lots of replay value."

I'm in agreement.


"...the most important house rule I've added to our games is role playing."

How does that impact play directly?


"WWI air combat was all about fear and making decisions under massive physical and mental pressure..."

Exactly! So - how do the WoW rules address this?

I propose rules that put that stress/fear front and center -not just in a campaign/RPG setting, but for every game played. What ruleset has the player/pilot considering "what's in it for me?"

Risk management.

[Jeff Herne]

I've been involved with air combat sims for awhile now - going way to Combat Flight Simulator I - as both a player and a designer/consultant.

Until the day comes where we can experience G-forces, environmental effects like temperature, wind, etc, the most we can ever expect to get from a simulation are the reactionary effects of control inputs on a 'virtual' or cartoon aircraft.

I fly a WW2 combat sim called Aces High. The modeling and flight characteristics are pretty well matched to historical data and accounts. They opened a WWI arena several months ago, with only 4 aircraft, a D.VII, Dr.I, F2B, and Camel. These are not 'put a quarter in and go' aircraft, you actually need to learn to fly them before taking them into combat against another player.

The response was great initially, but I'm not sure the WW2 fans approach WWI aviation the same way as we do.

With all games, reducing or eliminating player frustration is the key to selling and creating games that people return to and embrace. If it is too difficult, you're going to lose all but the most dedicated, hardcore players. Make it too simple, or arcade-like, and you lose the purists that drive the accuracy and historical significance of the project.

Computers and technology today have come a long way from the 1980's release of "The Red Baron". Today, the modeling of aircraft performance, environmental effects, etc., often mean that today's virtual pilots are quite capable of flying the real thing - provided they get beyond the 'unlimited lives and planes' mentality of many gamers.

When I first started flying in online sims, I was a professional target. Everyone shot me down. And it was because I treated my online airplane the same way I'd treat an actual airplane. I watched for stall indicators, airspeed, instruments, and I didn't push my 'virtual' airplane beyond what I felt were the historical limits of the aircraft. Everyone else, however, did. So what if I tear the wings off my D.VII in a 200mph dive and auger into the ground? I'll get a new plane with a full tank of gas and lots of cartoon bullets and try again...

The key to a successful simulation is to find a balance between the hard-core, full-blown flight sim and the Xbox arcade game.

Board games, unfortunately, can't give you the immersion of a computer flight sim. Board games require imagination - something that has been lost somewhere along the way. Board games for me are for thinking. My heart rate doesn't go up when I play chess, but landing a shot-up airplane at my own field after a 10-minute dogfight with a bunch of Albatross not only gets my heartrate up, but my hands are sweating and my stress level is up. That's immersion.

J