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.

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, looks great!

Is that How To Play video new? As someone who has never seen the game that was really helpful. Can't wait to try this

The original game had lovely models, a great game system and gorgeous books. This looks a really good successor.

They usually get Becca Scott to do How to play vids - she is a good presenter - clear, enthusiastic and easy on the eye.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
X-Wing had a lot of extra rule like Unique pilot skill , upgrade or damage deck. AI keep it simple and only focus on the dogfighting.

We had to see the new book and new pilot rule before drawing the conclusion, but I doubt it'll be that much different to the current revealed game.

Similarities as I see them?

Planes! Hidden manoeuvres. Damage.

Differences as I see them?
AI - Altitude counts for range. Tailing fire. Different weapons have different range ‘sweet spots’ where they’re most effective. Tailing fire.
X-Wing - individual pilot ratings, focus/target lock type stuff.

Me? I like that AI has worked in Altitude. Let’s a 2D playing field act 3D, in a way X-Wing hasn’t. Whether or not it works, remains to be seen,

I too like the altitude rules. But to be fair, X-wing doesn't need 3D rules as there is no significant gravity or air resistance in space that altitude rules are needed to represent the battlefield.

X-Wing not having a vertical aspect makes it a tank game not a flying game.

Correction on the website video (and game rules): Pitch is for Speed and Throttle is for Altitude.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Correction on the website video (and game rules): Pitch is for Speed and Throttle is for Altitude.

That seems backwards. Pitch is the plane tilting up or down, and would seem more related to altitude than the throttle, something that increases or decreases your speed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Correction on the website video (and game rules): Pitch is for Speed and Throttle is for Altitude.

That seems backwards. Pitch is the plane tilting up or down, and would seem more related to altitude than the throttle, something that increases or decreases your speed.

If you only pitch up and don't add power you will briefly climb, run out of speed, and either stall or descend again. If you want to climb you pitch up slightly for your best climb speed and add full power. It's a true statement, but it's much more relevant in landing approaches than in high-energy dogfighting.

Taking damage for exceeding maximum speed is a new rule.

 Tokhuah wrote:
X-Wing not having a vertical aspect makes it a tank game not a flying game.

Correction on the website video (and game rules): Pitch is for Speed and Throttle is for Altitude.

As a student pilot you are taught very early on during final for an approach, pitch is for speed and throttle is for altitude. Now there is a lot to this actually , but I'm just gonna link some info here for you. https://studentpilotnews.com/2017/12/18/pitch-power-answer/


To put it shortly, it depends on what you're doing and what kind of aircraft you're in. For the most part however really powerful jets that can accelerate faster than 9.8m/s^2 are going to prefer using pitch for altitude and throttle for speed.

Why are we talking about pitch and throttle? I can't see any characteristic about aircraft pitch, only throttle? Did they say something wrong in the video/rules?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why are we talking about pitch and throttle?

Yeah! Yaw and roll are way cooler!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why are we talking about pitch and throttle?

Yeah! Yaw and roll are way cooler!

Haha, I don't mind that we're talking about manoeuvring, I could burn a lot of time talking about real world dogfighting, racked up plenty of hours in WW2 sims, it just seemed like a random discussion about pitch and throttle which didn't actually have anything to do with AI, so was wondering if I missed something somewhere.

That website is pretty well done, the way you scroll around and it takes you off to a different section.

callidusx3 wrote:


I too like the altitude rules. But to be fair, X-wing doesn't need 3D rules as there is no significant gravity or air resistance in space that altitude rules are needed to represent the battlefield.

Whilst not untrue, it's a single plane battle on a multiplane environment.

If AI's take on this works, it does stand a decent chance against X-Wing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If AI's take on this works, it does stand a decent chance against X-Wing.

From my playing the original years ago, it does nicely. It adds an extra tactical dimension and the advanced planning you have to do to get your fighters into the best position turns into a tense battle of nerves as you try to outmaneuver your opponent. Especially with the hidden maneuver orders at the start.

I think the altitude in old AI works okay, and trading off between altitude and speed was good (not sure if that trade off still exists in the new rules?, it'd be nice is there was a better visual representation of it so you could tell at a glance what altitude aircraft are at.

Given there's only 5 altitude levels now, it could be something like stacked magnets of different colours that lengthen or shorten the flying stand.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems the rules are mostly the same as they used to be, though some changes could have a big impact (like the unlimited ammo meaning people are going to be taking a lot more long shots now).

The hex board seems way too small, I know I said that earlier but previously it was because I was concerned they were changing the rules, but now I see the rules are much the same the small board just looks crowded. You can see in the "how to play" video that once you get 4 or so aircraft on each side there's not much free space between them.

Granted it wouldn't be too hard to convert the distances from hexes to inches and just play without the hex board, maybe have to make up some movement templates like there used to be.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Whilst not untrue, it's a single plane battle on a multiplane environment.

If AI's take on this works, it does stand a decent chance against X-Wing.

Doesn't have to compete with X-Wing, and GW/SG certainly didn't try to anyway, unlike what they did with WU. The kit is made with lots of tiny bits which is an instant turn off for many casual players.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
What sort of new aircraft are you thinking? I felt the Imperium was pretty well serviced, a couple of fighters, a heavy bomber, various transports and close support things. Some of the other races could use some roles filled out better, but the main ones (fighter and bomber) were well serviced with existing aircraft, so it seems odd to release something new before the existing ones.

Fury Interceptor (the Imperial Navy variety), I'm looking at you.

 schoon wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
What sort of new aircraft are you thinking? I felt the Imperium was pretty well serviced, a couple of fighters, a heavy bomber, various transports and close support things. Some of the other races could use some roles filled out better, but the main ones (fighter and bomber) were well serviced with existing aircraft, so it seems odd to release something new before the existing ones.

Fury Interceptor (the Imperial Navy variety), I'm looking at you.

Poorly armed for atmospheric combat, The size is at least double a marauder but the firepower isn't.

Is the how to play video only available on the website and not on YouTube? Can't seem to find it.

Tavis75 wrote:
Is the how to play video only available on the website and not on YouTube? Can't seem to find it.

Yeah it's on the website. Go to the "How to Play" item on the menu on the right side of the page.

https://aeronautica-imperialis.com/

Is it just me or does that chick pronounce "dakka" funny? Like "Dukka" or something.

Regarding 3D on 2D playing tables, I was bummed pretty hard when I tried X-Wing. Not sure if it's the proper rule or for expediency at the demo, but man was it dumb that little fighters could block bigger ships by idling in front of them and collisions were forced. The scale of the game was awful.

I much preferred the BFG way of "space is big and you need special orders to collide".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Tavis75 wrote:
Is the how to play video only available on the website and not on YouTube? Can't seem to find it.

Yeah it's on the website. Go to the "How to Play" item on the menu on the right side of the page.

https://aeronautica-imperialis.com/

Is it just me or does that chick pronounce "dakka" funny? Like "Dukka" or something.

Most Americans seem to do that. No idea why.

Only 5 altitude bands really limits the maneuver, aircraft differentiation, and engagement envelope from the original. Plus, 0-9 can easily be tracked on a d10.

In regards to X-wing, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. My main concern is if AI acts as a more of a military squadron working together, where X-wing feels like a bunch of individual guys doing their own thing in their own custom craft. I prefer one style way more than another.

The biggest weakness in old AI was the lack of differences really between an Ace and a regular pilot. They had a slightly better ability to pull off special maneuvers in the advanced rules (about 16% better) and that was it. No Ace skills or anything like that.

Anyway good how to play video.

I'm American. I pronounce dakka: d-AH-ck-uh. Is that not correct?

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


What are you talking about? I said using a Marauder to dogfight was daft, and instead suggested having one that’s part of the bomber formation provide defensive firepower. If a Marauder Bomber is an Avro Lancaster, then what I’m suggesting is something like a B-17 with increased anti-aircraft firepower at the expense of reduced (or eliminated entirely) ground attack capability.

So it's a Marauder Destroyer with Sky Strike Missile then? The only thing that could give it even more fire power is gun mount on wings, at that point I probably prefer it to be a new aircraft with better speed and maneuver.

Depending on how the rules work, yes. The previous ruleset made a distinction between ground-attack weapons and anti-air weapons. the nose autocannon on the Marauder destroyer are ground-attack only, so my proposed anti-air variant would need a more flexible nose armament (another twin assault cannon turret instead, for example), as well as the option to mount anti-aircraft missiles.

Also, improved manoeuvrability is pointless - it can already keep position with Marauders. Again, you're talking about using a heavy bomber chassis to go dogfighting with interceptors, which is ridiculous. IMO, bombers are somewhere between objective markers and fortifications. All they need to do is plod across the playing surface. Let the attacking and defending fighters be the ones doing the fancy tricks. Now, it's unlikely that will be the case, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding 3D on 2D playing tables, I was bummed pretty hard when I tried X-Wing. Not sure if it's the proper rule or for expediency at the demo, but man was it dumb that little fighters could block bigger ships by idling in front of them and collisions were forced. The scale of the game was awful.

The blocking rules in X-Wing aren't there for any simulationist reason. They're only there because you can't easily have the miniatures overlapping. In Wings of Glory (from which X-Wing is derived), when two planes overlap, one is temporarily replaced with its card (in fact, the game was originally developed as a card game, with the miniatures added only as visual flair), but you can't do that in X-Wing.

I have just seen the models at the store. They look great

Ork planes are grey plastic though and not red like we saw in previous pictures.

The ones in those pics had been painted red.

Yeah I figured that out after seeing a few leaks, but at first I thought they were red plastic, too

Entirely unfamiliar with the original game, but the rules looks pretty good. Streamlined, sensible and probably quite fun.
Cost of entry could be.. ok? Depends a bit on how many of each type of aeroplane you want/"need" I guess. Some variation seems necessary for replayability, but you probably don't need enough to get a full squad of each individual type. Waiting to see what the Eldar and Chaos will be like, and some reviews of the actual requirements in terms and cards and stuff.

Hexes could be alright in this context - certainly makes things clearer, easier and faster to play. Biggest downside I see is the relative inflexibility of table sizes (different boards, or folding/marking a larger one to play smaller games is some hassle).
As for the overlapping/lack of elevation in X-Wing - same applies here really, you still can't occupy the same space. X-Wing represents closeness by being unable to shoot at each other, while here you are placed further along, possibly making you liable to being shot in the back by the enemy you just overshot. Not sure how much of a risk there is of the latter as you appear to be quite flexible in your moves most of the time (something I prefer in X-Wing, where you have to anticipate enemy movements better, while here you can still decide to go left or right depending on preceding maneuvres).

balmong7 wrote:
I'm American. I pronounce dakka: d-AH-ck-uh. Is that not correct?

Depends how you pronounce that "AH". If it rhymes with "back", you're doing it right!

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
Hexes could be alright in this context - certainly makes things clearer, easier and faster to play. Biggest downside I see is the relative inflexibility of table sizes (different boards, or folding/marking a larger one to play smaller games is some hassle).

For people who want to play the game a bunch I think tiles might be the way to go in order to get a good variety when it comes to the board.


The video made the game seem fairly simple to play. It has me thinking that (with some heavy tweaking, of course) it might make a good basis for a dumbed down and faster version of BFG.