The Aerodrome Home Page
Aces of WWI
Aircraft of WWI
Books and Film
The Aerodrome Forum
Sign the Guestbook
Help
Links to Other Sites
Medals and Decorations
The Aerodrome News
Search The Aerodrome
Today in History
The Aerodrome Forum

Go Back   The Aerodrome Forum > WWI Aviation > Games and Flight Sims


Games and Flight Sims Topics related to Red Baron, Dawn Patrol and other WWI aviation games

Learn how to remove ads


Welcome to The Aerodrome Forum, an online community where you can discuss WWI aviation with thousands of other members from around the world. To gain full access to the Forum you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
  • Post messages and search the Forum

  • Privately communicate with other members

  • Participate in live chat sessions other members

  • View images by talented aviation artists in our Gallery

  • Buy, sell or trade items in our Classified Ads
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10 October 2008, 03:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
Observer
 
Tufty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 33
 
Lightbulb Wings of War - Ammunition Limits

Something I have been thinking about for a while is introducing a maximum rounds system into our WoW games. Has anyone on the list experimented with this approach? If so, how have you tackled it?

I was thinking that each plane could have a maximum number of rounds onboard and when these are exhausted, the pilot would then have to flee, back to the airfield (a designated corner area) where he/she could re-arm. Obviously there can't be any flying off the board either.

My feeling is that this would add a touch more realism but also it would give the pilots another level of decision-making. You could have scores for short bursts and scores for prolonged fire and these could be tied in to the standard short range or long range attacks. For example, a short range attack using only a short burst could draw only the one damage card (as opposed to the standard two) but it conserves more ammo. Whereas a prolonged burst could do three damage cards worth but the attacking pilot loses much more ammunition.

A bit of extra frisson would be added to the game as some players might choose NOT to fire even though they are in a firing position. Instead, they'll be waiting on the other players exhausting their ammunition and having to flee. At which point they'll give chase of course...

Any thoughts????
__________________
"Logic will take you from A to B.
Imagination will take you everywhere." (Einstein)
Tufty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10 October 2008, 04:41 PM   #2 (permalink)
Observer
 
CivvyCivvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 84
 
This would add to the realism and make people think before they shoot if low on ammo. With the various lengths of burst, what about a jamming rule?
CivvyCivvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 October 2008, 12:49 AM   #3 (permalink)
Observer
 
Tufty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 33
 
Smile

Civvy,

There is a jamming rule already in WoW, though to my knowledge there isn't one in Sight's Dogfight. (I'm not sure about other dice based games). So I think this could stay unchanged. If you had three burst lengths - short, medium and long each of these could be mapped to a simple score. These amounts could then be subtracted from the pilot's tally every time he/she chooses to shoot. And, as you point out, it's that choice of 'use now' or 'hang on until later' that will add a touch more, ahem, zest to the combat...

From a WoW point of view I can see this limits layer fitting in immediately after the distance has been checked between planes and firing is possible. Then the first decision the attacking pilot has to make is simply to fire or not... After choosing a burst count this is then subtracted.

I need to work out the finer details but this is the general principle....!
__________________
"Logic will take you from A to B.
Imagination will take you everywhere." (Einstein)
Tufty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 October 2008, 02:10 PM   #4 (permalink)
Forum Ace
 
Angiolillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Roma
Posts: 658
 
Hello!

I heard some proposals but I don't know of people effectively implementing an ammo rule. Maybe you could ask at the Yahoo Discussion Group:
wow_nexus : Wings of War Nexus

You should give far more limited ammo to Lewis gun but allow pilots/observers to reload them, IMHO.

All the best!

Andrea
Angiolillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 02:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Two-seater Pilot
 
Bluedevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 154
 
Personally I think one of the charming features of the WoW game is its simplicity...
If you want realism there are other systems that can give you that.
But that is just my opinion
__________________
The most difficult thing in life is to make the choice between what is right...and what is easy.
Bluedevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 02:28 AM   #6 (permalink)
Forum Ace
 
Angiolillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Roma
Posts: 658
 
Very wise!

I personally like to add bits of realism here and there, if it can be done with simple elegant optional rules. But that's actually not easy at all! If somebody succeeds in dfoing that, chapeau.
Angiolillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 03:16 AM   #7 (permalink)
Two-seater Pilot
 
Bluedevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 154
 
I admire people who come up with a simple and elegant optional rule...

But the keywords in the previous sentence are : simple, elegant and optional .

The marvel of WoW is that you have a solid base and you can tinker with it and add things till it fits your own needs.
I most certainly have no problem with that , it is just that , so far, I did not feel the need to "tinker" with it.
But if someone comes up with a marvelous and easy working idea to add realism a part from the already existing optional rules I 'll be the first to try them out.
It may seem that I am contradicting myself but it is not that I do not like realism but I am afraid that too much optional rules would make the game slow down and less accessible to those who are not familiar with these kind of games...
So gentlemen , by al means, keep on tinkering... And if you pull it off I'll raise my hat to you ! ( or like Angiolillo said "chapeau" )
__________________
The most difficult thing in life is to make the choice between what is right...and what is easy.
Bluedevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 05:22 AM   #8 (permalink)
Observer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 97
 
don't mess with a good thing

just my (maybe not so humble? ) opinion:

WoW is --as many have posted-- a simple game. a good game. a fun game. it is not by any stretch of the imagination an air combat simulation. its basic structure/concept (that of a simple, good, fun game) does not lend itself to "realism" insofar as adding layers of complexity doesn't match up well with its core theme. adding details can be done, but it's like adding an altimeter to a pedal car: even if done in an elegant manner it won't make the thing fly.

good games --like WoW-- are FUN, and since fun is personal i have absolutely nothing against (and would heartily encourage) people tinkering with a game to suit their individual taste. however, i think it better to apply those impulses to a more suitable platform. if greater "realism" is desired, there are plenty of other options out there to choose from.

i fear that messing with WoW runs the risk of ruining a good thing.


dunno, really...just blathering.

Last edited by dglewwe; 15 October 2008 at 05:25 AM. Reason: spelling
dglewwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 06:09 AM   #9 (permalink)
Forum Ace
 
Angiolillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Roma
Posts: 658
 
Very true. Anyway, even if maybe "realism" is too a big word, I still try to have rules that fit into the setting. The game is not a simulation, but I like to have anyway a game where the Dr.I is more fragile but agile than a SPAD XIII, and able to tighter turns to the right. And if balloons are introduced, make them very hard to destroy with normal bullets, easier to get fire or explode if using Le Prieur rockets (if you attack from close, and same level or above, and keeping the huge target in sight until the damn fuses decide to work, and paying attention at not getting too close if they explode), even easier to attack (in the sense of all the procedure) with incendiary bullets. I am speaking of just the rough lines of the sketch of air war, not of the finer details... But in a certain general, surface-only sense, realism is what is pursued (even if not reached). To make an example to explain the difference, nothing like Crimson Sky that can be fun the same, but where maneuvres belong to the Squyardon and not to the single plane, so a pilot may be forbidden to do a right sideslip because too many of his companions are doing the same in the same turn.

Then I must say that I played a lot of Richthofen's War, Flying Circus, Dawn Patrol, Aces High, Wings, Blue Max and other WWI air simulations (and WWII too). All of them are more realistic, most of them are very fun the same. So yes, for a really realistig game go for them, at least for the more modern of them (we are all dwarves on the shoulders of giants).

Anyway I will try to add some more features to the game (now I am working on multi-engine bombers, torpedoes, SPAD XII' cannoon...) to be used maybe not all together, but just added one every now and then when the scenario requires. And I will try to avoid openly unrealistic rules as the one from Cromsom Skies that I quoted. Probably the result will not be realism, but at least identification with a pilot will be a bit easier.

Thanks a lot for the stimulating notes!

Andrea
Angiolillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 October 2008, 10:30 AM   #10 (permalink)
Observer
 
cubsfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Posts: 61
 
For those interested in tinkering with limited ammo and jamming rules, I highly suggest checking out the old TSR game 'Dawn Patrol'. After playing many similair games (Richthofen's War, Wings, Blue Max etc) I have found this system to work very well.

In a nutshell, each gun starts w/ a set amount of ammo that is indicated in 'points' (50 for Spandau, 40 for Vickers, 10 per Lewis drum) Each time you fire a burst, you decide if you want to fire short (-2 points for each gun), intermediate (-3 points), or long (-4 points).
For jamming, the first time you fire you roll dice, and have a 5% chance to jam on a short or int burst, and 10% on long. each successive time you fire that chance stays at 5% if you fire short, or goes up 5% for int and long bursts. each time you do not fire in a turn, it goes down 5%.

If you do jam, you then must roll to UNjam (35% for short, 25% int & 15% long)

I find this to be a nicely balanced model that is somewhat realistic, and easily can be adapted without losing much of the 'fun' out of the game. For more on Dawn Patrol & those actively playing check out- dawnpatrol.org - Home

We have incorportated the WoW miniatures into the game, which has created newfound interest!
__________________
Try not. Do or do not. There is no try. ~yoda
cubsfan4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0
Copyright ©1997 - 2008 The Aerodrome