Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey all,

Been toying with an idea for a movement system for air combat and ship combat games where heading is vitally important and also a unit's speed affects their manoeuvrability.

The idea is basically to use a square grid, but the grid is only there to guide players on heading and firing arcs, a regular measuring tape is used for movement. The advantage of not using the grid for movement is that you can use any grid to play on (doesn't have to be one specifically purchased for the game) and indeed you could translate the system to a table that doesn't even have a grid if necessary. So here's a quick first draft of the rules:

Game stages
The game is broken down into several stages of combat (Note: Basically I'm using the word "stage" instead of "turn" because the word "turn" is used a lot in reference to how the unit moves).


Movement:

Unit's are activated one at a time in the movement phase, each unit must complete its movement before activating another unit.

A unit's ability to manoeuvre is dependent on the unit's speed at the start of the activation and the unit's agility stats; the max turning angle and the max turning increment. The speed of an aircraft carries over from the previous stage of combat (or is set during deployment if this is the first stage of combat). For example, the statistics for a Spitfire are shown below:


Figure 1: A Spitfire's agility/speed stats.

During the movement activation, the unit must move forward along its heading but may also make turn manoeuvres. To turn, a unit is pivoted about its centre some angle, this angle must be a factor of 45° such that the turn causes the unit to align with the grid (i.e. the aircraft must be oriented 0°, 45°, 90°, etc. relative to the grid before and after making each turn).

During an activation, a unit must move in total a distance of 2 times the unit's speed at the start of its activation. It cannot move more or less than this amount by the end of its activation.

The maximum angle a model may turn in one go is indicated by the unit's "max turning increment", the unit may not turn more than this in a single turn action.

Multiple turns can be made through a unit's movement activation, provided that:
1) The sum of the total number of turns made during the activation is not greater than the unit's "maximum turning angle".
2) A unit may not make a turn at the start of its activation, it must most at least half of its current speed before making a turn.
3) A unit may not turn immediately after making another turn, it must move half its current speed before making another turn.

An example of this is shown below:


Figure 2: A Spitfire moving Speed 6 is activated, it must move forward a minimum of 3" (half its current speed) before it can turn, it may turn up to 90° at a time, however it chooses to turn 45°, it must then move forward at least another 3" before it can turn again, it chooses to turn it's maximum increment of 90°. It then completes it movement, heading another 6" forward (for a maximum of 12" this activation). Because it has not used up its entire maximum turning angle, it may either maintain heading or change its heading as indicated by the green arrows so long as it does not exceed either the max turn increment or max turn angle.


(Note: The idea would be heavy bombers have max increment 45° and max turn 45°, so they'd take 4 turns to completely turn around, light bombers might be 45°/90°, heavy fighters 45°/135°, agile fighters like the Spit would be 90°/180, and insanely agile fighters maybe 180°/270°.)

For added complexity: As a unit turns, it burns off speed. For each 90° of movement a unit completes during a single activation, reduce its speed by 1 (note: this affects the unit for the next stage of combat, not the current stage). This may be counteracted by using a unit's thrust to overcome the loss in speed.

Firing Arcs

Basically, firing arcs are determined from the grid (don't have to use the lines of the grid, but the firing arc lines should be parallel to the grid). See example below:
(Note: I think maybe this creates too big of a firing arc? It may be too easy to get enemies in the front arc?).


Figure 3: The black Spitfire has the red Spitfire in its front arc, but the red Spitfire has the black Spitfire in its side arc.


Thoughts? It definitely has its limitations, and maybe it's too complex for people who aren't raging nerds, but it's just an idea to get around some of the ambiguity that arises in games that are heavily dependent on both vehicle heading and firing arcs.

In before someone recommends Hexes!

 Easy E wrote:
In before someone recommends Hexes!

Haha, yep... this idea was basically born from playing Aeronautica Imperialis 2.0 and thinking...

1. I like the idea of a hex grid because it removes ambiguity about heading/firing arcs, BUT...
2. Constraining to 60° turns seems too restrictive (maybe 45° isn't much better...)
3. It's a pain to have to buy a big hex board and planes need a big area to move.

So rather than going back to the manoeuvre templates of AI1, this crazy idea is what I came up with. But maybe templates are just easier, though in a competitive environment templates still can have the issue of being ambiguous with heading/firing arcs.

Even if this movement system isn't too convoluted for people, I guess the next question is how to handle activations (e.g. do players write down their planned manoeuvre beforehand?).

I think you're over-complicating things relative to the standard approach of templates and arcs on the base. A grid makes sense if units are constrained to the grid but if you have to measure lines parallel to the grid you have all of the same measurement accuracy issues as the traditional system.

Also, turn and movement increments probably aren't worth having. Constraining everything to nice neat 45* increments doesn't capture the fluidity of real aircraft movement and makes too much of the game depend on extremely fiddly micromanagement of exactly how your move lines up. Dodging your opponent's arc, for example, should be about anticipating and countering their move rather than their rigid 45* turn being 1* away from catching you. The max turn increment and per-activation limits are fine, but you should be free to pick any arbitrary angle within those limits.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
I think you're over-complicating things relative to the standard approach of templates and arcs on the base. A grid makes sense if units are constrained to the grid but if you have to measure lines parallel to the grid you have all of the same measurement accuracy issues as the traditional system.

Fair enough.

I guess one thing I liked about the hex system was that it removed ambiguity of heading and made it quick to move models, and this seemed to be something part way between.

Before writing this I considered a system where models were constrained to the grid, but I liked the idea of being able to play on any old grid.... maybe you have a board with a 1" grid, maybe you have one with a 2" grid, maybe you have a transparency grid for drawing, you could also make one pretty easily with a straight edge and drawing implement (compared to hexes at least), or you could completely remove the grid and replace them with templates without having to change the rules.

I've typically found measurement accuracy isn't the issue with games like this, it's heading/fire arc. Even if there's an arc on the model's base, it can be difficult to project that little line out 10, 15, 20" to where the target might be. Also misaligning a base by 1mm or 2mm can mean shifting a fire arc by 20 or 40mm out at the range of the target, and I've definitely seen people nudging their models a degree or two further than a movement template indicates in order to get a better firing arc. If the lines are drawn on the board itself, it becomes a lot clearer what different models can see.

But, if people prefer just using templates, that's fine too. I appreciate what I wrote is maybe too tricky to get ones head around and is perhaps too convoluted for a simple game

Also, turn and movement increments probably aren't worth having. Constraining everything to nice neat 45* increments doesn't capture the fluidity of real aircraft movement and makes too much of the game depend on extremely fiddly micromanagement of exactly how your move lines up. Dodging your opponent's arc, for example, should be about anticipating and countering their move rather than their rigid 45* turn being 1* away from catching you. The max turn increment and per-activation limits are fine, but you should be free to pick any arbitrary angle within those limits.

Movement templates do constrain movements to nice neat increments too, they just don't tell you what those increments are

I don't have any on hand, but I believe X-wing templates are actually 45° templates?

But the idea is you tweak your position by adjusting the distance between turns, the same way Aeronautica Imperialis works.

If you have a good idea on how to capture the "feel" of the reactive nature of dogfighting I'm open to ideas, I've struggled to come up with a method that translates it well as it's really a real-time thing rather than a turn-based thing, you're basing what you do off your speed, what you perceive their speed to be, your heading relative to their position, their heading relative to your position, the strengths/weaknesses of your aircraft relative to theirs, what you think they're likely to do next, etc etc. Turn based games don't really do a good job of translating that.

But if people just completely hate this idea, I'll throw it out, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also misaligning a base by 1mm or 2mm can mean shifting a fire arc by 20 or 40mm out at the range of the target, and I've definitely seen people nudging their models a degree or two further than a movement template indicates in order to get a better firing arc. If the lines are drawn on the board itself, it becomes a lot clearer what different models can see.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Because you aren't constrained to the grid you're still having to eyeball a measurement relative to a line near the base and you'll still have those sloppy measurements and "accidental" nudges. For the grid lines to add meaningful accuracy they need to be right on the base at all times.

If you have a good idea on how to capture the "feel" of the reactive nature of dogfighting I'm open to ideas, I've struggled to come up with a method that translates it well as it's really a real-time thing rather than a turn-based thing, you're basing what you do off your speed, what you perceive their speed to be, your heading relative to their position, their heading relative to your position, the strengths/weaknesses of your aircraft relative to theirs, what you think they're likely to do next, etc etc. Turn based games don't really do a good job of translating that.

Do the same general thing you have now except use an open-ended template. Move the model straight forward one increment, then at the end of the increment you pivot up to the maximum the template allows. If it's a 45* maximum angle you can keep the model straight, pivot 15*, pivot 28*, or pivot the full 45* all the way up to the edge of the template. Then move forward another increment and repeat. For the hidden movement aspect you commit to a direction but on the table you can adjust your exact positioning. And I'd do something like this for maneuver choices:

Straight: no turn steps, can adjust altitude by up to two increments.
Bank: one turn step, can adjust altitude by up to one increment.
Hard turn: two turn steps, can not adjust altitude.
Reverse: no turn steps, must adjust altitude by two increments.

In maneuver selection you have to pick straight/bank/turn/reverse as well as left or right and up or down. You can decline to use your turn or altitude change increments but you can't change the direction of them.

Before I can answer I'd like to know more about the game. How big are the units? How many would you be using at one time?

What is the kind of engagement you want to simulate, an individual dogfight or a raid being intercepted?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Also misaligning a base by 1mm or 2mm can mean shifting a fire arc by 20 or 40mm out at the range of the target, and I've definitely seen people nudging their models a degree or two further than a movement template indicates in order to get a better firing arc. If the lines are drawn on the board itself, it becomes a lot clearer what different models can see.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Because you aren't constrained to the grid you're still having to eyeball a measurement relative to a line near the base and you'll still have those sloppy measurements and "accidental" nudges. For the grid lines to add meaningful accuracy they need to be right on the base at all times.

Maybe you're right, my thought was that a small "accidental" nudge in heading is a bigger deal than a similar nudge in position, and a grid based system like this fixes the heading to defined sectors.

If you have a good idea on how to capture the "feel" of the reactive nature of dogfighting I'm open to ideas, I've struggled to come up with a method that translates it well as it's really a real-time thing rather than a turn-based thing, you're basing what you do off your speed, what you perceive their speed to be, your heading relative to their position, their heading relative to your position, the strengths/weaknesses of your aircraft relative to theirs, what you think they're likely to do next, etc etc. Turn based games don't really do a good job of translating that.

Do the same general thing you have now except use an open-ended template. Move the model straight forward one increment, then at the end of the increment you pivot up to the maximum the template allows. If it's a 45* maximum angle you can keep the model straight, pivot 15*, pivot 28*, or pivot the full 45* all the way up to the edge of the template. Then move forward another increment and repeat. For the hidden movement aspect you commit to a direction but on the table you can adjust your exact positioning. And I'd do something like this for maneuver choices:

Straight: no turn steps, can adjust altitude by up to two increments.
Bank: one turn step, can adjust altitude by up to one increment.
Hard turn: two turn steps, can not adjust altitude.
Reverse: no turn steps, must adjust altitude by two increments.

In maneuver selection you have to pick straight/bank/turn/reverse as well as left or right and up or down. You can decline to use your turn or altitude change increments but you can't change the direction of them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
My thought would be a small game would be 5-10 per side, a big game 10+. Would probably need to play test a game to see if games those sizes would be achievable in a couple of hours to an afternoon's worth of play.

So basically patrols engaging each other.

I've seen aerial miniatures games with stands (for altitude) that were pretty cool and allowed visualization of the battlespace. I don't think you need to use a grid so long as the counters indicate a forward direction, your firing arc would (which is just a line for fighters) would be all you need, and you can use templates for turning (faster than counting points).

I think the heart of the game would be the first pass so "alpha strike" would very much be a thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
In before someone recommends Hexes!

Haha, yep... this idea was basically born from playing Aeronautica Imperialis 2.0 and thinking...

1. I like the idea of a hex grid because it removes ambiguity about heading/firing arcs, BUT...
2. Constraining to 60° turns seems too restrictive (maybe 45° isn't much better...)
3. It's a pain to have to buy a big hex board and planes need a big area to move.

So rather than going back to the manoeuvre templates of AI1, this crazy idea is what I came up with. But maybe templates are just easier, though in a competitive environment templates still can have the issue of being ambiguous with heading/firing arcs.

Even if this movement system isn't too convoluted for people, I guess the next question is how to handle activations (e.g. do players write down their planned manoeuvre beforehand?).

The math/rules may require some tweaking to account for diagonal movement being a longer distance than forward but an octagonal grid could work. I don't think it's too complicated but, after watching hours of a youtuber named Greg's VERY detailed analysis of WW2 fighter performance based on actual data, the next question for me would be how you would handle airplanes with differing turn rates and radius' at different speeds and/or altitudes or if that is just a bridge too far (to borrow a phrase from a land based WW2 battle).