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.

Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.

And it's restricted even more by the planes themselves - Ork aircraft given so far can only fly no higher than level 4, where the Imperial craft can safely fly at 5. Ork craft are generally faster, though.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.

V1 was 0-9 on the bases. Much more room to maneuver, which took some of the emphasis off firepower.

However, like the current version, not all planes could do all 0-9 levels.

 Easy E wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.

V1 was 0-9 on the bases. Much more room to maneuver, which took some of the emphasis off firepower.

However, like the current version, not all planes could do all 0-9 levels.

So by he sounds of it they've compressed it. Im quite tempted as i had the original, and plastic planes will be far superior

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:


So by he sounds of it they've compressed it. Im quite tempted as i had the original, and plastic planes will be far superior

The models for the new version are generally quite spectacular, and go together very well, with only the odd tiny bit here and there to spoil the fun. You can argue about some of aesthetics, but as just model kits, they are excellent.

 WhiteHaven wrote:
I've been looking for a company that makes or will make a clear 2 in hex overlay so I can use 6x4 mats I own to expand the play area. Unfortunately so far I haven't found one. The Rynn's World map pack is nice but I would love a 6x4 mat for large battles. Hoping the Imperial Navy gets Lightnings, Avengers, and Valkryies.

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I have come across this offering in the UK:
https://justlasered.co.uk/shop/clear-acrylic-board-for-aeronautica-imperialis/

Related to Aeronautica 2nd edition:
I pre-ordered the game but have only just recently gotten around to playing. I'm enjoying it quite a bit!

I have played a lot of other tabletop flight games, and it's my favorite genre of tabletop wargame by far. Although I never got to play Aeronautica 1st edition, I have played quite a lot of Wings of War / Wings of Glory and X-Wing 1st edition, so I'm familiar with the card/template maneuver template concept. I do think that Aeronautica's method of allowing an arbitrary amount of movement (up to aircraft speed, of course) between the placement of the templates (1st edition) or pivot hexes (2nd edition) is a really cool innovation in the genre, and allows for a degree of flexibility that's mostly lacking from the other games I've played. I also quite like the way speed and altitude are handled and feel it's a good method of abstracting the interaction between altitude and energy on the tabletop.

I've only played a handful of games so far, but am really enjoying it. The miniatures look good, and are fun to put together and paint, and the gameplay is fast and furious, with plenty of typical GW "roll 6s and have fun, roll 1s and cry" shenanigans. Overall, I think there's a lot to recommend the game and I'm hopeful that it will continue to slowly grow with future releases, including the upcoming Tau / Guard starter (which I plan to pick up as well).

Dont worry, you aint doing thread necromancy, there is just nothing realistic to write about for this game in here as there has been no new model release since last year, aka the ork bomber and that should never have been a seperated release.
The hobby thread that is several pages back is allso dead cuz everyone painted their planes in october/november...

(and gw has still not bothered to release a full size battle math....)

The game suffered HARD by a very neutered release plan, cuz unlike AT, this game requires rapid releases, there should bee a new faction release every month untill all factions are represented, and then, new expansion planes on a monthly basis, in addition to terrain, campain books and other usefull stuff.


Right now the game is basicly just like Dreadfleet: overhyped at release, then completely ignored by its maker.

Or, you know, waiting for staff and manufacturing space to be available so they can actually make the next release which had already been previewed before the factory was shut down by a global crisis…

With luck, Taros will be on the May 30th pre-order/June 6th release. Seems likely, and had an unofficial nod to that end by a pal who's a staffer (although of course).

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Or, you know, waiting for staff and manufacturing space to be available so they can actually make the next release which had already been previewed before the factory was shut down by a global crisis…

was no crisis in november-januar......

It's put Aeronautica in a tough spot among specialist games; one I am not sure it will survive. Lackluster launch, pandemic shutdown, and now being part of the price increases are major hits on this game. Blood Bowl is largely through with major releases, and Titanicus and Necromunda are still moving along after less than stellar starts themselves. They were able to recover with a steady stream of support. And people are still talking about them on the internet and YouTube. Aeronautica, not so much.

I do have a few quick questions for anyone who does play Aeronautica. I've been back-and-forth through the rulebook and can't seem to find an answer, so here goes:

- If you equip two or more pairs of missile / rokkits / bombs to a plane, is there any reason why you can't fire as many as you like in a given turn of shooting (so long as they all fire at the same target)? It *seems* like each pair counts as its own weapon, so I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed, but it's a little vague.

- In a similar vein: do all attacks against have to be declared against a target before *any* dice are rolled? Do you have to roll all dice simultaneously, or can you roll them one weapon at a time? There are implications around this for ammo consumption of missiles / rokkits / bombs, and it seems odd the rulebook is seemingly mute on the subject.

- In scenario 6,"Bombing Mission", where does the defender deploy their mandatory ground asset(s)? Per RAW in the early part of the rulebook, "airplanes" refers generically to all models, including ground assets, unless ground assets are specifically called out by name. So RAW, it seems like the defender is supposed to place their ground assets along their table edge, along with the rest of their aircraft models. Is that how others play it?

EDIT: the questions are based on my reading of the Rynn's World campaign book.

 totalfailure wrote:
It's put Aeronautica in a tough spot among specialist games; one I am not sure it will survive. Lackluster launch, pandemic shutdown, and now being part of the price increases are major hits on this game. Blood Bowl is largely through with major releases, and Titanicus and Necromunda are still moving along after less than stellar starts themselves. They were able to recover with a steady stream of support. And people are still talking about them on the internet and YouTube. Aeronautica, not so much.

It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.

Zodgrim Dakathug wrote:
I do have a few quick questions for anyone who does play Aeronautica. I've been back-and-forth through the rulebook and can't seem to find an answer, so here goes:

- If you equip two or more pairs of missile / rokkits / bombs to a plane, is there any reason why you can't fire as many as you like in a given turn of shooting (so long as they all fire at the same target)? It *seems* like each pair counts as its own weapon, so I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed, but it's a little vague.

- In a similar vein: do all attacks against have to be declared against a target before *any* dice are rolled? Do you have to roll all dice simultaneously, or can you roll them one weapon at a time? There are implications around this for ammo consumption of missiles / rokkits / bombs, and it seems odd the rulebook is seemingly mute on the subject.

- In scenario 6,"Bombing Mission", where does the defender deploy their mandatory ground asset(s)? Per RAW in the early part of the rulebook, "airplanes" refers generically to all models, including ground assets, unless ground assets are specifically called out by name. So RAW, it seems like the defender is supposed to place their ground assets along their table edge, along with the rest of their aircraft models. Is that how others play it?

EDIT: the questions are based on my reading of the Rynn's World campaign book.

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject, in the event anyone cares to chime in:

Regarding 1: I do hope a FAQ addresses this, because it's a little loose with rules as written. Some examples: what about weapons that have Ammo > 1? For example, could I declare I was dropping all 3 bombs with my Bomb Bay weapon, or do I have to "spend" that Ammo over 3 turns? Likewise, if I have 3x pairs of wing bombs - these seem like 3 separate weapons with 1 ammo each, but is that correct, or should it be considered 1 weapon with 3 ammo? It's just a little vague, I think.

Regarding 2 - this is the crux of the dilemma; if you can declare weapons one at a time, then what's to prevent you from parsimoniously doling out your ammo if and only if you have to? I.e. "Well my bomber has X ammo, but I'm going to drop 1 bomb at a time to see if it hits before I potentially waste any on overkill." I hope we get a FAQ to address it.

Regarding my 3rd question - if you haven't already, please take a look at Rynn's World Campaign Book, pg. 9, Ground Defenses heading, Paragraph 3: "The rules refer to 'aircraft' in most cases and this will usually include Scouts, Fighters, Bombers and Ground Defences. Where a distinction is required, the rules will refer to Ground Defences specifically." So, rules as written, my take on scenario 6 is that all of the defender's models - including the mandatory Ground Defence model - must be deployed on their table edge: "The defender's aircraft are setup up behind the ground targets in hexes touching their edge of the Area of Engagement."

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.

I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica. As you say, there may be fans of the first version that don’t like it, but they are so few in number to not really be a factor in the game’s current problems. Also, all of the other specialist games have gotten at least some White Dwarf coverage; has Aeronautica had any at all? Even less likely to get much with two issues lost to the pandemic at what seems to be a critical time for the game, and a new 40K edition imminent. Sad to say, it seems likely that we’ll end up with some lovely models for a game no one plays.

There have been a few articles in the recent ones, battle reports too. The problem with the pandemic is that White Dwarf is going to miss an issue or two this year and when people feel every day is an eternity, it feels like there hasn't been much coverage.

 Sherrypie wrote:
There have been a few articles in the recent ones, battle reports too. The problem with the pandemic is that White Dwarf is going to miss an issue or two this year and when people feel every day is an eternity, it feels like there hasn't been much coverage.

I freely admit I don’t buy every issue. Unless there is a major article that catches my eye, I usually skip it these days.

 totalfailure wrote:
...I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica...

It's interesting to know that you do like the grid system. Everyone I know who's tried playing new-grid-AI finds the grid makes it so trivial to get arc on everything every turn there's almost no point in playing.

Been thinking about the grids, maybe it is all just a test?
It is wierd they make a grid system but dont make or sell any gameboards but the tiny paper one that is in the starter....

Why place the medium sized cardboard and the ground assets on a time limited offer.......

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 totalfailure wrote:
...I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica...

It's interesting to know that you do like the grid system. Everyone I know who's tried playing new-grid-AI finds the grid makes it so trivial to get arc on everything every turn there's almost no point in playing.

I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:

They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 totalfailure wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.

I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica. As you say, there may be fans of the first version that don’t like it, but they are so few in number to not really be a factor in the game’s current problems. Also, all of the other specialist games have gotten at least some White Dwarf coverage; has Aeronautica had any at all? Even less likely to get much with two issues lost to the pandemic at what seems to be a critical time for the game, and a new 40K edition imminent. Sad to say, it seems likely that we’ll end up with some lovely models for a game no one plays.

I like hexes and grids but to be fair the xwing system is solid enough that ive never had any arguments about firing arcs or los. I dont play torunaments though but cant imagine it being a huge deal. Its worse for completely free games with arcs such as Dropfleet or i guess old fantasy

It's pretty easy to make it more restrictive by adding "left" or "right" clauses to the maneuvers in the selection phase if the players feel the basic set is too lenient, either by marking some of the counters or just crafting your own set from cardboard.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Been thinking about the grids, maybe it is all just a test?
It is wierd they make a grid system but dont make or sell any gameboards but the tiny paper one that is in the starter....

Why place the medium sized cardboard and the ground assets on a time limited offer.......

Most likely a case of underordering stuff, as opposed to some grand conspiracy. As with many game companies these days, GW does not want to be storing excess stock and paying for it. They'd rather leave a few sales on the table than store, and pay for, stuff indefinitely. If they order 5000 of something and sell out, great. They can make a judgment call on whether to make any more. If they order 10000 and sell only 5200, they have 4800 pieces they have to still pay for and store, and that may never sell. The competition is so fierce in 2020 even the big dogs like GW do not want to over order.

And in the case of printed goods, a lot of it comes/came from China. So there's never a quick turnaround on getting more, even if you did want it.

Soulless wrote:

I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:

They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.

This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.

I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.

Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.

I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.

Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.

Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.

Yes, altitude is critical in V1 and V2, but it is very easy to ignore it. I have had dogfights last a very long time as we jockey around in height/speed and therefore avoid fire arcs.

I personally prefer Gridless, as then it removes one less extra "accessory" I need to play that doesn't add that much. It avoids me needing specialty terrain/play mats.

Zodgrim Dakathug wrote:

Soulless wrote:

I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:

They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.

This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.

I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.

Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.

I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.

Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.

Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.

Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately
Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, altitude is critical in V1 and V2, but it is very easy to ignore it. I have had dogfights last a very long time as we jockey around in height/speed and therefore avoid fire arcs.

One interesting change in Aeronautica 2019 is the compression of altitude bands - there are now only Altitudes 0 - 5 (and aircraft have to fly at Altitude 1 or higher).

This allows altitude to be exploited, but it doesn't lead to the sorts of interminable hide-and-seek games that I completely understand you talking about.

Because planes can fire at targets either at their own altitude or one altitude higher or lower, and they can (if at Speed 5 or above) adjust altitude by 1 or 2 levels (though only 1 level if at Speed 4 or below), there aren't quite as many "safe" places to hide your planes to put them out of reach in the 2019 edition of the rules as there were in the original edition. And games last at most 12 turns (this is a hard limit in the rules) so players can't necessarily spend the whole game hiding if they're hoping to win.

At the same time, because of the same rules, it makes it very difficult for one player to "cover all the angles" in the way that can make maneuvering feel irrelevant, at least assuming their opponent is maneuvering in the vertical as well as horizontal dimensions. I'd argue that the only way that maneuvering feels irrelevant is if you *do not* make full use of this 3 dimensionality - because you then leave yourself a sitting duck, so to speak.

For me, this gives the game a good deal of tactical challenge, but happily without the sometimes fiddly elements of other systems (I'm looking at your, Wings of Glory climb counters). It's an easy and fast system to play that will really force you to stretch your "brain muscles" without having a lot of complicated mechanical stuff getting in the way. And personally, I really like that!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soulless wrote:
Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately
Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about

Thanks, it's very gratifying to have a positive reaction like yours. I appreciate it!

I'm sorry I missed getting a chance to play the 2007 edition of the game, but I'm really having a great time with the 2019 version. I hope others give it a chance and find similar happiness!

The models are really great, too, and fun to paint!

Yes, the old rules also had a hard stop, but I can not recall if it was the 12th or 16th turn? So eventually, you had to try and do something. However, most missions were not just straight dogfights and had objectives you had to try and achieve to make contact much more likely.

My shortest game ever was 3 turns with the 3rd being the Disengagement Turn!

Soulless wrote:

Zodgrim Dakathug wrote:

Soulless wrote:

I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:

They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.

This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.

I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.

Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.

I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.

Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.

Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.

Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately
Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about

I love the new version of AI and every game I've played of it really had a variety of action in it.
The only thing I think the game can benefit from is more factions/diversity.

Just a heads up for anyone that, like me, have completely missed it but Aeronautica Imperialis: Flight Command is now released on steam.

So far ive only gotten through the tutorials but its a neat little game, could definitely use some more content but hopefully it can do well enough to give the devs room for additions and improvements.

Only $20 right now so worth it for a few hours of fun

edit: Its called Flight Command, not Flight plan

@Zodgrim- I PMed you stuff you might find interesting.....