Eris Lobo

I just made a thing! I went down to my basement, found an old Warhamster troop base, added felt and flocking, and ... voila! A thing! And doesn't the thing look keen next to this adorable tripod? And best of all, the thing didn't cost me a thing (well, except for about a quarter hour of my time). And you can do the same! I "thing" that's awesome! (Seriously, thanks for the fantastic idea! It's going to be a permanent part of our games from now on! )

Oh, I totally respect that Andrea wrote the list that's the first post in this thread -- that's why I use the list pretty religiously. But I've always thought the list was "unofficial", and I'm wondering whether Ares might now be planning to make the WGF point-value list a canonical part of the formally approved rules.

I saw that Ares has put out official points lists for WGS and Sails of Glory --- but I didn't see an official points list for WGF. Did I miss it somewhere, or should we keep using this list until the official one comes out?

I was putting all the skill values into a spreadsheet tonight, and I have a couple of quick questions (which I apologize if they were already answered): Can I assume that anybody, either pilots or crew, can take the Fire Expert ace skill? If so, would it be like Technical Eye, in that it affects the entire plane, but goes away if the ace with the skill is incapacitated? Also, the point-value list indicates that "All the crew is rookie" is a disadvantage worth negative 10 points. What if only the pilot is a rookie? Or only some of the crew members? Is a rookie non-pilot crew member prohibited from firing during steep maneuvers? Thanks!

Nobody's commented for a few days, which I think might be good, as it possibly means most people have said their piece about my rules list. Now then, regarding Rule 2 ... I see no reason to believe that a pilot shoots any more bullets at short range than at long range. No reason whatsoever. What makes the most sense to me is that the a number of bullets shot at short range would do much more damage that the same number fired at long range because of increased accuracy. Numerous ace pilots, such as Richthofen himself, specifically said that one of the primary reasons they racked up so many kills was because they waited until they were very close to an enemy plane before they made their shots. They spoke of accuracy, and never (to my knowledge) said they shot more bullets at close range than they did at long range. Therefore, there is no reason a pilot should be faced with double the chance of a jam at close range. Instead, the chance for a jam should be the same as at long range -- meaning only one card should be used to determine if a jam occurred. Also, it is perfectly fair that a target of a close-range attack should be subjected to all the effects of two cards -- both numerical damage and special damage. The attacker, being at close range, is firing much more accurately than at long range, and therefore is likely to do much more damage. Finally, regarding the statistical chances of a jam doubling, diceslinger seems to be splitting hairs, and is ignoring the point. He says that with one card, the chance for a jam is 11.43%, and for two cards, it's 11.43% + 11.76% (which equals 23.19%). Double 11.43% and you get 22.86%, which is only 33/10000th (0.33%) less than the chance of a jam with two cards. Therefore, diceslinger's own calculations show that the chance for a jam with two cards is effectively twice the chance for a jam with one card -- which really doesn't seem to matter, as the whole point is that the chance for a jam at short range should be the same as the chance for a jam at close range. To me, Rule 2 makes perfect sense both intuitively and mathematically, so I'm keeping it as is in the list.

FYI, I updated the first post to remove Rule 6 (the rule regarding fire damage). I did this for one main reason : after mulling over historical precedents, I felt Rule 6 did not improve the game or add realism in a way that made clear, logical sense. The only way to make a fire more realistic, I believe, would be to make it much deadlier than it is in the existing rules, and most people seem to feel the existing rules regarding fires are fine as they are. Because of the variety of disagreements regarding whether and how to change the game's rules regarding burning aircraft, I think that issue might be better discussed in its own separate thread -- but if people want to keep discussing it here, that's okay, too. Cheers!

There were originally only five rules in the list. The sixth rule (concerning how to handle planes on fire) is currently being debated. My home group has tested the first five rules numerous times, but the sixth rule isn't set in stone yet and (because of the controversy regarding it) may even be removed entirely from the list.

See, that's the real kicker -- in the very few verified accounts I've found in which a pilot survived a serious fire (and pretty much all of them were serious), they were able to make it ONLY because they were able to land before the fire engulfed the plane. If we really want to be realistic, then a fire damage is essentially a ticking time bomb -- to the point that, instead of the fire going out after three turns, the fire actually should cause the plane to explode (i.e., become a spiraling death coffin) after three turns. That would potentially allow a low-flying pilot to land his plane, but spell doom for the ones flying high. What do you think? If we want to change the rules to invoke greater realism, I think it's really the only way to go.

Hey! Didn't anybody read MY response to the "burning planes" rule idea? I feel soooo ignored!!! Seriously, I did address both the rule suggestion and the historical basis for requiring burning planes to flying curving maneuvers (as well as the fact that most fires were not engine fires). To me, a compromise makes the most sense -- a fire can only go out if the pilot desperately twists and turns the plane, so you can ignore the fire and fly straight -- but at your own peril!

FYI, the first post has been tweaked to add an overview summary and an additional rule to the list.

Why? Because of Rule Criteria B (listed above), each rule in this list "must improve the game in a specific way (such as by making it more historically accurate)." And as the other criteria state, the rules on this list must all make sense, be easy to remember, and not hinder game play. Therefore, the "KISS" principle has also definitely been incorporated into this rules list.

You have a point, but a think a better house rule would be as follows: 6) RULE: If a plane on fire plans at least one straight maneuver during a turn, an additional fire counter is added at the end of that turn. REASON: Verified accounts indicate that skilled WWI pilots sometimes had a chance of putting out fuel fires if they engaged in repeated sideslips and dives. Otherwise, the fire would often engulf the fragile canvas aircraft, destroying it and killing the pilot. Because a fire counter is resolved and removed at the beginning of each turn after the planning phase, adding a single fire counter simply keeps the fire going at the same level into the following turn. The subject of aircraft fires in WWI is actually more complicated that many people realize. Engine fires were relatively uncommon, and often if a fire occurred it would happen someplace else. Fuel could be splattering all over the aircraft in flight, and fires could ignite in places such as near the fuel lines or at the engine’s exhaust ports – neither of which were directly in front of the pilot. If your engine did actually catch fire, the best action was usually to drain all its fuel and dive to the ground in hopes of fanning out the flames and/or conducting an emergency landing – and either way, even if you did survive, you were out of the battle.

I think you misunderstand. Gun jams only affect the attacker's future shots, and do not affect the damage caused during the phase in which the gun jammed. It doesn't matter which of the two damage cards in close-range combat is used to determine if the attacker's guns jammed. What's important is you choose ahead of time (before looking at the cards) which card to use, and only use that card to determine if a jam occurs. Also realize that the two damage cards inflicted during close-range combat occur simultaneously, so neither happens "first".

Summary: A short list of simple, intuitive rules to improve historical accuracy without hindering game playability After examining years of various proposed house rules, I put together what I hope might be a “definitive” list, which I believe a great many players (veterans and newbies alike) might find useful. To qualify for this list, a rule has to meet four criteria: A) The rule must not hamper game playability. B) The rule must improve the game in a specific way (such as by making it more historically accurate). C) The rule must be easy to remember (and preferably can be stated in only one sentence). D) The rule must make clear, logical sense. The following list consists of rules which have been repeatedly tested by my gaming group and confirmed to fit the above criteria. ….. THE LIST – Version 1.0 1) RULE: For all intents and purposes, an aircraft’s base peg is considered to be its horizontal location in relation to other aircraft and the ground. REASON: Although the scale of the aircraft models is 1/144, the ground (movement) scale has been calculated to be closer to 1/1000, so having the base peg represent the aircraft allows for more realism in determining issues such as mid-air collisions and whether aircraft are within firing range of each other. 2) RULE: When inflicting two cards of damage during close-range combat, only the first of the two cards is used to determine whether the attacker’s guns jammed. REASON: At close range, two cards are combined to determine damage because this simulates greater accuracy when shooting at a nearby target. Because it does not represent a greater number of shots being fired, the chance of jamming should remain the same as a long-range shot. 3) RULE: All pilots are considered to automatically have the “Height Control” skill. REASON: Although aircraft had a maximum safe diving speed, it seems only logical that a pilot who wished to decrease his aircraft’s altitude less than its maximum could do so as needed. 4) RULE: The “Immelmann” reverse maneuver does not affect an aircraft’s altitude. REASON: Contrary to popular misconceptions, in World War I the Immelmann maneuver was not a climbing half loop, but was instead what is known today as a “wingover”. The maneuver began with a steep climb causing the aircraft to almost slow to a stall, upon which the pilot applied full rudder to pivot the aircraft’s engine downward, followed by the aircraft diving back to its original height to regain speed. 5) RULE: The “Split S” reverse maneuver allows a decrease in altitude as if a “dive” card had also been played. REASON: A diving half-loop reverse was a standard maneuver for many fighter aircraft during The Great War. The maneuver, however, did not require the pilot to engage in a perfect vertical circle, and instead allowed the aircraft to dive significantly if desired before the reversing loop was completed. ….. FYI, I consider this to be a “living” list, in that I am very willing to make additions and/or modifications depending on feedback from other players. Therefore, PLEASE let me know what you think regarding anything in this post – not only the list of rules, but the list of criteria for the rules as well! I’d love to see if this could be a “sticky” in the House Rules section, to allow players to find it immediately and encourage discussion over time. Finally, I’d like to explain that I love Wings of Glory, and this list of rules is not in any way an indication that I dislike the set of rules published by Ares Games. However, I got to thinking about the idea of a set of generally accepted house rules while recently playing a popular American Civil War game which I enjoy. For that game, two very simple house rules have become so widely accepted among players that even the game’s creator has expressed his enjoyment of them, and I hope to contribute to the Wings of Glory community in the same way with this list. See you in the skies!

One thing that's always confused me about this thread ... can somebody please explain what definition is intended for the word "hypothetically" when used (at the beginning of the thread) to indicate whether a particular aircraft might have been used during a particular theater/operation of WWII? "Hypothetically" refers to a hypothesis, which is a working theory used as a potential base for solving a problem. For example, let's say you came out of your house one day and saw all manner of different fish scattered up and down your street. One hypothesis might be that an insane seller of fish spent the night throwing his excess wares around your neighborhood. Another hypothesis might be that a waterspout touched down on a lake near your house, causing numerous fish to be sucked into the sky and subsequently deposited near your doorstep. With that in mind, how could a particular model of aircraft hypothetically be in a particular combat situation? Does "hypothetically" in this sense mean "the aircraft in question might potentially have been stationed in the area, and therefore might potentially have been in a particular battle in that area, but no records exist either confirming or denying such a possibility"? I was a newspaper journalist for a decade, and so word use matters to me, which is partially why I'm wondering about this. But also, I want to stage an air battle over the African deserts, and I'm trying to figure out which planes I can justify using! Tally ho! Eris