LOGIN
User Name
Password
Remember me


Register...Forgot password?
Main menu
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
Forum Message
Previous messagePost on the new forumNext message

City:Mahomet, Il. US
Personal Data:Male, born: August 15 1948
Membership22years 339days ago.
Last Login7years 208days ago.
Last Move12years 203days ago.
Phil Hall is currently Offline!Send a mail to Phil Hall


Message header
Area/Game:Blue Max
Topic:Rules
Subject:Re: Crtitcal hits
Posted by: Phil Hall - 21years 52days ago.
Message text
You could include the possibility of same-hex fire if at lower altitude and climbing!


I missed this. So much for the omniscience of the designer. Excellent idea and totally necessary to maintain consistency. Add that in to the playtest rules.





So there will be no "ground", right? But this won't preclude the possibility of including anti-aircraft guns and stuff like that, right?


I don't think the lack of ground will preclude AA fire. The assumption would be that certain hexes would be within the range of AA and so any and all a/c would be susceptible to it. I,ll have to give this more thought on the mechanics of this though.

When firing, you must be within 3 levels vertically of the target.

Sounds too restrictive to me... it would be very easy to escape vertically this way!


Climbing is going to be a bit restrictive. You only go up on S and certain other maneuvers. I don't think you will climb as well as you dive. The N.17 and Dr.I are the two best climbing planes in the game, with the N.17 doing 17fps and the Dr.I doing 16.5fps. I imagine I will limit their climb to 3 hexes. One of the reasons von Richthofen liked the Fokker is its ability to quickly climb out of trouble. Try this. You climb equal to the inverse of the speed number. For instance, a DrI moving 3 would climb one altitude level, 2 when doing a speed 2 and would be allowed to climb 3 doing a stall S with no roll for stall. Or when doing a Stall must roll for stall and if it doesn't stall is allowed to make the climb. This would create a best climb rate for each a/c without adding a lot of detail.
This also creates an actual situation that exists for a/c that have a faster speed than their pursuer. Best example I can think of is P-38 vs Zero. The Zero can outclimb a P-38 in a straight up climbing test to altitude. However, in combat, if properly flown, the P-38 will outclimb the Zero. Think of both a/c level on the same plane and both going flat out. The 38 has a higher top speed. Now tilt the plane up about 5 degrees and project both planes paths along the plane. If you measure the altitude along the plane as the a/c move along it, the 38 will go farther along the plane than the Zero, and will be at a higher altitude. If the Zero increases the angle of his climb and the 38 doesn't, then the Zero can stay at the same altitude as the 38, but the 38 will open the distance quicker.

The 3 level altitude difference might or might not work. In most games people don't do a lot of climbing or S maneuvers so there will be a tendency to stay very much within the same level or not much above or below one another. I think. Only playtesting will tell.



You fire as if one hex closer,(being above or below increase target size) but take the deflection modifier if firing from directly behind or ahead.

I like this one! But who will be at an advantage, the one at higher or at lower altitude?


Only the firing a/c has the advantage in either situation. The target a/c is presenting more surface area to the firer than if they were in the same plane. Mostly more wing and tail area are visible, but any shot out of plane is automatically deflection since coming down or going up, the target a/c is moving across the plane of movement of the firing a/c.

When changing levels down pay one less fuel. You may go up two fuel/speed numbers when diving, meaning you ignore restrictions going from a speed one to a speed 3.

...and expend one extra fuel when climbing...


This is one I need to think about. In the original altitude rules the cost of climb was built into the S maneuver, but it could also cost additional to climb.

All stall maneuvers are speed 0 and cost no fuel points. You must lose altitude on the turn following a stall (exception: this does not apply to the Fok. D.VII)


I like the Fokker DVII exception

When diving S you lose levels equal to the speed number. When performing S maneuvers you must note any altitude change you intend on your movement sheet. You may only climb straight ahead.

That is climb only on 2/3/4/5, not even on 6/7/12/13/18/19/25/26, right? Can I climb at top speed? I can dive less than the maximum when going straight, right?


Need to clarify the wording. You may only climb on any S maneuver except 34 and 35. Going to change my mind on the 28 maneuver and say no altitude change takes place. 28 is the original Immelman as Immelman did it. Today we call a half-loop an Immelmand and the Immelman is called a Hammerhead Stall. The idea behind the Immelman turn was to approach an observation craft from the side, make your shot, fly past, pull up, stall, kick the rudder in the direction the enemy is flying and come back for another pass from the opposite side. Against a pursuing enemy it would be pure folly to do an Immelman, but against an unarmed two-seater it would be no problem.

Two possibilites on diving while going straight. One would be that you could choose to dive a certain number of levels equal to one more than your speed. Another would be that you must dive one level if you do your maximum speed and an S maneuver.

When you move and change the facing of the a/c from the original facing, lose one level for each hexside turned.

So

8,17 => no altitude loss
6/7/12/13/18/19/25/26, 14/16/20/21 => (-1)
10,15,22,23 => (-2)
11,24 => (-3)

There would be no control over the possibility of climbing/diving when doing these manoeuvres?


That looks right. No, you can't climb while doing any r or l maneuver except as specified for certain maneuvers in the restricted area. The reason is these are hi-G turns and the a/c are falling out of the air. They have to give up altitude to make these turns. The standard rate turn where you can "spiral up" are the S maneuvers that result in a turn of one hexside.

Clarification to rule:
You may not gain altitude while doing an R or L maneuver except where specified. You lose one altitude level for each hexside change in the facing of the a/c from its starting facing when doing any R or L maneuver not exempted from this rule.

When performing maneuvers 29S2 you may gain or lose 1-3 altitude levels, your choice of how many. When performing 32S3 or 33S3 you gain altitude. When performing 36 or 31 there is no loss or gain of altitude.

What about 34/35? We always figured they represent a tonneau, is this correct? You will stay level when doing these, won't you?


I'm going to remove 30, 32, and 33 from altitude gain. They should leave you at the same altitude since that was the purpose of the Immelman Turn. 34 and 35 represent a barrel roll to put you on the tail of an enemy so while you gain some altitude on the up side you lose it on the down side of the roll and end up at the same altitude.


Don't be sorry, this is such an interesting discussion (at least to me...).

I will hear from my friends and write you an e-mail if we can arrange a Face to Face playtest session!!!


Thanks for not taking offense. Let me know if you are able to arrange something. It has been interesting for me too. I haven't felt this charged up about BM in years.

Phil

Back to the messages list
Messages thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

21years 60days Impailer [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
21years 60days warrax Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
21years 60days Impailer Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
 21years 54days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 54days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 54days Impailer Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Impailer Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 54days Impailer Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 54days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Impailer Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
21years 60days Bramley Bomber Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
 21years 54days kduke Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
  21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Sackman_Dan Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days flying_neko Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Hans Johansohn Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Hans Johansohn Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Hans Johansohn Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 53days Troll Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
     21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
       21years 53days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
        21years 53days Troll Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
         21years 53days dakadave Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
        21years 12days castiglione Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 52days flying_neko Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 52days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 52days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 52days flying_neko Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
     21years 52days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
      21years 52days Sabelkatten Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
       21years 51days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
        21years 51days Sabelkatten Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
         21years 51days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
          21years 46days kduke Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
   21years 12days castiglione Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 11days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 11days Crash and Burn Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
    21years 11days Ashtar Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
     21years 11days Crash and Burn Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
     21years 11days castiglione Re: [BM][RULES] Crtitcal hits
Next thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

21years 11days Crash and Burn [BM] error with the SPAD 13 & 7, number of tail boxes
21years 11days kduke Re: [BM] error with the SPAD 13 & 7, number of tail boxes
 21years 10days Crash and Burn Re: [BM] error with the SPAD 13 & 7, number of tail boxes
  21years 10days kduke Re: [BM] error with the SPAD 13 & 7, number of tail boxes
Previous thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

21years 12days Steadman [OT] Why not move WSIM already?
21years 12days flying_neko Re: [OT] Why not move WSIM already?
21years 11days Steadman Re: [OT] Why not move WSIM already?
 21years 11days flying_neko Re: [OT] Why not move WSIM already?
21years 11days Nick Re: [OT] Why not move WSIM already?
Page generated in: 24.60938 milliseconds.