have your players any idea of what's happening, historically?  as in, would they know IRL what's going on and possibly make their strategic decisions based on what happened in the war?  or do they just have a passing interest & understanding of the pacific theater?  i'm wondering if they would engage in creating alt.history on purpose, not to be difficult or mischevious.

Quote from: beeberhave your players any idea of what's happening, historically?  as in, would they know IRL what's going on and possibly make their strategic decisions based on what happened in the war?  or do they just have a passing interest & understanding of the pacific theater?  i'm wondering if they would engage in creating alt.history on purpose, not to be difficult or mischevious.

During the decision to go alt:

Me, as Squadron Leader Lt. "Duckie" St. James: "The Admiral has decided that we are to withdraw to Pearl, so the Marines are going to be left hanging."

El Zambo: "Is this how history went, so we can't change it?"

I opened my mouth, but Klaxon replied before I could.

Klaxon: "Yeah, but that never matters. We decide how history went in this game."

I just agreed. Once you set PCs in an historical game, it becomes in effect alt.history immediately. Anything after that is 'just quibbling over the price.'"

-clash

i like how the decision was made, and they just ran with it (from the sound of it).  no debate, just action, and the game kept moving.  i think if i get to run this with my group, someone will bring up the "historical accuracy" thing before the game gets started.  they'd feel the need to establish that they've no need to feel slaved to actual history, just to establish the parameters.

Quote from: beeberi like how the decision was made, and they just ran with it (from the sound of it).  no debate, just action, and the game kept moving.  i think if i get to run this with my group, someone will bring up the "historical accuracy" thing before the game gets started.  they'd feel the need to establish that they've no need to feel slaved to actual history, just to establish the parameters.

And I think you should just let them. There's a feeling around that Historical games MUST be played in the straitjacket of the Worlds Tightest Metaplot. I come from wargames, where history is in the setup, then all bets are off. It would be pretty boring otherwise...

And yes, my gang hates to sit there during the game discussing things! That's for after the game.

-clash

As I look over what I posted about the second playtest session, I realize I didn't emphasize this enough - the maintenance rules worked perfectly.

I rolled a maintenance check on their first takeoff of the session -  a sortie against some Zeroes over Wake - and one of the Wildcats developed engine trouble and was of limited effectiveness. This was repaired overnight as the Maui came into position for the strike against the invasion fleet. The players abused their Wildcats against the Zeros, but nothing further developed.

The second sortie of the session was against the fleet, the next day. This time I didn't get anything on takeoff. Every one of the players began horsing their planes around to get better hits on strafing the invasion barges as well as bombing the troop ships themselves, doing Cuban Eights over the fleet as the squadron's Vought Vindicator dive bombers and Douglas Devastator torpedo planes assaulted the covering force of destroyers and cruisers.*

As they bulled their planes into position, things snapped. One player lost rudder control as he pulled out of his strafing run, and another player snapped his left aileron control, both planes suffering penalties to maneuvers that forced them back to the Maui. In addition, as I said, two were hit hard with AA, and another flew into his own bomb blast. They got the job done, but the squadron was really cut up.

*The Vindicators sank a cruiser and a destroyer, but lost 6 out of 12. The Devastators were devastated, as only 1 of 6 returned to the Maui, with reports that all hits on the ships were duds, the torpedoes malfunctioning if they hit.

-clash

What's the handling time like for a one-on-one fighter combat, Clash? To be honest, that sheet you posted looks pretty intense! How would you describe the learning curve?

Quote from: TimWhat's the handling time like for a one-on-one fighter combat, Clash? To be honest, that sheet you posted looks pretty intense! How would you describe the learning curve?

One on one? Very fast, once the players understand it. Depending on the planes involved, about 3 to 5 minutes. The more planes you add, the more complex it gets, of course, but it's no longer than a normal combat. It's really just pushing tokens about to get a good firing solution.

I suggest strongly running mock combats in an in-game training session to get your players up to speed. I didn't need to do that with my players, as they were already familiar with the system from the WWI game, but even then a refresher would have been a good idea in retrospect - they were a tad rusty. When I first introduced the game to my gang, they were kind of agog, but I ran training combats between the players and it suddenly clicked - all of a sudden they were going nuts and split-arsing all over the sky.  

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOne on one? Very fast, once the players understand it. Depending on the planes involved, about 3 to 5 minutes. The more planes you add, the more complex it gets, of course, but it's no longer than a normal combat. It's really just pushing tokens about to get a good firing solution.

Wow. That's super-quick!

QuoteI suggest strongly running mock combats in an in-game training session to get your players up to speed. I didn't need to do that with my players, as they were already familiar with the system from the WWI game, but even then a refresher would have been a good idea in retrospect - they were a tad rusty. When I first introduced the game to my gang, they were kind of agog, but I ran training combats between the players and it suddenly clicked - all of a sudden they were going nuts and split-arsing all over the sky.

Good advice for any contest in a game that's more complicated than a simple opposed die roll.

Quote from: TimWow. That's super-quick!

I ran two complex combats last session, first with six Wildcats vs. twenty-four Zeros, then with six Wildcats vs the troop ships and barges. The other planes' attacks were resolved abstractly. That left time for a bang-up brawl with the Navy Pilots vs. Marine Pilots in the break room of the Maui, repairs to the planes damaged in the first fight, writing letters home, and convincing the Captain to attack the invasion fleet against orders to the contrary - the longest bit, actually, with lots of roleplaying.

QuoteGood advice for any contest in a game that's more complicated than a simple opposed die roll.

True! I like to do it in-character so my players learn while their characters learn.

-clash

Here's a question, folks! In Aces In Spades, I added a number of vehicles at the end - some tanks, some trucks and motorcycles, some armored cars - enough so that is you wanted to do some ground warfare stuff, you could. If I do that for Aces and Angels, it would be enormous. There are just so many more vehicles!

Would it be better to stat up a few vehicles the PCs would be actually using, and make the rest as generic targets? I can see the PC pilots and troupe characters actually using jeeps/kubelwagens or autos or motorcycles, but tanks? Destroyers? V-2 rockets?

What I have in mind instead is a set of random success determination charts for bombing, strafing, and rocketing various targets which I think would be far more useful in-game.

What do you guys think?

-clash

Here's an example:

Abstract Mission Tables

The following tables should never be used for PC actions. These should be used for ancillary NPC missions, for example, the bombers the PCs are escorting - roll once on the Mission Success table to see how well the bombing went, and once more on the Mission Survival table to see how badly they are hit by flak. Don't use this for how badly the bombers are hit by enemy fighters - that's the PC's job.

Examples:

Enemy raids on the PC's airfield
Escorted bombing missions
Non-fighter actions in Air Raids
Ground fighting

Abstract Mission Success Table

01-02   Utter Failure
03-08   Very Bad Results
09-19   Poor Showing
20-34   Moderately Bad Results
35-66   Fair
67-81   Moderate Success
82-92   Good Showing
93-98   Very Good Results
99-00   Extraordinary Success

Abstract Mission Survival Table

01-02   Disaster
03-08   Hammered
09-19   Hit Hard
20-34   Not Very Good
35-66   Moderate Casualties
67-81   Pretty Good
82-92   Light Casualties
93-98   Surprisingly Light Casualties
99-00   No Casualties

Modifiers

Feel free to add modifiers to the die rolls as you wish, as best fits the situation.

Example Modifiers

Early US Torpedo planes using typically faulty torpedoes -50
Heavy AA emplacements -25
Obsolete equipment -20
Numerical superiority +20
Excellent weapons +10
Tactics check made +20
Tactics check failed -20

-clash

i like the abstract mission chart.  the "extra vehicles" bit--you're right, the amount of materiel  you'd have to stat out even for a representative sample would be prohibitive.  you're better off keeping to only things the pc's would use.  jeeps yes, tanks no, fr'ex.  PT boats, maybe :keke:

i guess you could do a simple "light / med / heavy" tank outline, just for comparison's sake, to put stats in perspective.  i'm sure the info would end up being needed.  

v-1, sure!  you need to know how many shots it takes to bring one down.  v-2, now that's another matter entirely.

Quote from: beeberi like the abstract mission chart.  the "extra vehicles" bit--you're right, the amount of materiel  you'd have to stat out even for a representative sample would be prohibitive.  you're better off keeping to only things the pc's would use.  jeeps yes, tanks no, fr'ex.  PT boats, maybe :keke:

Hehe! I confess, the coolness of PT Boats tempts me.

Quotei guess you could do a simple "light / med / heavy" tank outline, just for comparison's sake, to put stats in perspective.  i'm sure the info would end up being needed.

I intend to - vehicles as targets, yes! Shooting up a train or putting a few rockets into a column of tanks is vitally needed in-game!

Quotev-1, sure!  you need to know how many shots it takes to bring one down.  v-2, now that's another matter entirely.

I'd like to see the PCs chasing a V2! Talk about futility!

-clash

Alright - here's another!

Abstract Bomb/Rocket/Torpedo Damage Table

Roll   Damage
01-20   Negligible damage, easily repaired.
21-40   Very light damage, easily repaired.
41-55   Light damage, moderately easy to repair.
56-70   Moderate damage, moderately difficult to repair. +5 to subsequent damage rolls.
71-85   Moderate damage, repair facilities needed. +5 to subsequent damage rolls.
86-95   Moderate damage, repair facilities needed. +10 to subsequent damage rolls.
96-100   Badly damaged, +10 to subsequent damage rolls.
101-105   Badly damaged, +15 to subsequent damage rolls.
106-120   Heavily damaged, +5 to hit, +15 to subsequent damage rolls.
121-130   Heavily damaged, +10 to hit, +15 to subsequent damage rolls.
131-135   Stricken! +15 to hit, +20 to subsequent damage rolls.
136-140   Hammered! +20 to hit, +20 to subsequent damage rolls.
141-145   Smashed! +20 to hit, +20 to subsequent damage rolls.
146-150   Destroyed!

Bombs, Rockets, and Torpedoes have a damage modifier of +0 to +50.

Modifier from table is always the highest result yet achieved. If you get a result of "86-95   Moderate damage, repair facilities needed. +10 to subsequent damage rolls" and a subsequent damage roll is "56-70   Moderate damage, moderately difficult to repair. +5 to subsequent damage rolls," only the +10 counts and the +5 is ignored. If a subsequent damage roll is "131-150   Heavily damaged, +10 to hit, +15 to subsequent damage rolls," then the +10 to hit and +15 damage apply for all subsequent hits, and the +10 damage is ignored.

-clash

i now have the urge to attack trains by the air, machine guns chattering, rockets flying. . . .