Switch Theme:

Thinking Through Korean Air War Game  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Greetings Designers,

I have been interested in creating a Korean Air War game for some time. It is an interesting period to me due to the transition from Prop to Jets, and the fact that missiles have not become a big factor. Dogfighting with guns was still the way to dogfight, but Ground Attack and bombing was still a major part of the air war. Plus, control of the air was still contested during this conflict unlike more modern air wars. I am not an expert on this period by any means, so lots of research needed! Fun!

All that being said, my natural Baseline game is Forgeworld's V1 Aeronautica Imperialis from Warwick Kinrade because I really like it and enjoy playing it. I find it simple to learn, but actual play is fun and tactical. However, after reading some thoughts on the Delta Vector Blog for Air Combat, it got me thinking about things a bit differently. This thread is intended to just be a place to talk about various mechanics and hash them out.

Design Goals are:
1. Scale and model agnostic
2. Pilot skill plays a big role
3. Unique aircraft
4. Minimal tracking
5. Fast and furious play with constant movement/action
6. Players make decisions through out the game

Into the wild blue yonder!

This game will not use Hexes so this will be a free form game. Measurements will be generic in the form of Measurement Units that the player can set based on the scale of their craft.

First off, I was thinking of using Action Economy to differentiate between Pilot skill similar to Zona Alfa. These Dogfights are supposed to represent seconds of time, so any hesitation from a Green pilot can be exploited by more experienced pilots. Therefore, Rookie get 1 activation, Vets two, and Aces 3 activations. Activations will include moving and any available shooting. All Planes will have alternating activation, once all Rookies have moved, Vets and Aces activate again alternating, and then Aces alternate activation for their third activation. The player with the most aircraft on the board always activates first. No idea if this will work.

My plan is to be using three height bands only..... At The Deck, Combat, and High Altitude. I also used this in my Space Game with Altitude Bands. However, I may change this to d6 for easy tracking, and this could allow for more maneuver and craft differentiation. We will see. Thoughts?

Speed will be a set amount with planes having to go that distance in a turn, I assume all planes are going at their best combat speeds. I am planning on getting rid of adding or removing thrust. With Jets having a potential "Full Thrust" style sprint move for a straight line speed boosts and height changes. Turns and Height changes will move the set speed up and down immediately when they happen.

Planes will have a maximum turn radius in their profiles based on the maneuverability of the plane. A b-29 Super Fortress will have a different turn radius than a Mig-15. The highest will be a 90 degree turn, with the lowest being closer to 30 degrees. I was thinking of making a maneuver card with turn style numbers listed on the card..... but I am really open to different ways to do this as I am not a fan of the turning card A single turn or height change can be made in an activation.

Shooting will have two ranges, Long Shot and Combat Range. Shooting will be a straight line from the nose of the plane, while bombers will have a simple 360 degree radius. There will be set range bands of 0-6 and 7-12 Measurement Units at the same height band only (open to change if I use 6 height bands instead of 3) . Most planes will be able to fly Combat Range or farther in a turn so Dogfights will mostly be knife fights. Rookies roll 1 shooting dice, Vets 2, and Aces 3 dice with a Target Number based on the Aircraft's firepower. Tailing will allow an extra dice, but must be behind the enemy target, with behind being a 180 arc to the rear. Thoughts?

Related, I like that there is limited ammo in AI v1. However, I want to eliminate tracking it so am thinking of some sort of Ammo roll that can vary by weapon. This means people won't just open fire with low opportunity shots and instead hold on until they have a better chance. Other thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Most escorts, fighter, interceptors etc. will be one hit = one kill. However, I am thinking of giving planes a "Maneuver" save to avoid getting splashed. This will vary based on the plane. Therefore, the targets can "do" something instead of just dying. Open to thoughts on that as well.

The thing I am struggling most with is "detection". Part of me thinks that the straight from nose LOS might be enough of a restrictions to abstract detection. I do not want to use "blinds" as I find them cumbersome. I also find a detection/spotting roll before firing to be unsatisfactory for this situation. I am leaning towards detection possibly being a pre-game roll. Rookies, Vets, and Aces (Say 4+, 5+, 6+) might have a Target Number. Prior to the game, each player rolls a D6. If the D6 is higher than the pilots TN, then the plane is deployed on the board at the start of the game. A plane that is not detected can be placed in "reserve" and they can "deep strike" in anywhere on the board later in the game. Essentially, as a player, you know they are out there but not when or where they will strike.

This will be a combined "arms" incorporating bombers, fighters, fighter-bombers, etc. It will be scenario driven with a variety of different historical based missions and situations. The Game will end at X Turns, with a randomization for a next turn that gets harder per turn past X. The final turn is always a disengagement turn to try and escape or wrack up some extra kills. If a force loses 50% of their starting aircraft, then the next turn will automatically be the "Disengagement Turn". Victory will be based on Kill score with non-aircraft or other objectives (Ground targets, getting a plane off board, etc) worth X amount of Kills. The most "Kills" wins.

That is the rough outlines of my thinking. I am open to ideas, suggestions, tweaks, better ideas, etc. Thoughts and feedback?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I'm no expert on this sort of thing but a few things I do know which might add to your game:

Stalling - if you try to fly up you slow down, and if you slow down too much, you stall. Ths would be very important if any of the planes feature ram jets or scram jets, as these jets cannot operate if they go too slowly - they need to ram air in the front as fast as possible. So perhaps having speed decrease when you gain altitude and increase when you drop altitude, and a max speed for the plane in a straight line - you might exceed this if you're diving.

Diving - IIRC pilots used to dive to add more punch to their hits - a bullet from a faster plane is going faster than one from a slower plane. This might be wrong - I'm remembering from a long time ago!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More thoughts for you (though a little off-track if you're still wanting fixed-speed planes):

If you have variable speeds, you could have (as an example) 6 activations, like Gaslands has gear phases - the faster you're going, the more you activate, the further you go.
Then, you could have the pilots have a "skill" level, which will denote how many times they can alter their maneuver in a turn.

So, for example, a plane travelling at speed 5 with a skill 2 pilot can change their motion 2 times (ascend, descend, turn, level out, etc).

This will then couple with things like stalling and crashing to mean that unskilled pilots need much more skilled players to use them as well as using a skilled pilot. EG if you finish activation 2 pointing upwards, with no more skill left to level out, your plane will slow and slow for the next 3 activations until it stalls - your pilot wasn't skilled enough to pull off that maneuver. Likewise, if you end in a descent and have no actions left to pull up, your pilot lost control and might crash.

This would result in skilled pilots performing much better maneuvers than the unskilled pilots, unless the unskilled pilot player plans it out exceptionally well!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 18:28:00


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

First off. Thank you for the feedback!

What you describe sounds like the base line Aerial games that I am trying to move away from. Games like Blue Max, Canvas Eagles, Wings of War, Gaslands, and even my beloved V1 Aeronautica Imperialis. You would find the elements you describe in those games, and what you propose would be a natural fit! I feel (personal opinion) these games take way too long to actually play compared to a actual dogfight, since a long dogfight is about 6 minutes, compared to a 2 hour wargame! Keep in mind, I think all the games I mentioned above are fun and I enjoy them immensely but I am trying to do something a bit different this time out.

Yeah, I want fixed speed planes BUT maneuvers will cause changes. A F-80 might always go 6 Movement Units a turn base as the assumptions is they always want to go full combat speed in combat. It is only their maneuvers that impact their full combat speed. Diving, Banking, and climbing would cause speed changes. Different planes would have different effects.

For example, MIG-15s could out climb F-80's and F-86s so they would slow down mush less when climbing. Both planes could get close to Mach 1 in a dive, so they would increase speed while changing to a lower altitude, while a B-29 Strato-Fortress would have fewer speed changes from changing heights as they do not dive rather slowly go down.

I am trying to "abstract" a lot of the minutiae of stalling, crashing, etc As I assume most pilots can avoid these issues normally so I am removing them from the equation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:21:09


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

I think abstracting some things like stalling, crashing, etc. into either "damage effects" (like lower max speed, or turn rate, or whatever) or pilot stress/health is probably fine, and will make it play a little faster.

It's tempting to put in all kinds of detailed rules on things, but often you find that doesn't actually add much but a bunch of looking up rules, all of which just wind up giving some kind of variance on to-hit numbers, maneuverability, or getting dead sooner.

I think given the time period and the technology available, having shooting be limited to the "front corridor" (whatever the nose is and however wide you decide that to be, like base width or whatever) is fine, and some planes can get optional things like belly turrets for bombers, etc. I also like the idea of some abstracting the elevation, and I think for a dogfight that is actually one of the more important pieces; without z-axis, you're just doing a naval game, really.

   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I started putting together a spreadsheet of Korean war fixed wing aircraft and a spreadsheet of some key tech specs.

Here is the list so far.... pretty daunting.....

Name
North American F-28 Twin Mustang
Lockheed F-94 Starfire
Hawker Sea Fury
Republic F-84 ThunderJet
North American F-86 Sabre
Boeing B-29 Super Fortress
Grumman F9F Panther
North American P-51 Mustang
Lockheed p-80 Shooting Star
Douglas A-26 Invader
Vought F4U Corsair
Grumman F9F Cougar
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
de Havilland Vampire
Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknight
Gloster Meteor
Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star
McDonnel F2H Banshee
North American B-45 Tornado
Northrop F-89 Scorpion
Douglas A-1 SkyRaider
Grumman F7F Tigercat
Fairey Firefly
North American A2 Savage
Supermarine Spitfire

Mig-15
Lavochkim La-9 Fritz
Ilyushin IL-10 Beast
Lavochim La-11 Fang
Yakolev Yak-18 Max
Yakolev Yak-9 Frank
Tupolev Tu-2 Bat


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






sounds like you'll have a good amount of content for the game!

I'm more or less entirely ignorant about planes, but I would look to break them down into class-types, EG ram jet, scram jet, prop, and then establish the advantages/disadvantages of each type of plane (to use the only example I know, ram jets will stall if they go too slow, and can actually flip to reverse!)

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Yeah, I will need to sub-divide to make things easier......

Based on role.....
Night Fighters
Interceptors
Strike Fighters
Naval
Bombers
Escorts

Maybe as you say, based on engine?
Turbo-prop
Jet Turbine
--- I don't think they had much Scram or Ram jets yet.....

based on size?
Small- Mig 15
Medium- Strato-Jet
Large- B-29

.....Not sure yet.....

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Deleted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/02 19:34:32


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

So, I managed to stat out a couple of planes for the game for a quick playtest, but even at the "on paper" stage of the rules I am unsatisfied with how the game is handling two things:

1. Turning- It can not handle immelman's, side slipping, and wing-overs at the moment. Maybe they weren't much of a thing at this point in air warfare? I really do not know for sure. Research needed, but it seems vertical is more important than horizontal....

2. Rate of Climb- The Mig 15 could avoid the F-86 Sabres (and many other US Jets) by climbing away faster than the Sabre could. The game can not really account for this at the moment with 3 bands. The Maneuver stats helps the Mig be slightly more survivable but it abstracts why a lot.


Finally, I am not 100% convinced on how to do Detection yet.....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 21:40:16


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Easy E wrote:
So, I managed to stat out a couple of planes for the game for a quick playtest, but even at the "on paper" stage of the rules I am unsatisfied with how the game is handling two things:

1. Turning- It can not handle immelman's, side slipping, and wing-overs at the moment. Maybe they weren't much of a thing at this point in air warfare? I really do not know for sure.

2. Rate of Climb- The Mig 15 could avoid the F-86 Sabres (and many other US Jets) by climbing away faster than the Sabre could. The game can not really account for this at the moment with 3 bands. The Maneuver stats helps the Mig be slightly more survivable but it abstracts why a lot.


Finally, I am not 100% convinced on how to do Detection yet.....


hmmm... could you give the Mig an ability to gain 2 altitude bands and be immune to attacks from lower bands this turn? it could only do it as long as it's not in band 3.

That or increase the amount of bands.

not really sure on what an immelman is, guessing a wing-over is like a barrel roll?

Is there a way you could abstract altitude? EG give planes "X" altitude tokens for climbing, to be kept on a card. Planes can only target other planes when the difference in altitude tokens between them is half of the range of their guns, or less.

Then you can give each plane its own maximum altitude, maximum climb. You could have the planes speed also represented by tokens, and if they climb faster than their "climb" stat, they have to lose speed to gain the altitude. if their speed drops to 0, then they stall. If it goes higher than it is allowed to, then it stalls.

EG a plane has 4 altitude tokens, out of 10 maximum, and is going at a speed of 6, and has a maximum climb of 2. It can gain 2 altitude tokens without losing speed. It pulls up sharply to a vertical ascent, and gains 6 altitude (it's speed) and loses 4 speed tokens in doing so.
It is then targeted by a plane with 2 altitude tokens, and a range of 12 on its gun. it cannot shoot it (despite being within 10" range on the board) as it is more than 5 altitudes higher.


This would let you give different planes different capabilities, with all altitude comparisons being between target and attacker - so there would be no need for arbitrary "upper" limits, and if you introduce new planes which can fly higher, then it's simple to give it an altitude limit of 12 tokens, or a lower plane which cannot achieve that height might have an altitude of 7.

This also lets you exhange speed & altitude toens in a meaningful way - climbing fast slows you down, dropping fast speeds you up. It's intuitive.

You could also give them a standard "speed" which they move towards (provided they haven't stalled) so the planes have to capitalise on their speed when they have it.

EG a plane has "speed:4". They start with 4 speed tokens, and every turn in which they have more or less, they gain or lose 1 (depending on "acceleration" stat, perhaps?) towards 4. So they could gain 3 speed by diving, but each turn they lose 1 speed until they have 4 again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/06 21:51:56


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Yes, that is also similar to how I have seen it in more traditional air games. However, I am trying to move away from some of those mechanics to streamline play. It maybe a fools errand and other designers used those mechanics for a reason! I just don;t want to do an v1 AI re-skin, but that is a very tempting route!



I placed two Mig-15s against a pair of P-80 Shooting Stars. Both sides had a rookie, and an experienced pilot.

The initial pre-game roll had the Mig-15s detected, but the Migs did not see the P-80s. Therefore, they were placed in reserve. The Migs were at high altitude.

Turn 1:
Migs go first and are placed on the board. The Rookie Mig goes ahead straight, but a P-80 appears in his six. Seeing this, the lead Mig breaks right and drops a level. The Inexperienced P-80 appears, shadowing the Veteran Mig.

The Experienced p-80 pilot easily dusts the Green Mig, but runs out of ammo in the process. He will need to disengage and head for home!

In the second activation the experienced Mig pilot cuts back and gains altitude and buzzes past the rookie p-80 pilot. The Experienced p-80 pilot goes to pursue.

Turn 2:
P-80s have the initiatvie since there are more of them.

The Rookie P-80 pilot dives to the hard deck and races away at full speed.

The Mig Veteran turns and gives chase but is perpendicular to the target and moving away, and one level too high. Meanwhile the Experienced P-80 pilot tries to disengage by going the opposite direction of the Mig.

In the Experienced turn, the Mig manages to chase up to the Rookie p-80, but overshoots the speed and can not fire. The P-80 Vet disengages successfully and heads back to base.

Turn 3:
The P-80 Rookie tries to break right but and climb to avoid the Mig. However, the experienced Mig matches him easily and opens fire. The more experienced pilot easily ices the Rookie P-80, but also runs out of ammo doing it.

In the Experienced Activation, the Mig disengages and heads for China.

Conclusion:
Both groups lost their rookies, so an even trade in blood.

Some Notes:
- Need rules for how far forward you need to go before initiating a turn, dive, climb (Half move, immediately, X inches per height change or degree of turn? Not sure.) Immediate leads to tight maneuvers.

- Perhaps a rule that if you are more than X inches from an enemy plane you can auto-disengage?

- Very little difference in the planes at this point. In actuality, a P-80 could not go as high as a Mig so would be unlikely to ice one the way we did in the game. Also, the dive and climb advantages of the various planes played little role as they all did it the same.

- Both experienced planes running out of ammo seemed ok.

- Need to define turn, dive, and climb costs/gains to movement better. I jury-rigged it for the playtest when I realized they were missing.

- Not sure about the Detection mechanics yet. Detection did prove pretty decisive as the P-80s got the drop on the Migs and were able to capitalize early.

- The additional activation and shooting bonuses to Experienced pilots seemed ok to me, but it was a limited play-test.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in au
Cocky Macross Mayor





Adelaide Australia

Sounds like the playtest delivered a pretty accurate sim of a Korean War fight.

Question: What's the target number of aircraft for a typical game? (3 per side, 10 per side, etc.)

Without actually seeing the mechanic, I can't comment on how you're handling detection. I must say though - this is one of those areas of air combat that ruins a game if it is presented accurately.

Richtofen amassed most of his kills by slipping undetected behind his victim and riddling them before they knew what was happening — and he was right to do so, because air warfare isn't the valorous pursuit its sometimes made out to be.

Problem with that is, it makes for a lousy game! One player could be reduced to the role of 'target' rather than 'participant'.

But, taking detection out of the equation for the sake of playabiliy is just as bad. Giving all aircraft equal ability to eyeball the bogies is just not how air combats begin.

The routine of letting the un-detected aircraft start off-table makes sense to me. The detected player knows they are there, but can't know exactly where they'll come from. But what happens if all the aircraft of both sides remain undetected?

Ammo:

Is there a mechanic for representing faster ammo expenditure by Green pilots compared to Exp. ones? (I'm adding that to a WW1 version of Blood Red Skies I'm toying with.)

Are there different ammo types? Have been reading about how the Korean War sounded the end of the .50 cal as the USAF's gun of choice, and ushered in preference for cannons and rockets.

Hobbies from Other Dimensions!
www.miniaturemartin.com 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Yes, the .50 Cal was ended in Korea and switched to 20mm cannons and air-to-air rockets (see the f-95 starfighter). Eventually, they switched to just missiles in 'Nam, but reverted back to adding some guns when the missiles couldn't handle close combat too well.

In V1 Aeronautica Imperialis (and many games) everyone can just see everyone, but there is enough range of maneuver for it not to matter too much. You can use maneuver to avoid combat, and careful wingman tactics to box in enemies. I am trying to remove the 10 levels of altitude though.....

However, in the Korean War often times the Migs were loitering around high above where they could not be seen until they dived in on the bombers. Migs could out climb and Sabres could out dive, that was part of the tactics of the era. Therefore, altitude DOES matter to match the "historical" outcomes and tactics. If a historical game can't match that.... then why bother.

Therefore, I think I will need to keep struggling with Detection and Altitudes. it would be easy to make a 0-6 or 0-9 level atlitude, and it would be even easier to just ape Blood Red Skies or V1 AI.... but I don't want to. <insert foot stomping gif here>.

Two other thoughts on Detection.....

1. Detection is more like a "reserves" roll and they deploy on a table edge instead of "deep striking"

2. Place deployment zone across the board where 'detected' aircraft can deploy once 'detected'.

Either way, detection would become a phase of the turn sequence and not just a pre-battle roll.

Also, with the pre-game detection roll if no one gets detected, eventually someone will have to "choose" to put bait on the table and try to go for it. However, most scenarios will be combined arms so those Bombers or ground attack aircraft will probably get seen even if the fighters were not detected.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






If detection were isolated from the location of the plane (IE i's not on the board until it's detected) then you could have the players set up their planes on the board edge. Undetected planes aren't moved but get a "stealth" counter each turn. When they are detected, they get to move once per "stealth" token, indicating the route they took while no-one was looking. Its better than having to deploy them, which would lean to perfect line-ups for attacks. It makes them arrive somewhere they could realistically have gotten to, rather than it being just perfect every time. Of course, this depends on how long each move takes!

I'm assuming that they could also declare themselves by shooting, guessing as to whether they would be in range at that moment, making the gameplay of undetected units a bit of a gamble!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Tried another playtest with 4 Migs doing a bomber intercept against 3 B-29s and 4 Thunderjets of the USAF.

Good:
- Quick play- less than 1 hour
- Small play area 'Kitchen Table"
- Minimal tracking/record keeping- Only altitude and Out of ammo
- Historical outcome and performance
- Worked well with all Experienced pilots

Bad
- Detection allowed a Mig Alpha Strike that the USAF could do little about. Historical but not fun.
- Deployment needs to be more interesting, along the edge of the board led to weird placement early and no depth of formations.
- Needs terrain/clouds to add flavor and tactical play options

Needs Work
- Some rules about intermingling/touching units, no collisions
- Narrow Tailing rules for more tactical play

Result was 3 Bombers destroyed, for 2 Migs lost.

@Martin- I totally forgot to answer how many planes per side. I am thinking between 2 to 12 per side depending on mission. However, that is not "set" in stone.

As for ammo, I am abstracting it into the "firepower" of an aircraft. I read that the USAF tried some trials F-86s with 20mm cannons instead of the .50 cal, but did not bother making such a niche unit.

I did not change the Ammo roll based on pilot rating, but on aircraft profile. Interesting thought! Some folks expressed concern that rookies all ready were at too great of a disadvantage all ready. I am hesitant to make it worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/26 17:36:54


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I finished the basic profiles for all the Korean War aircraft I could find data on. There are USAF, USN/USMC, Royal Navy, RAAF, and Communist forces as of now.

After some more work, I am okay with the turning rules combined with the Action economy now after a lot of reading. Vertical maneuver was more important than horizontal maneuver. There were very few WWI or even WWII maneuvers for Jets. it was mostly dive and climb style evasion. The weird part is that there were still a lot of late WWII Prop planes used in the Korean War too.

Next step will be to figure out these detection mechanics!




Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I think I figured out the Detection issue.

-At the beginning of each turn, their is a Detection Phase. Pretty simple, each player rolls a d6. Any plane with a detection rating higher than the result stays in reserves.

-If a play is detected they can be deployed anywhere on the board up to 6MU in multiplied by the turn number. Therefore, in turn 1 it is 6 MU from the board edge, Turn 2 is 12 MU in, Turn 3 is 18 MU in, etc. In addition, wing/squadron mates must be deployed within 6MU of their partner aircraft.

-A player can choose to let a plane be detected even if they succeed in their roll in any Detection phase.

- The side with the most deployed planes always has Initiative to act first with moving and shooting, all though it is alternate activation.

I think this reduces Alpha Strike but still allows aircraft to "appear" in an unexpected place on the board as the battle builds. As the game progresses, the area that an enemy pane could appear gets bigger and bigger. Plus as the game goes on, by Turn 4 on a 48MU by 48MU board they deployment zones will be overlapping.

Thoughts?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I like the idea of their potential position becoming more flexible as the game goes on, provided they aren't detected. Gives players utility to ambush, and to prevent ambushes.

Have you considered 2 tiers of reserves? EG not there yet, and then sneaking?

units are away from the board whilst en route, and take not part in the game.

Units can start sneaking at any turn - and at this point can be detected. They gain a token for each turn in which they are undetected, allowing them to deploy further in.

this is only relevant if there is some mechanic to improve detection, EG the domes windows of a lancaster would improve detection - so kill the lancaster, then have sneaky units arrive. (I know lancasters aren't in the game but I don't know many planes!)

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Thanks for your thoughts Some Bloke! You have helped me think and define what I wanted detection to represent and guide my thinking ! I appreciate your help.

I think your two levels has merit to differentiate in the area vs arriving late. Not sure how I would work it in yet, but later arriving aircraft and planes could be a thing and fit the conflict.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Easy E wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts Some Bloke! You have helped me think and define what I wanted detection to represent and guide my thinking ! I appreciate your help.

I think your two levels has merit to differentiate in the area vs arriving late. Not sure how I would work it in yet, but later arriving aircraft and planes could be a thing and fit the conflict.


I'm glad I can help with it! I think the key to having planes arrive late is to either limit their utility (EG having them build up potential distance from the turn they "arrive") or to add randomness to arrival times (like old 40k reserves). that way it's not a no-brainer to keep glass cannons in reserves.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

My latest challenge for this game is to add some sort of campaign to the game. It is a bit of a challenge as units, aircraft, and strategy changed dynamically over the course of the campaign.

My initial thought was a simple Ladder campaign that led to various "historical" missions and fixed aircraft. However, as a player, that seems relatively weak. I want something I can add more own narrative too.

So, I am at a bit of an impasse on how to design the Korean Air War campaign element of the game....

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






what about something of a "create your own" campaign?

so you have X points to pick your planes for 3 missions, and each mission type has a set points. EG total of 800pts, with game of 150pts, 250pts and 400pts.

you buy your whole army, then the missions are chosen, allocated or generated, and then you make your individual lists.

so you could be escorting bombers, or ambushing scouting parties.

so in the above, there might be 3 missions for each points level, all the same points but different styles. defender chooses the mission, so player 1 chooses mission 1 and player 2 chooses mission 2, mission 3 is random - or 4 missions, alternating attack/defense.

you could even have it as a 2-part mission, where you simply choose your goal (I want to do a bombing run on an enemy port) and the opponent is assigned a counter-mission by the book (you are attacking their planes en-route, or you are defending with AA guns and response fighters).

Player 1 has the objective to fly to the base on a rolling board, and doesn't realise player 2 is ambushing, they would expect them to be defending.

similarly, player 2 might select "deliver spies via parachute" (I don't know much historical warfare so this might not fit at all) and player 1 may have the challenge to spot the spies for their ground crews to arrest, rather than to kill player 2, so player 1 is about staying alive with maximum spotting skill, and player 2 is about dropping parachutes. At the end, player 1 has points if they saw the parachuters (who may linger for 2 turns or something to represent their slow descent).

I am a big fan of hidden missions, and I think they would work very well in a campaign setting. it would also allow for mismatched points, as the goals aren't all about killing!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/09 07:45:48


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

So, I took some of your advice on the Campaign side of things to allow a "create your own" approach. I broke the period around by timeframe and available aircraft by faction. Players can choose to cover the "entire" war or just one timeframe of it.

The first Scenario is always a Combat Air Patrol. The winner gets to pick the next scenario to play as they can "dictate" the flow of the campaign from their victory. The Campaign is played up to a certain # of Kills.

It is very basic and I deliberately chose NOT to follow the careers of particular pilots or units in the campaign.

That said, I put an early Playtest up on my blog, but the rules for detection and such have all ready changed.....

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2020/08/battle-report-white-star-red-star.html

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





What you're working on sounds a lot like the Check Your Six rules sets. Pilot skill more important than the plane, a small campaign system, and an easy to grasp rules set. I haven't played using the rules for Korea era jets or beyond but I have played the WW2 version and it's pretty quick.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Yes, Check Your 6 was an inspiration for these rules, however I see them closer aligning with Aeronautica Imperialis than this game. I am purposely trying to avoid or simplify the "flying" part.

Plus, I feel Check Your 6 is not consistent in its mechanics. Sometime you use method X and sometimes method Y.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

For those of you following along at home, I made some adjustments to the "Detection" rules and playtested them again.

Here is the report with some thoughts:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2020/07/battle-report-white-starred-star-bomber.html

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: