Lets get the ball rolling.
What scale do you see Post-WWII played in?
Considering at straight at 700mph in 1:200 in the current rules would be just over 17cm.
Printable View
Lets get the ball rolling.
What scale do you see Post-WWII played in?
Considering at straight at 700mph in 1:200 in the current rules would be just over 17cm.
Well, aircraft scale doesn't have to match ground scale, so I would say use either 1/144 or 1/200. In fact, I'm rather sure the ground scale doesn't match the aircraft scale in either WGF or WGS.
Karl
There is an argument that if it matches WGS, people will expect it to work with WGS. Depending on the era, that could mean planes doing mach 2 or more. So say 1500mph, which would be 44cm for a fast straight, allowing for a 8cm base, as the planes would be a chunk bigger.
Nexus/Ares set a president when they did WGS of making the planes smaller to account for the increase in speeds.
I would argue the same here again.
OK,
A quick look at some modern jets for average wingspan gives me a ballpark 14m. So, 7 cms for 1/200 planes?
And if we drop the 1/2250-ish ground scale to 1/4500-ish? We get about 7-ish cms? Which puts us in the range of euro-cards?
We will have to work out the reverse (index to index) speed cards for all the slow planes, though.
There has to be a ground scale, as we have a fixed distance per cm of movement. It is true though that we don't know or have a length of time per movement. Which does make it difficult to work out the ground scale.
But then I was basing my musings on the current bits we do have, and the perception I would think people would have.
It may be as easy as just telling people that even though it's the same physical scale as WGS, the systems aren't compatible.
Then just increase the distance per cm to shorten the arrows.
I would rather Aries do more WW1&2 planes . . Only my two cents worth
I would like to see a movement system not unlike X wing. Variable length of measuring rod/ruler that could incorporate a graded measuring marking to simulate power settings dependent on turning etc. Missiles (ground and air) could be managed by the X Wing targeting system, ECM and Chaff in a similar manner to the defensive chits in X Wing. (Only played this twice so correct me if I'm wrong).
Machine guns handled the same way as we do now.
Mechanics the same as X Wing is what I'm trying to say with just different weapon systems.
I voted 1/700 per the other thread.
Unless we are to play on a gymnasium floor ...
;)
Pete,
You do realize the ground scale of WGS is not 1/200? It is around 1/2250-ish. The planes are 1/200 scale for visibility, not movement or weapon range.
I would think planes at 1/700 would be too small, visually. Just like WGF planes would be nearly invisible, if the models were the 1/900 scale that the movement decks represent.
Yes, Mike, I do realize that.
But the movement of Sabres and MiGs would be much more than WGS, so I think the cards would need to be smaller or they'll be off the board in no time.
There is a spectrum with abstracted game on one end and simulation on the other. Without deciding where on the spectrum a game like this should be, it will be difficult settling scale issues and other game mechanics. If you make the planes smaller then 1:200, you will lose, most likely, the visual appeal and the collectibility of the minis. So, personally, I would lean more toward the abstract game end of the spectrum, keeping the cards a similar size to WGS. The important thing, I would think, is how the planes fly relative to each other, and not absolutely with respect to the ground.
The really important questions are how to incorporate Cthulhu and zombies.
For some perspective, at least the way I'm looking at this, I did up a quick comparison:
Attachment 183562
This is for planes in the Korean Conflict, with 650-700 mph. 27cms in WGS scale? So, Pete is right that we'd be off the table, if we kept to WGS scale. However, if we want to use the standard sized decks for movement, we'd need to change the ground scale to 1/8000, if I have the math right (and this assumes the "combat speed" that usually ends up on the cards, so lower than 700 MPH, not the max listed in usual aircraft stats).
What do we do with the light spotter planes and helicopters?
PS: This is the maneuver scale, not the plane scale. Planes may need to be a bit smaller for modern jets to fit them in the packages.
I don't think I would want 50s-era jets much smaller than 1/200 scale - this would also allow for cross-over between late-war WW2 planes produced by Ares that served in the Korean conflict, as well as in some of the 'brush wars' of the 50s and 60s. Some 1/200 MiGs and Sabre jets, and a few Panthers would be lots of fun to fly...
I'm sure the card and ground scale issues can be worked out - and Neil's idea about and X-Wing-style movement has merit...
Looking forward to how things develop (if they do) in the post-WW2 venue.:)
All the best,
Matt
Voted 1/200 but I would possibly push the minimum scale down to 1/300 to allow for later, larget aircraft and the fact a few 1/300 aircraft are available in metal.
As I'm sure you all know already, Armaments in Miniature (AIM) already has a fairly nice selection of Korean War aircraft available in 1/200 scale - I was on their site today looking around, and it's pretty impressive from a selection standpoint...
He also has various other 'brush wars' stuff available.
All the best,
Matt
Not being a Korean war buff but are there many reported instances of prop aircraft ie P51's fighting Migs? Or where they mainly used in the ground attack roll?
Perhaps we may think of keeping both aspects separate for movement decks and scale back the length of movement for jets using either fast size or normal size cards as we have in WW2 at present. If there is a ix of prop and jet then that is where the problem lies with cards. One or the other has to change/be introduced.
Neil
Sabres and Mig-15s are about 11 meters in wingspan, so that is even with Spitfires in 1/200 scale.
And if we went with 550 MPH as the combat speed, we would end up with 7.4cms per movement card at 1/6750th scale, which is triple the current WGS scale. So, you could use jets with three cards to each WGS card, and it would be "to scale" for each other. Planning moves would be the same, but the jet would use three cards for each WGS plane.
There. We have the post-war game!
Oh! And we could use current WGS maneuver decks, for scratch games, while we wait for ARES to produce the real stuff! And AIM 1/200 scale minis!
We are IN, folks!
I think you're on to an idea there. The 5.8cm arrow cards, but with two movements, i.e. card+base+card+base equals 718mph, just a little too fast for a Sabre or Mig 15, but pretty near the variance normally allowed.
The P deck, would be 813mph. So without a dig etc, I think the idea would cover all 50s subsonic planes, possibly even into some of the early transsonic planes.
The 5.8cm speed decks have the most variations of manuever options too, so can be tailored to each plane better.
p.s. This is working out in the same way as WGS for ground scale etc, so would be compatible for what if games. We may even be able to reenact that bad 80s movie when the Nimitz goes back to WWII
p.p.s Nix the idea of the F-14 for the moment, it would require 4x cards per manuver for it's speed, and a stupidly sized table.
Quick guesstimates on these planes:
North American F-86 Sabre
Base: Fighter
Deck: Mx2
Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)
Ceiling: 17
Damage: 22
Weapons: BBB/BA
Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig 15
Base:Fighter
Deck: Dx2 (45° turns removed)
Climb: x2 (Can climb 1 or 2 full altitude levels per manuver)
Ceiling: 17
Damage: 20
Weapons: DCC/CC
Douglas A-1 Skyraider
Base: Heavy Fighter
Deck: C (45° and fast side slips removed)
Climb: 3
Ceiling: 10
Damage: 24
Weapons: CCCC/CC
Hawker Hunter
Base: Fighter
Deck: Nx2
Climb: x3 (Can climb 1-3 altitude levels per climb manuver)
Ceiling: 17
Damage: 26
Weapons: DDDD/DD
You could lay down the first card, put the second down for the next part of the move, and re-use the first card for the last part of the move. Or, have more than one deck for the jets to make moves. You will need to have a fourth card for your second planned move, too, if it is the same.
And it begins for this conflict...
Attachment 183612
[Edit: Three cards + Base movement option]
Attachment 183613
This plane is in North Korean markings, but was probably a Russian plane, flown by a Russian pilot. So, it is identified with the Russian information.
[Edit: Three cards + Base movement option]
PS: Notice how nice these aircraft look? Fifty years after they built the Burgess-Dunne, and people are finally building planes the right shape!
The problem I can see with any version of multiple cards, now I've slept on it, is turns. If you do multiple turns in a row as a single manuever, the plane becomes more agile than it should be. i.e. 2x30°=60° 3x30°=90° etc.
So if it were me, with the double move system, I would lay down the move planned. If it is anything except a turn or reversal, just do it twice (or more for higher multiples). For reversals you do a straight, then the reversal. Using the spare straight in your hand.
For turns, you do the turn then a straight. This preserves the angle, and puts the plane approximately where it should be with a fast turn.
Not exactly, but as close as we can do with a system like this.
With higher multiples, you do n-1 straights, then the reversal, n being the multiple.
For turns, x3 would be straight, turn, straight. x4 straight, turn, straight, straight.
Another advantage as I see it, this means if you plan any non-straight manuevers, it keeps one straight in your hand, maintaining the level of secrecy for the next manuever.
How does that all sound for an after sleep ramble?
For Tonx, as he's ill.
Avro Vulcan
Base: Bomber
Deck: Jx2 (with 60°, extreme side slip, and reversal removed)
Climb: 1
Ceiling: 18
Damage: 88
Weapons: Bomb load only (though that can be a nuke, so game over!)
de Havilland Venom
Base: Fighter
Deck: Kx2
Climb: 1
Ceiling: 14
Damage: 22
Weapons: CCCC/CC
Cheers liking the look of this - especially Damage 88 as I had damage at 58 (I think?) Also liking could be a nuke, so game over! Only ever flew XH560 as conventional bomber with modified R Manoeuver Deck @ 1:200 Scale. Ship taking a sabbatical at the mo as Chief Pilot has landed himself in rehab for a month or two. Wish it was drink-related because it would be simple then!!!
You're welcome.
Mike and I are thrashing out various movement ideas. Unless there is a consensus soon, I suggest people try both, or come up with other ideas. Of course I like mine ;)
If you look back up the thread here you'll find my last ramblings that cover the multiple movement I was thinking of for jets, now that most people seem to want to keep to 1/200 planes and possibly backwards compatibility to WGS.
Right, after having a think on it all, I actually prefer Mike's system. There are Pros & Cons to both, but they are opposite.
Mike's Cons are that you require at least an extra straight card, so possibly another deck, to keep the secrecy.
My Cons are that the system is less granular on speed. Mike's scales better.
So here are the decks worked out for Mike's card+card+card+base system.
F-86 Sabre: Bx3 (45° turns removed)
Mig 15: Mx3
Skyraider: C (45° and fast side slips removed)
Hunter: Cx4 (45° turns removed)
Vulcan: Dx3 (Fast side slip & reversal removed)
Venom: Mx3
This system can be used for WWII planes that are faster than the P deck too, as it can be used as x2,x3 etc.
i.e. Me.262: Qx2 (45° turns removed)
Side slips may need to be looked at.
Any thoughts or preferences to the card+base+card+base or card+card+card+base systems?
There are many 1:700 scale models available. A Seafury would be about 13mm long; a B-52 about 70mm long.
Cards updated.
David, I don't think we want to go as small as 1:700 scale. Not very appealing visually. And for the Korean Conflict, most of the fighters were the wingspan of WWII planes, anyway. The B29 is already available in 1:200 scale, with people using it for WWII. And if we keep the scale a multiple of the 1:2250-ish ground scale, we can use the existing decks to make this work.
Depending on how crazy I am, and what free time I can steal, I am thinking of doing up a deck or two for the above planes, so that the three card turns are properly scaled, too.
Updated Vulcan Card:
Attachment 183614
Mike,
Even with the multi cards + base system of movement, turns & reversals do pose the same issue as my system did, so I propose the same fix as quoted.
I'm tempted to get a Vulcan model now myself!
Remember we want to try and keep it to as few custom cards as possible, same as we do for unofficial WWI & WWII planes. No harm in doing custom decks, but we have to put together rules/ideas that can work for people without printers etc.
I've been using 1/300 for modern air wargaming for 20+ years now, ever since I wrote "Fox Two". Its a nice scale, seems about right for fighter combat. B-52s are a bit of a handful though.
1/600 and 1/700 work OK as well though. I use them with my 1/1200 and 1/3000 modern naval games, but they do work ok for air combat games as well
I actually initially voted for 1/350, as I know there is quite a bit out the in the modelling community for it. Since that point I found out there is rather a good selection in 1/300 too.
I think currently though, people are looking to keep to the same scale as WGS, so things are compatible.
But the there is a 1/144 community for WGS, so no harm in trying to throw together two different scale rules.