TheRPGSite

Here's a story that might be interesting to some:

I've been working on a supplement to my WWI flying aces game, In Harm's Way: Aces In Spades which would cover WWII planes. I was happily running along when I hit a snag. The Lockheed P-38 Lightning apparently broke all the rules. There are two basic types of fighters - Zoom & Boom fighters are heavy, powerful planes that can dive and climb very well. They are vertically oriented - their best tactic is to dive onto their prey, shoot, and dive away, then zoom up for another blast. Dogfighters are  light, maneuverable planes that turn hard and fast, flipping around horizontally like bats. Their best tactic is engaging in a turning  battle where they can turn inside their quarry's radius and get behind them for a burst. You can't be both.

Except the P-38. It was fast and heavy, with high wing loading, all characteristic of the Zoom & Boom fighter, but anecdotally, it could turn inside a Japanese Zero, considered one of the best dogfighters ever. It took a lot of research to pull this one out, and my supplement was on hiatus until I could nail it down.

I eventually found out why this was so. The P-38 had two engines, with the pilot in a pod in the center, and two booms out to a wide tail between.  Prop engines in their turning create a huge amount of torque, predisposing the plane to turn one way or the other, depending on the rotation. The pilot deals with this torque by adjusments in the rudder and cother control surfaces to counter the torque. The two big engines on a P-38 would have created a monstrous amount of torque, except that Lockheed designed it to use counter rotating props - the engine on the left rotated towards the right, and the engine on the right rotated to the left. This cancelled the torque entirely, making the big plane as stable as a rock. It also made it hard to turn. How could this thing turn inside a Zero?

The secret lay in the prop controls. The pilot could individually give more power to the left or right engine, as needed. An expert pilot could use this to preferentially increase the torque in the direction he wanted, making the Lightning as nimble as a sparrow or as stable as a rock.  A tyro could not possibly use this bizarre feature properly, so in the hands of the novice, the P-38 was only a Zoom-and-Boom machine.

To model this in Aces, I had to use the Maneuv/Stability mechanic.  Maneuv + Stability must add up to 20. You add the maneuv rating to your Pilot skill TN for any maneuver, and add the stability rating for shooting, landing, and taking off. Thus planes are always a compromise between maneuverable dogfighters and solid Zoom and Boomers.  Making a plane ultra-maneuverable made it a poor gun platform and hard to land and take off, and vice versa.

For the P-38, then, a master pilot - a pilot skill of +5 or better - may change the craft's maneuv/stability rating in between maneuvers arbitrarily in either direction by 1 step per rank of skill. Thus a pilot +6 may move the rating by six steps either way to make the plane either more maneuverable or more stable as required.

Problem solved , progress resumed, things learned. I love this!

-clash

an excellent tale!  i always loved the lightning.  would love to see one IRL.

Quote from: beeberan excellent tale!  i always loved the lightning.  would love to see one IRL.

Glad you enjoyed the process, beeber! I did too! :D

Aesthetically, it's a gorgeous thing. It's also enormous - that rectangular frame covers a LOT of ground. It is also unmistakable in the air - nothing else looks quite like it.

Another benefit the P-38 had - though unlike the prop differential tuning, it was hardly exclusive* - was the armament was all in the nose. The P-47 and P-51 were wing-armed, which means that the pilot had to pre-set the convergence point for the guns, and only fire when that point was reached. The guns on the P-38 just had to fire straight ahead.

*Some fighters, like the Bell Airacobra and the Me-109, had cannon which fired through the propeller hub. Others had nose-mounted machine-guns firing through the propeller hub with an interrupter gear, though this lowered the ROF substantially. Other planes had mixed armament.

-clash

Interesting design problem, excellent technical explanation, fabulous solution!

Thanks, Jeff! :D

-clash

I can't wait for the supp, Clash!

Quote from: flyingmiceAnother benefit the P-38 had - though unlike the prop differential tuning, it was hardly exclusive* - was the armament was all in the nose. The P-47 and P-51 were wing-armed, which means that the pilot had to pre-set the convergence point for the guns, and only fire when that point was reached. The guns on the P-38 just had to fire straight ahead.

I recently watched a show on the (wooden) de Havilland Mosquito that had a configuration in many ways similar to the P-38 in this regard.  When they turned it into a fighter, it had a similar gun configuration on the main body between the propellers.  The Mosquito was all about altitude and speed, not maneuvering, though (though it was used on low-altitude [~50 ft] bombing runs).

Quote from: John MorrowI recently watched a show on the (wooden) de Havilland Mosquito that had a configuration in many ways similar to the P-38 in this regard.  When they turned it into a fighter, it had a similar gun configuration on the main body between the propellers.  The Mosquito was all about altitude and speed, not maneuvering, though (though it was used on low-altitude [~50 ft] bombing runs).

The Mosquito was an astonishingly good airplane. The Germans tried throughout the war to imitate it, with limited success.

-clash

Quote from: joewolzI can't wait for the supp, Clash!

Thanks, Joe! It's now back in development!

-clash

Okay, I'm not a super-airplane geek, but I thought I knew my stuff and this came as a fascinating surprise. But excuse me if I also express some skepticism since I've read (and Wikipedia...yeah, know...also says) that the P-38 couldn't out-turn a Zero. What were your sources for the use of differential prop controls to aid maneuverability?

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, I'm not a super-airplane geek, but I thought I knew my stuff and this came as a fascinating surprise. But excuse me if I also express some skepticism since I've read (and Wikipedia...yeah, know...also says) that the P-38 couldn't out-turn a Zero. What were your sources for the use of differential prop controls to aid maneuverability?

It was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

While you're looking...I did find some references to later P-38 models having combat flaps, which supposedly aided maneuverability. As I understand (hopefully) the idea, they were a setting for the flaps that deployed them partway, so they increased lift (presumably at a cost in drag) enough to improve turning performance. This was fairly unique, the only other aircraft to use this feature was the P-51.

Don't forget about that huge control surface in the back! That thing was a real potential burden in Warbirds (and those guys generally did excellent research), if you didn't keep your 6 clear and it got shot up.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhile you're looking...I did find some references to later P-38 models having combat flaps, which supposedly aided maneuverability. As I understand (hopefully) the idea, they were a setting for the flaps that deployed them partway, so they increased lift (presumably at a cost in drag) enough to improve turning performance. This was fairly unique, the only other aircraft to use this feature was the P-51.

The combat flaps, dive brakes, and differential prop control together are what made the P-38 able to turn and roll so well, not any one thing. Big control surfaces. The ailerons were insufficient alone to snap the plane into a roll quickly. Unaided, the plane rolled quickly enough once it got started, but the inertia of the off-centerline engine caused the plane to 'hesitate' in a roll, moving slowly at first. Veteran pilots knew to use the differential controls and combat flaps as well in a roll to snap it around.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

OK - I found those quotes in a book I got from the library. They were what started me on this quest. Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced (read lost in the mass of papers which cover my writing desk) the name and ISBN of the book, which I jotted down for the bibliography. I have found numerous references on the 'net to this practice, but none attributing a source document, like this one:

"Ira Bong was said to be able to turn inside the infamous Japanese Zero by cutting power on the inside engine and letting the drag from the prop pull the plane around tighter than normal."

Arrrrgh! It was Richard Bong!

I did find this remark in "Fire in the Sky," by Eric Bergerud concerning the p-38F:

"Yet at high speeds, like other US fighters, the P-38 could turn inside a Zero, particularly at high altitudes."

Capt. John Tilley (http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html) says:

"My first kill was a Betty bomber on my 3rd mission while in a P-38H model. The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into-flames. When I saw the Oscar explode I pulled up and started calling for someone to lead me home cause I couldn't see through the oil on my windshield. "Pete" Madison[9] was kind enough to oblige. When we got back to base, I had to crank down the side window and wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see enough to land the bird."

It could also turn inside the Me/Bf-109 and the FW-190:

""...[P-38s] could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first five to ten degrees of bank." -- Franz Steigler, JG 27, 28 victories."

I should note that this was before dive brakes were installed in the p-38J. Before then, the P-38 could out dive the German fighters, but the pilots rightly refused to because of compressibility problems if they weren't careful.

Lt Col Mark Hubbard CO 20 FG said "The P38 will out turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 20k .....when the enemy attacks we out turn him.."

"Anyone flying a P38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft - even dogfighting a single engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 a decent altitude for a P38 " - Captain Maurice McLary 55Fs/20 FG

"We can definitely turn inside any German aircraft... Due to the beautiful stall characteristics of the P38.... If jumped on the deck, the best evasive manouvre is a tight level turn. you can turn much tighter without the danger of spinning in.........." Major Herbert Johnson CO 77FS 20 FG

"Despite these revolting developments (problems with the p-38F,) the pilots of the 8th knew that the P-38 could outturn, outclimb, outrun and outfight anybody's airplane in the air so they set about rectifying their problems. Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L. Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane." 20th FG Capt. Arthur Heiden

With the flaps introduced on the F model, and the dive brakes and power assisted ailerons introduced in the mid-J models, it had become amazingly maneuverable.

-clash

-clash

best thread ever :)

now i want to watch ww2 documentaries of the air battles!

Well, I've been scouring the web looking for more evidence of the practice of cutting power to one engine and using drag or torque to assist a turn, and I haven't turned anything up. However, I did see enough to remind me that, first, fighter vs. fighter debates arouse enormous passion; second, variation in performance between subtypes makes comparison extremely complex (P-38J/L are very different beasts in terms of maneuverability from the earlier models)Also, the P-38 was probably more maneuverable than it's generally given credit for. But the favorite thing I learned was (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp38.html)

QuoteThe new Lightnings were operated by the US Army Eighth Air Force in Europe beginning in 1943 for long-range escort missions, but did not achieve great success in this role. This was partly because it was harder to fly than a single-engine aircraft and, since it had no engine in front of the pilot to keep him warm, was an "icebox" during high-altitude missions. [...]

Despite its mixed career in Europe, the Lightning remained an outstanding success in the Pacific. Freezing cockpits were not a problem in the warm tropics. In fact, since there was no way to open a window while in flight, as it caused buffeting by setting up turbulence through the tailplane, it was often too hot, and pilots would fly stripped down to shorts, tennis shoes, and parachute.

cool find, elliot!  if only i could convince my group to do a ww2 campaign :(

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I've been scouring the web looking for more evidence of the practice of cutting power to one engine and using drag or torque to assist a turn, and I haven't turned anything up. However, I did see enough to remind me that, first, fighter vs. fighter debates arouse enormous passion; second, variation in performance between subtypes makes comparison extremely complex (P-38J/L are very different beasts in terms of maneuverability from the earlier models)Also, the P-38 was probably more maneuverable than it's generally given credit for. But the favorite thing I learned was (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp38.html)

Yeah - the aircraft wonks can get pretty passionate about tiny little things... Reminds me of us... :D

Try googling for:

p-38 "turn inside"

as I found lots of people quoting that as fact, with no attribution. I also found someone who had apparently read the same things I had, also without attribution.

"Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese Zeros. No one can discount that achievement"

Here's anothe of those unattributed things!

"The Allies learned early on that their two main aerial foes, the Nazi's Me-109 and the Japanese Zero, were more maneuverable than most Allied aircraft.  To get into a dog fight with these nimble little airplanes would be to invite certain death to the Allied pilots.  The word came down that no Allied pilot should engage either of these Axis aircraft below 10,000 feet, where they were particularly maneuverable, and that dogfighting should be avoided in general with these aircraft.  They could turn inside most Allied fighters and then shoot them down.  Such was the standard approach.  Not with a P-38.

By using the thrust vectoring technique and extracting the unique advantage of being a twin engined fighter, a skilled P-38 pilot could engage in a turning dog fight with either a Me-109 or a Zero and come out ahead.  The P-38 pilot would simply pull into a sharp turn and begin climbing within it.  This is the most particularly difficult thing to do while turning.  Most aircraft lose speed in a turn and having to climb while turning kills that speed even faster.  Lose too much speed and your aircraft can't stay in the air.  It then stalls and loses falls back towards the ground.  A skilled P-38 pilot would suck an adversary into this type of turn and start climbing up.  With proper use of his throttles he could pull his turn ever tighter and climb ever more.  A few go 'rounds of this and the bad guy following him would have lost so much airspeed that he would have to break off or else stall his aircraft.  When he did then break off he would be in a perfect position for the P-38 pilot to reverse onto him and blow him out of the sky."

It also appears the same differential control was used in a snap roll as well as a turn.

-clash

Quote"Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese Zeros. No one can discount that achievement"

When used of flight sim whining to get 'my favorite fighter' upgraded threads, a common counter argument is 'are you saying you are as good as R'ichard Bong?' aka, 'look dude, we already pimped your ride. Its not our fault you get shot down so much in multiplayer'.

Basically, I reckon your best bet is just to figure out what your target audience wants and give them that. Closet Nazis will demand uber 190s and 109s, while if you intend to sell to the British market the Spitfire must pwn everything.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhen used of flight sim whining to get 'my favorite fighter' upgraded threads, a common counter argument is 'are you saying you are as good as R'ichard Bong?' aka, 'look dude, we already pimped your ride. Its not our fault you get shot down so much in multiplayer'.

Basically, I reckon your best bet is just to figure out what your target audience wants and give them that. Closet Nazis will demand uber 190s and 109s, while if you intend to sell to the British market the Spitfire must pwn everything.

You are right. They are all whack-jobs. These sim jocks are interested in pushing an agenda. I'm just interested in finding the truth so I can model it.

-clash

Clash, best (as in most credible source) I could find was this archive of Flight Journal, an actual modern-day flight test:

http://web.archive.org/web/20061020145126/http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_3.asp

And it supports what you say. While there might be a lot of circular-referencing going on across the 'net, I find it credible that the Lightning's performance varied quite a bit more depending on pilot skill and familiarity than other types.

Awesome! Thanks, Elliot! I'll go ahead with confidence then! :D

-clash

Thought you folks might like to see the cover of AIS:WWII. I've been working on it for weeks. The original is much bigger! :D

(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/In-The-Clouds.jpg)

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

If Dick Bong said it, that's good enough for me.

If you make a WW2 aircraft game that's fast, fun, accurate, and includes altitude, I will bear your children.

Quote from: Old GeezerIf Dick Bong said it, that's good enough for me.

If you make a WW2 aircraft game that's fast, fun, accurate, and includes altitude, I will bear your children.

I hope it's fast, fun and accurate, but it it certainly includes altitude! It's based on ACM.

-clash

I just got done modelling 40 fighter types for AIS:WWII. Sixteen American, and eight each UK, USSR, German, Italian, and Japanese. There are some extremely good aircraft in every group. This has been a very interesting excercise!

-clash

OK, I hit another problem. In Aces, damage was %d X number of guns X 10, and the planes' constitution (Hit Points) were loaded mass (in kg) * 3. Worked real well for WWI, and I was happy. Doesn't work in WWII at all! In WWI, all the plane's guns were light MGs, rifle caliber .30/7.2mm. In WWII you have planes with heavy MG (.50/12.7mm), Light Automatic Cannon (20mm-30mm), and Heavy Automatic Cannon (30+mm).

If we take the LMG=1, then HMG=~2, LAC=~10, and HAC=~20. These are the weapon factors I used.

Thus we have fighter armament ranging from early fighters with 2 LMG (X 2) to a P-61 with 4 HMG and 4 LAC (X 48). The average damages would range from (50*2)*10 = 1000 to (50*48)*10 = 24000. The spread is big, and needs calculators, and the heavy damage is too heavy, while the light damage is too light.

I decided to go with damage = (%d + armament factor) * 10, for simplicity and for scaling. Most folks can do that in their heads, and the endpoints aren't so far apart. That gives average damage spreads from (50+2)*10 = 520 to (50+48) * 10 = 980. A much better result!

The other end of the problem needs addressing too, now that I established damage endpoints! A P-38 is about 8000 kg, while a Zero is about 2400 kg. At Mass X 3, that gives 24000 to 7200 Constitution. For fun gaming, a high average damage, like from a P-61, should hammer a Zero and hurt a P-38. Neither happens!

I decided to go with Mass X 0.5, as that gave me the best results. A P-38 could take 4 average heavy hits before going down, and a Zero would be wiped. As for light hits, A P-38 could take 8 light hits, while a Zero could take about 2. That works nicely!

Comments?

-clash

whoa, just whoa.  i'm overwhelmed :what:

good to see what you do as a designer, the systems, etc.  cool that you can map out h.p. to kg.  seeing something like "constitution 7200" boggles my mind, tho.

i'd just have guesstimated hp vs gun damage and the like--but that would be in the middle of say, a CoC or MT adventure.  you're doing the grunt work, designing something this specific.

keep up the good work, sir!

Quote from: beeberwhoa, just whoa.  i'm overwhelmed :what:

good to see what you do as a designer, the systems, etc.  cool that you can map out h.p. to kg.  seeing something like "constitution 7200" boggles my mind, tho.

i'd just have guesstimated hp vs gun damage and the like--but that would be in the middle of say, a CoC or MT adventure.  you're doing the grunt work, designing something this specific.

keep up the good work, sir!

Thanks Beeber! I work as much as possible with real world stats. At a certain point, though, you start going the way of Phoeinix Command, and the more you push the realism, the less real it feels. So I do my best to make it feel right, which in a game is more important than being right.

-clash

The hardest part, for me, is assigning values for guns.

A lighter gun carries less kinetic energy.... but is your rate of fire higher?  Enough higher to matter?  Cannon shells are explosive, sure, but rate of fire and accuracy enters in, not to mention ammunition supply.  Et cetera.

Not saying your solution is wrong, just commenting on the fiendish complexity of the situation.

Awesome thread!

Quote from: Old GeezerThe hardest part, for me, is assigning values for guns.

A lighter gun carries less kinetic energy.... but is your rate of fire higher?  Enough higher to matter?  Cannon shells are explosive, sure, but rate of fire and accuracy enters in, not to mention ammunition supply.  Et cetera.

Not saying your solution is wrong, just commenting on the fiendish complexity of the situation.

Agreed, Geezer! That's the point where you have to make judgement calls, balancing a horde of isolated stats with little in the way of comprehensive overviews. In the end you do the best you can according to what it is you want out of the game.

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniAwesome thread!

Thanks, Sett! Glad some of you guys are finding the process interesting. :D

-clash

OK! I'm alpha testing the setup in two weeks. We finished up our big Blood Games II two-era game Saturday, and next week is off due to a party. The players decided on a carrier war in the Pacific game, playing as Americans. My wife does not like the idea of playing a character who would be shooting at Americans, so the idea of playing Japanese was nixed.

I decided to go slightly alt.history right off the bat. I decided that the second of the six Lexington Class cruisers, the Constellation, was further along in construction than it was in real life, and wasn't scrapped, but was finished as a carrier, like the Lexington and Saratoga. This will be the PC's new home.

This gives me a flexibility I prefer. I can have the Connie wherever and whenever I need her, and if she sinks in game, she sinks. There were only two carriers that lasted through the whole war, the Big E and the Sara, and neither was involved in everything, so otherwise I'd have to live or die by what the real ship did. Besides, now the dilemma of "do I screw with history?" is already settled.

I almost gave them F-2A Brewster Buffaloes - the Sara was equipped with Buffs, so there is precedent - but decided to be a kinder, gentler god at the last minute. The Buff could be devastating in the right hands - the single airplane with the largest number of kills credited to it was a Buff - but those hands were Finnish, not American. Young, inexperienced American pilots would get slaughtered flying Buffs against Zeros. I gave them F-4F Grumman Wildcats instead, so they'll stand a fighting chance.

-clash

Oooh! Scratch the Constellation idea! I just found out the US Navy had an escort carrier available before the war, the Long Island, and had made another for the British, HMS Archer. THAT would be much more interesting I think! :D

-clash

what's the diff between a regular and escort carrier, plane complement-wise?

Quote from: beeberwhat's the diff between a regular and escort carrier, plane complement-wise?

There were three types of carriers in WWII:

A CV, or Carrier, had between 80-100 planes. They were fast (30-35 knots) and well armed. They used bunker oil to heat steam to drive turbines. They carried a squadron each of scout/dive bombers, torpedo/level bombers, and fighters. CVs were sometimes converted heavy cruisers or battleships.

A CVL, or Light Carrier, was usually a converted Light Cruiser, and deployed about 45 planes. They were fast (28-30 knots) but not well armed, and the decks were narrow. They used the same type of propulsion as regular carriers. They carried a squadron each of fighters and torpedo/level bombers.

A CVE, or Escort Carrier, was usually a converted oiler or merchantman - though some were special-built later in the war - and carried 24-30 planes. They were slow (12-16 knots) and some were diesel-fueled. They carried a mixed squadron of fighters and bombers.

The US, UK, and Japan were the only ones who deployed all three types. I had thought that CVEs were only built during the war, coming in late 1942-1943. If they were around in 1941, the PCs can be there from the beginning, and a CVE is much more likely to be given utility jobs, which the PCs would shine at! CVs and CVLs were deployed with the fleet on the glamour jobs, and were collectively called "Fast Carriers." CVEs were also called Jeep Carriers or Baby Flattops, and were used wherever they were needed.

-clash

Actually, the export version of the Buffalo that the Finns got and modified, weighed less than the stock USN version.  As a result it was rather more maneuverable than the version for home consumption.

Quote from: Lee ShortActually, the export version of the Buffalo that the Finns got and modified, weighed less than the stock USN version.  As a result it was rather more maneuverable than the version for home consumption.

True. They threw out the life raft and other non-necessary stuff - they weren't flying over the Pacific or landing on carriers - fixed a problem with the engine, and had a field day. In service during 1941-1945, the Brewsters were credited with 496 Soviet and German aircraft destroyed, against the loss of 19 Brewsters: a victory ratio of 26:1. That is just astonishing. They also replaced the .30 calibre MG with .50 calibres to give it four .50s.

The other aspect was that Hans Wind, their leading ace, developed a whole book of tactics designed to exploit the Buff's good points. He even analyzed the poor performance of the Marine Buffs at Midway, pointing out the tactical flaws in the American attack which led to them getting shredded.

Interesting stuff! :D

-clash

The PCs will be flying from the USS Maui, a newly converted fleet oiler on her maiden voyage as an escort carrier. The Maui carries 24 planes - 12 Vought Vindicator SBU dive bombers, 6 Douglas Devastator torpedo planes, and 6 F-4F Grumman Wildcat fighters. The PCs will be the Wildcat Pilots.

The Maui will be coming in towards Pearl on December 7, 1941.

-clash

nothing like starting off with a bang, eh?

Quote from: beebernothing like starting off with a bang, eh?

That's how I like starting things off! :D

-clash

It even has a precedent. A couple of squadrons of SBDs from the USS Enterprise flew into the melee around Pearl by accident and bad timing. Like the Maui, the Big E was well off the coast and wasn't spotted - it had been delayed a day due to a storm, or it would have been in-harbor on Dec. 7. Carriers were the #1 target, and none happened to be in port.

From bluejacket.com (http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_12-07-41_carriers.html):

"At 0618 hours on 7 Dec 41, Enterprise launched SBDs of VB-6 and VS-6 to search a sector 045 to 134 degrees for a distance of 150 miles (240 km) and to then proceed to NAS Pearl Harbor on Ford Island.  A total of 18 aircraft arrived over Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack.  One was shot down by U.S. antiaircraft fire, four by the Japanese and one crash-landed.  The remainder landed at either NAS Ewa or NAS Pearl Harbor."

-clash

sounds cool.  the idea of being ship-based fighter pilots reminds me of the cosmo-tigers in star blazers.

Quote from: beebersounds cool.  the idea of being ship-based fighter pilots reminds me of the cosmo-tigers in star blazers.

Now, I never watched Star Blazers/Space Battleship Yamato - though I had heard of it, and knew what you referred to - so I looked it up on the web and read up. Apparently, the Cosmo Tigers were supposed to reflect Japanese carrier pilots, carrying on the WWII/Future parallels that abound in Star Blazers, so the resemblance is intentional. :D

-clash

Finished a new e-painting last night, based on a famous photo of Pearl Harbor burning:
(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/Pearl2.jpg)

-clash

Ooh, groovy! I hate artists...grumble, grumble. :muttering: ;)

Quote from: One Horse TownOoh, groovy! I hate artists...grumble, grumble. :muttering: ;)

Good! I'm not an artist. I'm an illustrator. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGood! I'm not an artist. I'm an illustrator. :D

-clash

Ha! That's what an artist would say, with their hi-falutin' 'technical' terms. :D

Quote from: One Horse TownHa! That's what an artist would say, with their hi-falutin' 'technical' terms. :D

Hey! I write too, Kimosabe! :D

Seriously: If you go through all of my posts on tBP or here, you will never hear me call what I do art. I don't consider it in any way to be art, nor do I think illustration or art are particularly lesser or greater than each other. They are different, using the same techniques and tools for very different ends.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHey! I write too, Kimosabe! :D

Seriously: If you go through all of my posts on tBP or here, you will never hear me call what I do art. I don't consider it in any way to be art, nor do I think illustration or art are particularly lesser or greater than each other. They are different, using the same techniques and tools for very different ends.

-clash

I'm only pulling your leg mate. :)

I have no idea of the difference (or that there even was one) between the two.

I might have to ditch the guy that expressed an interest in doing some artwork for SH and see if some soaring rodents are free.

Quote from: One Horse TownI'm only pulling your leg mate. :)

I know! :D

It's common to call illustrations "art," but there is a huge difference in intent.

QuoteI have no idea of the difference (or that there even was one) between the two.

Simply, the job of an illustrator is to portray things in a book so that the reader can visualize the setting and/or events. The job of an artist is to pursue his/her own artistic vision. Illustrators are supporting cast, they amplify and reflect the writer's intent.

QuoteI might have to ditch the guy that expressed an interest in doing some artwork for SH and see if some soaring rodents are free.

Don't, Dan! I'm happy to work with other illustrators, and it may be that his talents are better than mine for this job. I'm also very busy, and may not have much time. Let's just see how things work out! :D

-clash

re:  pearl harbor--

got to see the memorial last summer.  absolutely fucking intense.  contrast the thunder and chaos of the attack versus the memorial, where all stand quietly and some watch the oil float to the surface from the arizona.

your illo of the big blast took me right back to the day of my visit.

Quote from: beeberre:  pearl harbor--

got to see the memorial last summer.  absolutely fucking intense.  contrast the thunder and chaos of the attack versus the memorial, where all stand quietly and some watch the oil float to the surface from the arizona.

your illo of the big blast took me right back to the day of my visit.

Thanks, beeber! I had a great photo (http://student.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=13870&articleTypeId=0) to work from! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThanks, beeber! I had a great photo (http://student.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=13870&articleTypeId=0) to work from! :D

-clash

there's a film you have to watch before they take you out to the arizona, and that blast is in there.  (shudder)

back to topic--will this be an add-on to IHW:AIS, or will it be stand-alone?

Quote from: beeberthere's a film you have to watch before they take you out to the arizona, and that blast is in there.  (shudder)

back to topic--will this be an add-on to IHW:AIS, or will it be stand-alone?

Whoa! I didn't know it was not still camera work... Thanks for telling me! My uncle was at Pearl, but he never talked about it. I've never been there myself.

It'll probably be a supplement for IHW:AIS, as the chargen and system will be identical. It may be a big supplement, though! If it gets too big, I'll add the missing sections back in and make it stand-alone. :P

-clash

i wouldn't be surprised if it was both a still and film shot.  not like anyone would've been taking pictures of birds that day (aside from the prop-driven variety).

another question--do you need the napoleonic IHW book for AIS?

Quote from: beeberanother question--do you need the napoleonic IHW book for AIS?

Ah! No - AIS is stand alone. There are far too many differences! :D

Question is, is WWII different enough from WWI to make another stand alone game needed? Hopefully my upcoming alpha playtest will tell me! :D

-clash

Added: What is your opinion, folks?

-clash

Quote"At 0618 hours on 7 Dec 41, Enterprise launched SBDs of VB-6 and VS-6 to search a sector 045 to 134 degrees for a distance of 150 miles (240 km) and to then proceed to NAS Pearl Harbor on Ford Island. A total of 18 aircraft arrived over Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack. One was shot down by U.S. antiaircraft fire, four by the Japanese and one crash-landed. The remainder landed at either NAS Ewa or NAS Pearl Harbor."

If I remember correctly, that's one of the reasons the attack was such a surprise.  They were expecting their own birds in that day and mistook information of the Japanese aircraft as their own.  If they would've known, they could've deployed the Army's fighters at Wheeler Army Air Field.  It's too emotionally draining to make yet another visit down there to confirm this.

Quote from: GunslingerIf I remember correctly, that's one of the reasons the attack was such a surprise.  They were expecting their own birds in that day and mistook information of the Japanese aircraft as their own.  If they would've known, they could've deployed the Army's fighters at Wheeler Army Air Field.  It's too emotionally draining to make yet another visit down there to confirm this.

Right, Gunslinger! There was also a flight of B-17s that came in during the attack. IIRC, the radar station that picked up the incoming first wave was told the contact was the expected Boeings. Ouch!

-clash

My question from earlier may have been buried, so I'll repeat it:

If I make WWII a supplement, folks will have to buy the WWI game to run it.

If I make it stand-alone, folks who bought the WWI game will see some material repeated.

Should I make it stand alone or a supplement? Your opinion won't determine my decision, but it will influence it. I certainly would appreciate any comments.

-clash

Make it a supplement mate. Then a year down the line make it stand-alone and market it again (to catch folk who missed it first time around).

Quote from: One Horse TownMake it a supplement mate. Then a year down the line make it stand-alone and market it again (to catch folk who missed it first time around).

Did you used to work for White Wolf, Dan? :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceDid you used to work for White Wolf, Dan? :D

-clash

Nah! :D  Although, strangely there is a Dan White who has written for them. Came as a bit of a surprise to me, i can tell you.

I only suggested that because, as you say, the big boys get away with it, so why not? ;)

Quote from: One Horse TownNah! :D  Although, strangely there is a Dan White who has written for them. Came as a bit of a surprise to me, i can tell you.

I only suggested that because, as you say, the big boys get away with it, so why not? ;)

Well, I knew of that Dan White, and the reasoning sounded familiar... :O

But you're talking to the guy who has given free upgrades for all of his games since 2002. If you bought StarCluster 1.0 back in the day, you would have received at least 9 upgrades by now. :D

I'm not big on exploiting the customers in other words. I am trying to see what potential customers would see as better for them.

Actually, though, that is a good idea, so long as I tell folks up front, or maybe release them simultaneously. That would cover both bases. Let's add it to the table, then, as a third option! :D

-clash

as i have no interest in WW I, i'd prefer it to be stand-alone. my gaming dollars are kind of tight, so if i had to get two books to play, it would be a few months before i'd be ready (buy one, wait a few months, then buy the second).

Quote from: beeberas i have no interest in WW I, i'd prefer it to be stand-alone. my gaming dollars are kind of tight, so if i had to get two books to play, it would be a few months before i'd be ready (buy one, wait a few months, then buy the second).

Noted, Beeber! Thanks for responding! :D

-clash

My preference is always for complete games.  If there is some core duplication then that just means there are more books to go around the table.

Quote from: beeberas i have no interest in WW I, i'd prefer it to be stand-alone. my gaming dollars are kind of tight, so if i had to get two books to play, it would be a few months before i'd be ready (buy one, wait a few months, then buy the second).

I also have no interest in WWI.

Thanks, Halfjack & Geezer! It increasingly looks like a full game for WWII plus a supplement for those who bought the WWI game is the way to go.

-clash

(rubs hands together, eagerly awaiting release day) :D

It's going to be called In Harm's Way: Aces and Angels.

-clash

Here's the cover:

(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/AcesAndAngels.jpg)

-clash

nice!  i look forward to seeing it in my grubby paws and on my bookshelf :D

any rough ETA?

Quote from: beebernice!  i look forward to seeing it in my grubby paws and on my bookshelf :D

any rough ETA?

Soon, actually! I've got an immense amount of work done for it, and am in the process of putting it together. Where work needs to be done is re-writing the intro, organizing a bibliography, and statting out all the non-fighters - a trivial task, but time consuming. I need to stat out vehicles! Also illos! I have a crap-load of e-painting to do!

I've finished the individual dogfighting sheets for the 56 fighter planes covered, character generation, the new dogfighting rules with new diagrams, a new section covering airfields and aircraft carriers, and a bunch of small stuff. Some stuff like SKills and the game mechanics section doesn't need rewriting.

It won't need much playtest as it's built on the Aces In Spades framework, which is thoroughly tested. I'd say late November. :D

-clash

cool!  it'll be available for the pearl anniversary, then?  excellent timing, mister bowley

Oooh! Excellent point beeber! I hadn't noticed that!

-clash

Forgive my naivite.

Is this an RPG or a wargame?  I'd been assuming it's a wargame.

Quote from: Old GeezerForgive my naivite.

Is this an RPG or a wargame?  I'd been assuming it's a wargame.

An RPG, Geezer. Is that a problem? Pundit reviewed the WWI version of the game here (http://www.therpgsite.com/node/683?).

-clash

Not a problem, no, but it is a different sort of game.

Quote from: flyingmiceAn RPG, Geezer. Is that a problem? Pundit reviewed the WWI version of the game here (http://www.therpgsite.com/node/683?).

-clash

"Plus it has one of the smoothest aerial combat systems I've ever seen, without being either too simplistic or stupidly complex."

Well, that's enough for me.  I hope you forgive me if I use it as a WW2 air combat wargame.

Quote from: Old Geezer"Plus it has one of the smoothest aerial combat systems I've ever seen, without being either too simplistic or stupidly complex."

Well, that's enough for me.  I hope you forgive me if I use it as a WW2 air combat wargame.

Actually, several people said I should make a wargame out of it. Let me know what you think of it! :D

-clash

Maybe this is drifting a little, but what will your game do as an RPG besides be an excuse to get in planes and shoot each other done?  As a premise for an RPG it doesn't really sing to me -- I'm not sure what the characters do between missions except get a lot of much needed sleep or booze it up and I'm not sure what the GM brings to the table either.  Are there really stories in there to be played?

I'm interested because I've tried it before with WW1, WW2, and things like Car Wars and the RPG was always kind of an appendix to the tactical wargame.  Inevitably it was more fun to write scenarios and run fights and maybe use the RPG rules to give characters increasing abilities over time.

So tell me about your two aerial games -- I want to believe!

Quote from: HalfjackMaybe this is drifting a little, but what will your game do as an RPG besides be an excuse to get in planes and shoot each other done?  As a premise for an RPG it doesn't really sing to me -- I'm not sure what the characters do between missions except get a lot of much needed sleep or booze it up and I'm not sure what the GM brings to the table either.  Are there really stories in there to be played?

I'm interested because I've tried it before with WW1, WW2, and things like Car Wars and the RPG was always kind of an appendix to the tactical wargame.  Inevitably it was more fun to write scenarios and run fights and maybe use the RPG rules to give characters increasing abilities over time.

So tell me about your two aerial games -- I want to believe!

I ran a fairly long playtest with Aces In Spades, about three to four months. The game uses troupe play, where you have three characters - a pilot, another officer, and an enlisted man - all working in the same outfit. The pilots had several ground adventures - like capturing an enemy fighter which had landed in a field, getting caught in a truck convoy that was being strafed, capturing a couple of spies, and one pilot got married to a local French woman, and helped clear the name of her parents, who were executed as German spies before the war. Two other pilots got established with local girls as well. They also caught another English pilot who had been lying about his kills, gathered evidence for the Major, and got him sent home in disgrace.

The troupe also got into action several times. The best was when they went out looking for the harp to the officer's club piano - which the Major liked to play, and the departing supply officer had traded for toilet paper. They took a truck to a bombed out town to loot a harp from a bordello or bar there, and came across five English deserters who had fled there and were living on human flesh once their food ran out. That was a tense situation!

I'd say it was about 50-50 between adventures in the air and on the ground. My group loved their characters, and didn't want to end the campaign, but I had another game to playtest.

-clash

That sounds pretty cool -- can you talk a little about how the game sets up that kind of action either mechanically or through GM advice?  I just know I'd be at a loss so I'd be looking for tons of guidance (mechanical or otherwise) to get a game off the ground.

Quote from: HalfjackThat sounds pretty cool -- can you talk a little about how the game sets up that kind of action either mechanically or through GM advice?  I just know I'd be at a loss so I'd be looking for tons of guidance (mechanical or otherwise) to get a game off the ground.

There's the whole Notice mechanic - this drives promotion. To get promoted, you have to get noticed by your CO by doing something cool or displaying your competence. You compete with your fellow PCs for notice from the CO. Notice is given in character by the CO.

There are suggestions for using the Notice mechanic by toadying, cutting down your fellows, and/or doing the stupid thing for honor.

THere's the Honor/Practicality mechanic, where you can add your honor or practicality score to any applicable TN. Honor and Practicality together add up to twenty, so the higher you push one, the lower the other goes. You add honor when dealing with superiors, using the Leadership skill, dealing with Society, etc. You add practicality when dealing with criminals or low-lifes, using the Discipline skill, dealing with corrupted officials, etc.

In Aces And Angels, I'm adding optional freeform personality traits, where the player can define personality traits and give them points, which are used up whenever the player wants to drive up the TN on any task where the trait suits the task.

The characters have a Luck resource which allows them to dictate a scene for one minute game time, within certain reasonable limits - you can't use it to actually harm anyone, you can't use it out of genre, and you can't use it to dictate the actions of other PCs. This is a character bound resource, purchased at chargen.

Characters are given two free skills and access to others if they take up certain hobbies. One of the PCs was a superb musician, for example, a pianist. He was the Major the Troupe characters were finding the piano harp for.

Aerodromes vary wildly in equipment and in housing - randomly if you want. The players tend to use this as opportunity for scavenging. They hate living like grubs, and the machines necessary to fix their planes are vital.

The squadron maintains trucks, autos, and motorcycles for the use of the pilots and crew, so they aren't tied to the base.

Characters have extensive background skills tied to their culture and lifestyle. Where skills are available, players tend to want to use them.

There are short guidelines for various playstyle options, like Notice being awarded by the players rather than the GM, No competition playstyle where the players vote for who advances, moving back and forth in time with prequels and foreshadowing - both player and GM initiated - and GM Fiat games.

Despite all this, its a very traditional game. Pundit says so. :D

-clash

Ghaa! Almost forgot! There's a big section on generating NPCs with goals, resources, and missions of their own, along with readymade opponents for the PCs to fight, all designed for quick generation, either randomly or not. This is great for inspiration.

-clash

This sounds pretty wonderful, even given Pundit's recommendation!  Thanks, Clash.

Quote from: HalfjackThis sounds pretty wonderful, even given Pundit's recommendation!  Thanks, Clash.

You're very welcome! :D

-clash

so does this really support front-line campaigns?  or can you run, say, the battle of britain, then continue into the air war in the european theater?  do you give campaign ideas for an island-hopping pacific theme?  

i would think the "notice" mechanic would work much better in an area with an active front, as opposed to a offensive / new front / support sort of campaign.

Quote from: beeberso does this really support front-line campaigns?  or can you run, say, the battle of britain, then continue into the air war in the european theater?  do you give campaign ideas for an island-hopping pacific theme?  

i would think the "notice" mechanic would work much better in an area with an active front, as opposed to a offensive / new front / support sort of campaign.

I intend to, but you do realize it's not finished yet. :D

We'll see how it works out in play starting tomorrow.

-clash

The playtest started Saturday, and went - very - well! The Players were ferrying in new F-4F Wildcats into Pearl on Dec. 7, when they heard all kinds of wierd on their radios, finally figuring out that Pearl had been attacked. As they came up on the coast, they saw a couple dozen Vals at 7500 meters. Four of them attacked from 10500 meters in a dive, while two flew top cover. Six escorting zeros dove at them from 10000 meters, the zero's ceiling, and the two top cover Wildcats dove on the zeros. A wild dogfight ensued. One wildcat ditched, and four zeros were smoked. Three vals also were shot down. The japs weren't expecting planes behind them...

They set down on Ford Island after getting greeted by wild AA fire from everything in the harbor, their ferried wildcats riddled with bullets and frag. They were patched up by nurses at the base hospital - doctors were too busy with REAL problems. They spent the next week rescuing sailors trapped inside warships, patching up the facilities, dating nurses, and flying patrols over the island. Their ship, the USS Maui, was forced to stay out of Pearl while the Enterprise took on fuel and supplies - can't have two carriers helpless in port at the same time! We left off with them about to rejoin the Maui.

Word from the players was it was especially awesome! Three of them took special pains to let me know. The fight went very well - as expected, the Zeros were acrobatic, but became torches with a good hit, the Wildcats soaked damage like crazy, and the Vals were tough customers. Good show all around! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWord from the players was it was especially awesome! Three of them took special pains to let me know. The fight went very well - as expected, the Zeros were acrobatic, but became torches with a good hit, the Wildcats soaked damage like crazy, and the Vals were tough customers. Good show all around! :D

-clash

Congrats clash!!  Always great when games go well, but when they actually let you know that they enjoyed the game...  very cool man!!  Sounds like a great new addition to your stable of games.

Quote from: cnath.rmCongrats clash!!  Always great when games go well, but when they actually let you know that they enjoyed the game...  very cool man!!  Sounds like a great new addition to your stable of games.

Thanks! I'm getting excited about this! :D

Maybe you can tell... :P

-clash

Wow, that sounds like a good playtest, Clash. Count me in as intrigued!

How is the troupe-style play set up, exactly? On a per-squadron basis? If so, will you have sample squadrons in the book? Would one expect the sort of high attrition rates seen in, say, the Battle of Britain, or are PC pilots exceptionally skilled and/or robust? If you're going the 'realistic' route, how are you handling green replacements vs. veteran pilots (if balance is even an issue you care about)?

How about mechanical issues with the planes? Are there rules for breakdowns (or, for that matter, specific combat damage issues (oil leaks, fuel leaks, fire, etc.)). Is there any advantage to having a crack ground crew and a top-notch quarter-master? Are there rules for acquiring that sort of personnel, or is it handled strictly through in-game roleplaying?

On a side note (and I don't know how far along you are with this stuff) I would totally do the layout and design in a hardcore WWII military manual style. That would OOZE flavor! Lots of computer flight sims have gone that route, or you could even look to something like the Fallout CRPG for inspiration. Just a thought.

Sorry for all the questions (especially if they've been answered up-thread).

Tim

Quote from: TimWow, that sounds like a good playtest, Clash. Count me in as intrigued!

Thanks! We'll be exploring this more in depth as time goes on. Next week is Wake Island.

QuoteHow is the troupe-style play set up, exactly? On a per-squadron basis? If so, will you have sample squadrons in the book?

Troupe play uses a three-tiered Squadron-based setup. The player has a main pilot character, a squadron officer - chaplain, supply officer, recording officer, armament officer, etc., and an enlisted specialist - mechanic, machinist, plane rigger, clerk, cook, etc.

Since I'm opening the game up to let the squadron be from USA, UK, Japan, Germany, USSR, or Italy, I can't get into specifics about squadrons, which vary from country to country. The squadron officers are listed by function, not title. There will always be someone who deals with forms and requisitions, no matter what he is called. Each type of possible troupe character has a function in the squadron, a pool of skills to draw on, and a typical example youcan use right out of the book.

QuoteWould one expect the sort of high attrition rates seen in, say, the Battle of Britain, or are PC pilots exceptionally skilled and/or robust? If you're going the 'realistic' route, how are you handling green replacements vs. veteran pilots (if balance is even an issue you care about)?

Green pilots, who come into play straight from the pilot training program, will have a substantially higher attrition rate than veteran pilots. I gave my PCs a couple of years as pilots before the war started - I should explain that character progression is by time, not XP - which is enough time to master their jobs. Any replacements would, of course, be green.

QuoteHow about mechanical issues with the planes? Are there rules for breakdowns (or, for that matter, specific combat damage issues (oil leaks, fuel leaks, fire, etc.)). Is there any advantage to having a crack ground crew and a top-notch quarter-master? Are there rules for acquiring that sort of personnel, or is it handled strictly through in-game roleplaying?

There are rules for breakdowns, and limited rules for specific combat damage - Lucky Shots - but generally, as your plane absorbs damage, it's flying qualities deteriorate across the board.

A crack ground crew will keep your plane in better repair, lessening chances for breakdowns. A crack Supply Officer will improve living conditions over time, etc.

QuoteOn a side note (and I don't know how far along you are with this stuff) I would totally do the layout and design in a hardcore WWII military manual style. That would OOZE flavor! Lots of computer flight sims have gone that route, or you could even look to something like the Fallout CRPG for inspiration. Just a thought.

Sorry for all the questions (especially if they've been answered up-thread).

Tim

I haven't the technical chops in layout to even attempt anything as fancy as that. At best I can do clean and readable. I'm rather infamous for that... :P

Sounds really sweet.

Quote from: Old GeezerSounds really sweet.

Glad you're still in here reading, Geezer! :D

-clash

Thanks for the rundown!

You're very welcome, Tim! Thank you for asking! Those were all good questions.

-clash

Here's how I'm thinking maintenance will work in Aces And Angels, and I'd appreciate any feedback:

Each plane model is given a Maintenance rating, ranging from 11 to 35. This number depends on the general ruggedness, simplicity, and ease of maintenance for that type of plane.

From this you deduct:

Your service's Logistics rating, which varies depending on the nation.
Your Ground Crew rating.
Your Supply Officer's rating.

The Logistics rating is the availability of spare parts in the normal pipeline. This varies from 0 to 4 depending on the nation:

USA 4
UK 3
Germany 3
USSR 2
Italy 1
Japan 1

Advance bases subtract 2 from this number, with 0 being the minimum.  

The Ground Crew rating is the ability of the crew to assess, maintain, and repair damage. It will be one of Green (1) Veteran (2) or Crack (3) and can be raised by training and lowered by dilution.

The Supply Officer rating is the ability of the Squadron Supply Officer to find spare parts out of the normal channels, trading toilet paper with another squadron for piston rings, for example. It will be one of Green (1) Veteran (2) or Crack (3) and if the SO is a Troupe PC, can be based on his skills.

Thus the positive modifiers max at 10, with a minimum of 2.

The GM rolls d% for each plane, each sortie. If the roll is equal to or under the modified Maintenance Rating, that plane will develop trouble that sortie - GM discretion as to what type of trouble develops.

How does this sound?

-clash

looks good so far.  

why would min. be 0 (logistics/adv. bases) if IT & JP start at 1?  shouldn't they be allowed to go to -1, to then be offset by good support crews?  then the overall minimum will still be 1.

just a thought

Quote from: beeberlooks good so far.  

why would min. be 0 (logistics/adv. bases) if IT & JP start at 1?  shouldn't they be allowed to go to -1, to then be offset by good support crews?  then the overall minimum will still be 1.

just a thought

Thanks, beeber!

My thinking was that the Logistics supply line logically can't be negative - that would entail actively removing supplies, not just not supporting bases. Does that make sense?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGlad you're still in here reading, Geezer! :D

-clash

I've been looking for a decent WW2 aircraft wargame since 1971.  Of COURSE I'm still here.

:p

Maybe have a modifier for pilot skill/experience to reflect being able to nurse a plane back to base and avoid rookie mistakes like operating the plane on WEP for too long, stressing the airframe too much, or otherwise mechanically abusing the aircraft?

Quote from: TimMaybe have a modifier for pilot skill/experience to reflect being able to nurse a plane back to base and avoid rookie mistakes like operating the plane on WEP for too long, stressing the airframe too much, or otherwise mechanically abusing the aircraft?

Got it, Tim! Thanks! :D

-clash

Quote from: Old GeezerI've been looking for a decent WW2 aircraft wargame since 1971.  Of COURSE I'm still here.

:p

Here's hoping Aces And Angels fits the bill. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGot it, Tim! Thanks! :D

-clash

You're welcome!

Of course, the other side of the coin is letting the player choose to do all those bad things to his aircraft in order to gain a performance bonus at the risk of breaking something. There are some pretty interesting choices there, especially in context of something like the British forces at the nadir/zenith (depending on what side you're on) of the Battle of Britain. Something like trying to gain Notice by making a tactical decision that is, ultimately, strategically bad. Or is that too much of a forgey tangent?

Quote from: TimYou're welcome. Of course, the other side of the coin is letting the player choose to do all those bad things to his aircraft in order to gain a performance bonus at the risk of breaking something. Or is that too forgey?

Nope! It fits right in with the system, actually. For example, you can already push points from chance of success (in combat AKA to hit) to quality of success (in combat AKA damage) and vice versa, effectively giving the player character abstract tactical choices without overhead. Say your skill + your position gives you an 80% chance to hit. You can push say 20 points from to hit to damage, giving you a 60% chance to hit, and 20 more points of damage. This effectively does the same thing, using the same pre-existing mechanism. Say you are in combat. You can horse your machine around, gaining an arbitrary bonus - say +20 - to your maneuver. Doing so cues the GM to make a Maintenance check with a corresponding +20. If you are nursing your battered crate back to base, make a skill check with another arbitrary bonus - say -20 - and the GM is cued to make another Maintenance check with the same -20 modifier.

Again, great idea! Luckily I could stretch the existing mechanics to cover it.

-clash

Quote from: TimYou're welcome!

Of course, the other side of the coin is letting the player choose to do all those bad things to his aircraft in order to gain a performance bonus at the risk of breaking something. There are some pretty interesting choices there, especially in context of something like the British forces at the nadir/zenith (depending on what side you're on) of the Battle of Britain. Something like trying to gain Notice by making a tactical decision that is, ultimately, strategically bad. Or is that too much of a forgey tangent?

If you can point to a historical example to support it, go for it!  People make suboptimal decisions in warfare all the time!

Cool beans, Clash. Sounds like you've got that sort of thing covered.

Quote from: Old GeezerIf you can point to a historical example to support it, go for it!  People make suboptimal decisions in warfare all the time!

Yeah, I don't have any particular sources to cite (or the time to find them, right now), but I can't imagine pilots not abusing their machines to get that extra bit of performance in a life-or-death situation.

As far as the Battle of Britain stuff, Len Deighton's book on the subject (which, I believe, is creatively titled "The Battle of Britain") goes on and on about the troubles the RAF had keeping machines in the air and qualified pilots to fly them during the period when the Luftwaffe was heavily targeting airfields. Darkest hour, and all that.

In fact, McGuire paid the ultimate price when he made a disasterous tactical decision, counting on his immense skill. He did not lose his drop tanks while attempting to perform a difficult maneuver in a dogfight with an Oscar 300 feet above Cebu in the Phillipines.

-clash

More questions, Clash.

How are you handling situational awareness? Does the plane's construction enter into the equation (Bubble-canopied P-51s vs. a FW-190, with it's big-assed metal plate behind the pilots head)? Or is that just waaaaaay too fiddly?

How about tactics? Will real-life successful tactics produce 'realistic' in-game results? Would you handle such a thing with a separate ability, or is it subsumed within other stats/skills?

godDAMN i can't wait for this to come out!

no pressure, clash.  :D

good questions, tim, thanks for chiming in!

Quote from: Old GeezerIf you can point to a historical example to support it, go for it!  People make suboptimal decisions in warfare all the time!

According to anecdote, Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire both used to return to base with their P-38s warped to hell by the violent maneuvering they employed. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia, but I originally read this in a book:

"The American ace of aces and his closest competitor both flew Lightnings as they tallied 40 and 38 victories each. Majors Richard I. "Dick" Bong and Thomas J. "Tommy" McGuire of the USAAF competed for the top position, a rivalry made interesting by the contrast in personalities of the two men. Both Bong and McGuire were unbelievably aggressive and fearless in the air. After dogfights, their P-38s would be warped out of shape by overstress."

-clash

Quote from: TimMore questions, Clash.

How are you handling situational awareness? Does the plane's construction enter into the equation (Bubble-canopied P-51s vs. a FW-190, with it's big-assed metal plate behind the pilots head)? Or is that just waaaaaay too fiddly?

Situational awareness is covered by two separate skills: Observation and Alertness.

Alertness covers catching sight of something new - a peripheral sense. You use this skill to aquire new targets

Observation covers keeping sight of something you are focusing on - an attention sense. You use this skill to follow a target already aquired.

I think a plane-based modifier may be realistic, but too fiddly. I may put it in the optional rules, though.

QuoteHow about tactics? Will real-life successful tactics produce 'realistic' in-game results? Would you handle such a thing with a separate ability, or is it subsumed within other stats/skills?

The Tactics skill gives your group a bonus to your initial attack, and can give you surprise if the other side fails their Tactics check. Once a dogfight is started, real life tactics, like a Thatch Weave, can be used by combining maneuvers.

-clash

Quote from: beebergodDAMN i can't wait for this to come out!

no pressure, clash.  :D

good questions, tim, thanks for chiming in!

Yes! Tim has been throwing in some excellent questions. :D

I just hope I can get this out by Pearl Harbor day... :O

-clash

quick one before i go to class:

rules for turret weapons, like on bombers or (IIRC) avengers?

Quote from: flyingmiceI think a plane-based modifier may be realistic, but too fiddly. I may put it in the optional rules, though.

I wasn't sure how the planes and pilots interact. Say, if the plane was sort of a template attached to the pilot's ability, such a thing would be pretty simple to handle, but if the interaction is more complicated than that, tracking the umpteen billion different versions of canopies would be a real pain in the ass! I like that you have separated out tracking and noticing things. They're certainly two different skills in flight sims (for whatever that's worth).

QuoteThe Tactics skill gives your group a bonus to your initial attack, and can give you surprise if the other side fails their Tactics check. Once a dogfight is started, real life tactics, like a Thatch Weave, can be used by combining maneuvers.

Cool. Sounds like an excellent way to handle tactics, to me.

I still think you should do the game up military flight-manual style, though. Maybe a normal book for the RPG portions and a small grungy tan book for air combat maneuvers, full of typewriter type, stark tables, shadow profiles of planes, and those cool maneuver diagrams. ;)

Quote from: beeberquick one before i go to class:

rules for turret weapons, like on bombers or (IIRC) avengers?

For simplicity, I separated mounts into one of three types - fixed (aimed by aiming the plane), flexible (like the tail gun in an SBD or the waist guns in a B17), and turreted. Fixed mount guns have no arc, and no penalty to Gunnery. Flexible mount guns have a small arc and a moderate penalty to Gunnery. Turret mount guns have the widest arc and the largest penalty.

Avengers had a .50 cal MG in a small turret on the dorsal side aft, and a ventral .30 cal on a flexible mount, in addition to two fixed mont .50 cals in the wings and one fixed mount .30 cal in the nose.

-clash

Quote from: TimI wasn't sure how the planes and pilots interact. Say, if the plane was sort of a template attached to the pilot's ability, such a thing would be pretty simple to handle, but if the interaction is more complicated than that, tracking the umpteen billion different versions of canopies would be a real pain in the ass! I like that you have separated out tracking and noticing things. They're certainly two different skills in flight sims (for whatever that's worth).

I'll post up a dogfighting sheet for a plane - maybe tomorrow. I don't have one with me now.

QuoteCool. Sounds like an excellent way to handle tactics, to me.

I still think you should do the game up military flight-manual style, though. Maybe a normal book for the RPG portions and a small grungy tan book for air combat maneuvers, full of typewriter type, stark tables, shadow profiles of planes, and those cool maneuver diagrams. ;)

If I could pull it off, I would! :D

-clash

I forgot to send myself a new WWII dogfighting sheet, but since the old WWI sheets are almost the same, I'll use one of those for a SPAD VII. Hopefully this will give you all a good idea of Aces dogfighting.

(http://jalan.flyingice.com/spadVII.jpg)

The box marked FUEL is your fuel tank. Place the appropriate number of chips/tokens (using different colors for different vales) in the box.

The arrow going diagonally out of fuel is labelled BURN. The square above the arrow shows the maximum number of fuel tokens you can push from your FUEL tank into IMMEDIATE. This initiates every turn.

The BURN arrow leads to the IMMEDIATE box. This is your engine. This is the energy you create every turn. It is a rough indicator of your your airspeed. If your IMMEDIATE box is empty, your turn ends.

The arrow leading to the left from the IMMEDIATE box is your CLIMB rating. By climbing, you are converting usable energy into potential energy. The CLIMB rating is the maximum you can climb per turn. When you climb, push this number of markers or less into the POTENTIAL box. Each token in the POTENTIAL box indicates 500 meters of altitude. The number in the square indicates the maximum number of tokens you can save in your POTENTIAL box, and thus your plane's ceiling. Any CLIMB maneuver ends your turn.

The arrow leading down from the IMMEDIATE box is the USE arrow. When you perform a maneuver, push the required number of tokens from IMMEDIATE into the MANEUVER box. Once the maneuver is complete, discard the tokens off the sheet via the WASTE arrow.

The arrow leading right from the POTENTIAL box to the IMMEDIATE box is the DIVE arrow. The number above is the DIVE rating. This is the maximum number of tokens that can be moved from POTENTIAL to IMMEDIATE per maneuver. Diving increases your available energy and your airspeed.

Along the lower left hand side of the sheet are various maneuvers, along with a number on either side. The number to the left of the maneuver is the cost in tokens to execute the maneuver. The number to the right of the maneuver is the modifier to your Pilot skill check. When you execute the maneuver, push the appropriate number of tokens from IMMEDIATE to MANEUVER, then make a Pilot skill check with the appropriate modifier. Certain simple maneuvers do not require a Pilot skill check.

MANEUV is a rating of the aircraft's maneuverability. You add this number to your Pilot skill check TN when executing any maneuver.

STABILITY is a rating of your aircraft's tendancy to fly straight. You add this number to your Pilot skill check when landing or taking off. and to your Gunnery skill check when firing.

MANEUV + STABILITY = 20. An increase in an aircraft's Maneuverability is a decrease in Stability, and vice versa.

The box on the lower right shows plane and pilot information. Constitution is the amount of damage you can take. Your aircraft's current constitution is the plane's FULL constitution, minus any damage taken.

FULL is the maximum constitution. If your aircraft's current constitution is between FULL and HINDERED, you have no penalty.

HINDERED is 3/4 of FULL. If your aircraft's current constitution is below the HINDERED level, you have a -20 modifier to all Pilot skill checks.

SHOT UP is 1/2 of FULL. If your aircraft's current constitution is below the SHOT UP level, you have a -30 modifier to all Pilot skill checks.

SMOKING is 1/4 of FULL. If your aircraft's current constitution is below the SMOKING level, you have a -40 modifier to all Pilot skill checks.

To the right of the constitution information is a small box showing the general sequence of turns.

You can perform any number of maneuvers - except climbs - in a turn if you have the energy. Any climbing maneuver ends the turn. Any excess tokens in IMMEDIATE are discarded to WASTE.

Gunnery may happen at any time there is a firing solution during maneuvers.

-clash

For some reason, that image didn't appear. I'll try again:

(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/spadVII.jpg)

-clash

Ummm... Did I break some brains there? I was expecting loud derisive laughter...

-clash

No laughter here -- that's a pretty elegant little energy management machine you built there.  I'm going to like this game.

same here!  can't wait to try it out!

(sorry, a bit busy here at work.  i can look at it more later, when i get home :keke:  )

Glad you guys are still with me! :D

-clash

okay, upon perusal of the chart, that's some system you've come up with!  at first glance it seems pretty crazy, but with the explanation in the previous post, it makes sense.  i guess the values for things like constitution, fuel, etc. will be higher in the new one?

Quote from: beeberokay, upon perusal of the chart, that's some system you've come up with!  at first glance it seems pretty crazy, but with the explanation in the previous post, it makes sense.  i guess the values for things like constitution, fuel, etc. will be higher in the new one?

Hi beeber!

Fuel, yes. WWII planes can just do so much more. However, I rescaled damage and constitution because the math was getting unweildy with the more powerful weapons and higher constitutions. I talked about that earlier in the thread, post #28 on this page (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7759&page=3). You appeared just after that, so you may not have read it. :D

-clash

ah yes, i remember now.  i had forgotten that part of the thread already!  piss-poor short-term memory sometimes.

Quote from: beeberah yes, i remember now.  i had forgotten that part of the thread already!  piss-poor short-term memory sometimes.

At least I have an excuse, being a former musician. I remember the eighties! No... wait! That was the seventies! :D

-clash

Well, the second playtest session went very well again! The PCs used and abused their planes, horsing them around the sky, and causing two mechanicsl failures - a busted rudder and a wrecked aileron. The PCs decided to ignore history again, and the session ended up in alt.history - they took on the second invasion fleet at Wake Island and drove them off. The PCs refused a recall to Pearl which would have left the Marines on Pearl in the lurch and managed to convince the Captain of the Maui to go along, using their Troupe characters social skills. They came up with a plan to hit the fleet from the southeast, as the Japanese carriers were well north of Wake, while the covering surface fleet and troopships came in from the south.

Now comes the consequenses of their decision. Will their heroic decision rebound to their credit or debit? They refused a direct order and succeeded. In real life, the Enterprise task force was recalled and went home, the marines resisted heroically and eventually surrendered, and most of them didn't survive.

Interesting! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNow comes the consequenses of their decision. Will their heroic decision rebound to their credit or debit? They refused a direct order and succeeded. In real life, the Enterprise task force was recalled and went home, the marines resisted heroically and eventually surrendered, and most of them didn't survive.

If nothing else, should the players pilots be shot down, the jar heads might be more likely to want to help recover them. :) Sounds like a really fun session.

Quote from: cnath.rmIf nothing else, should the players pilots be shot down, the jar heads might be more likely to want to help recover them. :) Sounds like a really fun session.

It wasn't for want of trying! Two of them survived terrible hits on their planes from 40mm AA, and one was set afire and almost destroyed when his bombs hit an amunition store on a cruiser and flew through the blast. He managed to crash-land on Wake, and his wingman flew him back to the Maui. The session was a blast! I 'suffered' from GM high for hours afterward. :D

I do think the Maui has earned the friendship of the leathernecks forever, whatever else happens.

-clash

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. :D

-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. :D

-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. :D

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! :D

-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. . . .

Sorry for the hijack, but did you guys catch this?  I thought it was interesting.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/ap_lostp38_071114/

Pete

nice find, pete!  thanks!

Clash, I am wondering if you might return to the naval-war genre for WWII along with the Aces and Angels RPG.  Your air-combat system would be great for simulating one of my favorite "genres" of WWII navy combat: the small-craft operations of the Commonwealth MTB/MGB's and the US PT boats.  Portraying the crew of a Fairmile "Dog" boat hunting coastal convoys in the Med or a PT boat conveying a Marine raiding party in the Pacific would be a great mix of vehicle combat and roleplaying.  It might even be scaled up to destroyer or submarine operations.

Quote from: pspahnSorry for the hijack, but did you guys catch this?  I thought it was interesting.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/ap_lostp38_071114/

Pete

HI Pete!

A buddy of mine sent me the link this morning. Thanks for the thought, though! :D

-clash

Quote from: SamarkandClash, I am wondering if you might return to the naval-war genre for WWII along with the Aces and Angels RPG.  Your air-combat system would be great for simulating one of my favorite "genres" of WWII navy combat: the small-craft operations of the Commonwealth MTB/MGB's and the US PT boats.  Portraying the crew of a Fairmile "Dog" boat hunting coastal convoys in the Med or a PT boat conveying a Marine raiding party in the Pacific would be a great mix of vehicle combat and roleplaying.  It might even be scaled up to destroyer or submarine operations.

Good idea, Samarkand!

Actually, I've started work on In Harm's Way: Pigboat, about WWII subs. PT/MT/E Boats would be a natural extension! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGood idea, Samarkand!

Actually, I've started work on In Harm's Way: Pigboat, about WWII subs. PT/MT/E Boats would be a natural extension! :D

-clash

    I thought you'd have a sub game in the works.  Along with carrier ops and PT boats, they're the iconic image of the WWII navies.  Question: will this be strictly sub-oriented, or will there be "equal time" for the sub hunting boats? I have a particular fondness for Canada's contribution during the Battle of the Atlantic: the RCN "Flower" class corvettes which accompanied the convoys to Britain.  It was a hell of a way to fight.  The Brits designed the Flowers for coastal work, but by necessity used them as long-range ocean escorts.  The RCN used them because they could be built quickly by our own shipyards.  It was a thankless task to deal with such a tiny ship in winter Atlantic storms.  There was a saying that a Flower would "roll on wet grass".

    A couple of books for inspiration on the Motor Gunboat and Motor Torpedo Boat are "Champagne Navy" and "Gunboat 658".   Both deal with a particular flotilla of gunboats--the Canadian-commanded Fairmile "Dog" gunboats of the Med--that got into a fair few scraps.  Hunting coastal convoys at the time was no joke.  One nasty German surprise was the "flak lighter"--a barge with a shallow draft impossible to sink with torpedoes and armed with 88's in concrete emplacements!

Quote from: SamarkandI thought you'd have a sub game in the works.  Along with carrier ops and PT boats, they're the iconic image of the WWII navies.  Question: will this be strictly sub-oriented, or will there be "equal time" for the sub hunting boats? I have a particular fondness for Canada's contribution during the Battle of the Atlantic: the RCN "Flower" class corvettes which accompanied the convoys to Britain.  It was a hell of a way to fight.  The Brits designed the Flowers for coastal work, but by necessity used them as long-range ocean escorts.  The RCN used them because they could be built quickly by our own shipyards.  It was a thankless task to deal with such a tiny ship in winter Atlantic storms.  There was a saying that a Flower would "roll on wet grass".

Ah, yes! The Flower Class was beautifully portrayed in Nicholas Monerrat's The Cruel Sea in the Compass Rose. A marvellous book, BTW. I don't know yet, as I'm not far along enough to know exactly how much territory I need to cover. The Germans put out a tremendous variety of U-Boats, for example. If I have room, I can cover them in the main book. More likely, it would be a supplement.

QuoteA couple of books for inspiration on the Motor Gunboat and Motor Torpedo Boat are "Champagne Navy" and "Gunboat 658".   Both deal with a particular flotilla of gunboats--the Canadian-commanded Fairmile "Dog" gunboats of the Med--that got into a fair few scraps.  Hunting coastal convoys at the time was no joke.  One nasty German surprise was the "flak lighter"--a barge with a shallow draft impossible to sink with torpedoes and armed with 88's in concrete emplacements!

Thanks for the references! The Japanese used the same trick in the Pacific. They loaded freighters with ping pong balls and other unsinkable cargo, piled them with guns, then put them out in convoys. The sub commanders called them "Q Ships" after the heavily armed disguised merchantmen Britain put out during WWI.

-clash

clash, you have a reference for the ping-pong ball thing?  that's some crazy shit, there!  

sounds like something a player would come up with. . . .

Any chance for a tank-oriented variant?  "In Harms Way: Blood and Steel"?  A tank crew approximates the traditional four-person adventuring party.  And I could see an "Ostfront" campaign--you start as a green crew driving your newly-built (and unpainted!) T-34 right out of the factory in Stalingrad into combat.  Then on to Kursk, Seelow Heights, and Berlin...

   On a slight tangent, anyone here ever listen to Rammstein's "Du Hast" and have a sudden urge to drive a Panzer into France?

Quote from: beeberclash, you have a reference for the ping-pong ball thing?  that's some crazy shit, there!  

sounds like something a player would come up with. . . .

It's actually from Ned Beach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_L._Beach%2C_Jr.)'s classic sub novel, Run Silent, Run Deep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Silent%2C_Run_Deep#Novel_plot). He was an officer on the Trigger and executive officer on the Tirant and later commanded the USS Piper just as the war ended, he earned the Navy Cross as well as 9 other decorations for gallantry, and was a noted Naval historian. I figure he knew what he was talking about. RSRD drew heavily on his wartime experiences, as did the sequel, Dust on the Sea. In other places, historians refer to the Q-ships as having flotation objects as cargo, but they are not specified.

-clash

Quote from: SamarkandAny chance for a tank-oriented variant?  "In Harms Way: Blood and Steel"?  A tank crew approximates the traditional four-person adventuring party.  And I could see an "Ostfront" campaign--you start as a green crew driving your newly-built (and unpainted!) T-34 right out of the factory in Stalingrad into combat.  Then on to Kursk, Seelow Heights, and Berlin...

   On a slight tangent, anyone here ever listen to Rammstein's "Du Hast" and have a sudden urge to drive a Panzer into France?

Lord! I'd love to, but I'm only a one man shop! :D

-clash

Heh, yeah, I know.  All in good time!  :D

      Just out of curiosity, are the Il-2 Shturmovik and PO-2 biplane part of the Soviet line up?  The latter brings up the possibility of an all-female Ostfront campaign in one of the Night Witch squadrons.

Quote from: SamarkandHeh, yeah, I know.  All in good time!  :D

      Just out of curiosity, are the Il-2 Shturmovik and PO-2 biplane part of the Soviet line up?  The latter brings up the possibility of an all-female Ostfront campaign in one of the Night Witch squadrons.

As attack craft, they will be covered, but not with a dogfighting sheet. The game is oriented on the fighters, but many attack planes are also covered. There will be a blank dogfighting sheet to adapt such planes if you want.

-clash

Last night I used the Abstract tables, and they worked perfectly. The mission was the raid over New Guineas's Owen Stanley mountains on Lae. My players actually figured out to use thermals to get their sheperded Vindicators over the high passes - which is what actually happened. The PCs went out for air superiority, hunting down Oscars and protecting their charges, while the Vindicators and SBDs went after the shipping. I used the Abstract Bomb/Topedo table, and it worked to perfection. They lost 1 Vindicator and 2 SBDs to AA, the torpedoes ran mostly wild, and the SBDs sank a couple of cruisers and hammered a troopship, all about what was expected. The players began codifying new zoom and boom tactics rather than using their old dogfighting tactics.

I dropped two old WWI maneuvers, the Immelman and the Vertical 8, becasue only a few WWII fighters could do an Immelman, and none could do a Vertical 8. I've replaced them with the Chandelle and the Wingover. The game is getting there fast! :D

-clash

I've been vacillating back and forth on the late war jets - they were definitely there, but they were never a factor - so do I include them or not?  I had decided against it, but I've been rethinking it again, due to my players' open declaration of war upon history-as-it-was. The game may turn out quite different than it did in real life. I'm now thinking of including not only the 4 operational jets that made it to combat - the Me 262, the He 162, the Arado Blitz and the Glocester Meteor, but also the Me 163 and a few that could have been in combat should the game go into uncharted territories - the Horten/Gotha IX, the P-80 Shooting Star, the Ryan Fireball, and the Nakajima J9Y Japanese 262 copy. If I go ahead with this, I will be putting them in a separate section, as optional.

Thoughts?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI've been vacillating back and forth on the late war jets - they were definitely there, but they were never a factor - so do I include them or not?  I had decided against it, but I've been rethinking it again, due to my players' open declaration of war upon history-as-it-was. The game may turn out quite different than it did in real life. I'm now thinking of including not only the 4 operational jets that made it to combat - the Me 262, the He 162, the Arado Blitz and the Glocester Meteor, but also the Me 163 and a few that could have been in combat should the game go into uncharted territories - the Horten/Gotha IX, the P-80 Shooting Star, the Ryan Fireball, and the Nakajima J9Y Japanese 262 copy. If I go ahead with this, I will be putting them in a separate section, as optional.

Thoughts?

-clash

do it! :D  then i can run this:

http://www.luftwaffe1946.com/

Quote from: beeberdo it! :D  then i can run this:

http://www.luftwaffe1946.com/

Awesome! :D

-clash

You guys may enjoy this, what I think is the prettiest jet from WWII, the Heinkel 162 Salamander. I painted this for the cover of the jets section, finishing it up this morning.
(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/Salamander.jpg)

-clash

That's my new desk-top!

Incidentally, did they need the arrow to tell them which way to fly? :D

Quote from: One Horse TownThat's my new desk-top!

Incidentally, did they need the arrow to tell them which way to fly? :D

Thanks, Dan! I'll send you the larger version, then. This one is just for web display.

I really don't know why they put that arrow on, actually. Since all Salamanders that actually got into action were in the same squadron, it could be a squadron recognition thing. The red arrow is there in every photo or drawing of the little lizard I referenced. :P

-clash

Received and thanks! :)

No problem, Dan! The Salamader was so sweet and delicate looking! And a far better plane than it's given gredit for being. Like mathematics and horses, aesthetics are usually a good criterion for judging airplanes. :D

-clash

nice pic, clash!  i never knew it as the "salamander", only the 162.

i prefer the me262 for period jets--the twin engines just scream barely restrained power.

at least you didn't use the komet, eh?  :haw:

Quote from: beebernice pic, clash!  i never knew it as the "salamander", only the 162.

i prefer the me262 for period jets--the twin engines just scream barely restrained power.

at least you didn't use the komet, eh?  :haw:

Heh! The Komet was a brilliant toy. It had 8 minutes of fuel, but ooooh those eight minutes!

Salamander is one of the names it was known by, the name of the project it was created within. It's also called the "Volksjager" (People's Fighter) and the "Spatz" (Sparrow.) It had no official name, or even commonly-accepted unofficial name. Even the number (162) was borrowed from an old pre-war bomber concept that was never constructed, so as to confuse the Allies.

-clash

Added: I always thought the Me-262 looked brutal and shark-like. Menacing and powerful, yes. Pretty? Not!

Heres the dogfighting sheet tor the Grumman Wildcat. There's been some changes since the WWI game!

(http://jalan.flyingmice.com/Wildcat-DFS.JPG)

Note the different weapons listed between the Potential and Fuel boxes. The separate gun ratings are gathered together in the big box. Note that the Wildcat has 6 heavy MG, for 12 points.

Note Chandelle and Wingover replacing Immelman and Vertical Eight. Very few WWII plance could do an immelman in combat, let alone a Vertical 8!

Note the four boxes in the center, between Fuel and Maneuver labeled PA, RF, EF, and TA. These are protection boxes, respectively Pilot Armor, Rugged Frame, Extra-rugged Frame, and self-sealing TAnks.

If a plane is hit, the player can:

Allocate the damage to PA, in which case the pilot takes 1/10th the damage and the plane takes none.

Allocate the damage to RF or EF, in which case the plane's Maintenance Rating takes some damage rather than the plane.

Allocate  the damage to TA, in which case the plane loses some fuel but stays intact.

Not all planes have all of these features - the Zero, for example, had none. If a feature is not present on a plane, such as EF on the Wildcat, the player cannot allocate damage to the feature, and the box is filled with a ball.

When a feature is used by allocating damage to it, the player checks the box, which is not cleared until the plane is repaired. Features take one day each to be repaired.

Quote from: flyingmiceNote Chandelle and Wingover replacing Immelman and Vertical Eight. Very few WWII plance could do an immelman in combat,

Interesting.  What's your source for this info?

Quote from: Old GeezerInteresting.  What's your source for this info?

Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific by Eric Bergerud. Bergerud states that the Zero was one of the very few planes in WWII able to do an Immelman in combat. Plus, I haven't read of one pilot making an Immelman, whereas everyone seems to do Chandelles to gain altitude. Since a Vertical 8 is two stacked Immelmans, that would be right out.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceFire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific by Eric Bergerud. Bergerud states that the Zero was one of the very few planes in WWII able to do an Immelman in combat. Plus, I haven't read of one pilot making an Immelman, whereas everyone seems to do Chandelles to gain altitude. Since a Vertical 8 is two stacked Immelmans, that would be right out.

-clash

Well, allRIGHTY then.

That's cool.  Most games include Immelmans, including JD Webster's uber-detailed WW2 game.  (Imagine a cross between Air Force, SPI Air War, and Tractics, except klunky and unplayable).

Quote from: Old GeezerWell, allRIGHTY then.

That's cool.  Most games include Immelmans, including JD Webster's uber-detailed WW2 game.  (Imagine a cross between Air Force, SPI Air War, and Tractics, except klunky and unplayable).

If you can find references to immelmans in the literature, I'd be more than happy to include them, Geezer. :D

-clash

Well, played saturday and had another cool session. This time, though, we had our first long combat. The PCs were conducting a carrier raid on Rabaul, just recently snatched from the Australians. The fight was glorious, but took about an hour to complete. This is much longer than anything I had done yet. They came into Rabaul from the NE at dawn, at altitude 20 (10,000 m) with the four top cover Zeros at their altitude. This prevented any boom and zoom, which drew out the conflict with some wild dogfights. By the time they fought off the top cover, the low cover zeros had clawed up to altitude, and still no boom and zoom. The final mix up had one of the PCs up at altitude 22, another at 18, and at 20, three PCs sandwiching two zeros in a conga line - PC-Zero-PC-Zero-PC - coming together by chance effects of three separate dogfights.

The Wildcats won, but were shot to hell and gone. They had used up their Luck, and burned out every advantage. Meantime, the Torpeckers and SBDs pasted the airfield and the newly arrived Bettys and Zeros on the ground, and heavily damaged a cruiser in the harbor. They lost a Dauntless and two SBDs in the attack to AA - BTW, I had the players run the planes in, rather than doing it myself. All fighters returned, nursing their planes back to some nasty landings on the Maui. Unbeknownst to them, their next mission is another dawn raid on Kavieng, also recently seized from the Aussies. The next dawn, before they can get their wildcats repaired fully. :D

-clash

I forgot to mention - I tried out the PA/RF/EF/TA rules, and they worked to a T. The flight leader, for example, lost 20 fuel, had his rudder shot to ribbons and his Mainteneance up to 20, and was wounded by shrapnel coming through the pilot armor.

Another nice thing that's working out is that since leaders get a share of the Notice their people generate, the Flight leader is free to concentrate on keeping the group working together rather than going for kills. I have seen many times in the literature Flight or Squadron leaders with far fewer kills than their charges. That's working out wonderfully.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you can find references to immelmans in the literature, I'd be more than happy to include them, Geezer. :D

-clash

Oh, I'm PERFECTLY willing to believe your research is accurate.  I just think it's interesting that all these older games had it.

Of course, source material gets better every year.  That's both the joy and bane of being a historian.

Quote from: Old GeezerOh, I'm PERFECTLY willing to believe your research is accurate.  I just think it's interesting that all these older games had it.

Of course, source material gets better every year.  That's both the joy and bane of being a historian.

Perhaps they're thinking of the Immelman Turn, which by WWII had morphed into the Wingover? There's always been a bit of confusion between the Immelman and the Immelman Turn.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmicePerhaps they're thinking of the Immelman Turn, which by WWII had morphed into the Wingover? There's always been a bit of confusion between the Immelman and the Immelman Turn.

-clash

Really?

Tell me more.

The Immelman is a Half Loop Up combined with a Half Roll, with the plane ending up directly above it's starting position, with its course rotated 180 degrees. This is an acrobatic maneuver, wrongly attributed to Max Immelman of the Great War.

An Immelman Turn is the combat maneuver Max Immelman actually used, pulling the plane up almost into a stall, then kicking the rudder hard over to spin the craft around and dive back down into the enemy, reversing directions and ending up at the starting position at the same altitude, but 180 degrees reversed.

By WWII, due to the higher wing loading and stall speeds of the aircraft then current, this had morphed into the Wingover, where the pilot pulls the aircraft up and simultaneously turns, eventually turning from a climb into a dive, then pulling out at the starting level, on a course parallel to but reversed 180 degrees from the original course. This maintains energy much better than an Immelman Turn. It looks like railroad tracks united by a vertical "U".

If you continue the dive before flattening out, the Wingover becomes a Half Cuban Eight, the typical strafing pattern.

-clash

Cool.

I was afraid I was teaching my grandmother to suck eggs there... :D

-clash

I've set up a Yahoo Group - In Harm's Way:Aces (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/InHarmsWayAces/) - for Aces in Spades or Aces And Angels. If you're interested in joining, just follow the link. :D

-clash

I've set up the Aces And Angels (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/aaa.html) page in preparation for the release of the game. Does the ad copy look decent?

-clash

yup, very nice.  not too busy, just enough info.

I finished Aces And Angels last night, compiling the pdf at 2 in the morning. Rather than posting it up for sale, I sent it to myself at the office, intending to post it up there, That was a very smart move! I managed to butcher the TOC totally while bringing it down to Bill's one page recommendation. I don't know how I missed it last night! I tried to fix it in Acrobat Pro, but it was beyond redemption - A Pro's editing features are more sledgehammer than scalpel. I will have to fix it tonight and post it up when I've recompiled it.

-clash

hey, for all intents & purposes you made the Pearl anniversary in my book :keke:

congrats and :unitedstates: happy pearl remembrance day

Well, it's out now Beeber! A thank you is on its way!

-clash

And with still over 8 hours to spare!  :surfing:

Quote from: GunslingerAnd with still over 8 hours to spare!  :surfing:

Yep! I MADE it!

:D

-clash

Congrats!

Thanks, Dan! :D

-clash

Kudos on the release and making the deadline! :keke:

Yah! Congrats! So, what's your next project?;)

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeYah! Congrats! So, what's your next project?;)

I'm concurrently working on Glorianna for StarCluster and Commonwealth Space for Cold Space. My next IHW projects are Pigboats and Scum of the Earth.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI'm concurrently working on Glorianna for StarCluster and Commonwealth Space for Cold Space. My next IHW projects are Pigboats and Scum of the Earth.

"Extreme technology, morphing weapons, a Code Duello, elegant human courtiers, downshifted android peasants, uplifted animal shopkeepers, and a wildly inventive culture ruled over by the cloned Virgin Queen. Welcome to Glorianna!"
:cool: All checks for me! Though I'd likely try to use this for a blend of Blame!, Book of the New Sun, Instrumentality of Mankind and The Night Land. :haw: :eek: Cloned Virgin Queen -> Instrumentality Lord or high layer Safeguard gone amuck...

Pigboats - sub expansion? covering WWI-WWII?*

Scum of the Earth - Napoleonic land warfare?

* were there any sub conflicts between the wars, or if not theoretical conflicts that never came to pass? those could be fun too

Quote from: Casey777"Extreme technology, morphing weapons, a Code Duello, elegant human courtiers, downshifted android peasants, uplifted animal shopkeepers, and a wildly inventive culture ruled over by the cloned Virgin Queen. Welcome to Glorianna!"
:cool: All checks for me! Though I'd likely try to use this for a blend of Blame!, Book of the New Sun, Instrumentality of Mankind and The Night Land. :haw: :eek: Cloned Virgin Queen -> Instrumentality Lord or high layer Safeguard gone amuck...

Pigboats - sub expansion? covering WWI-WWII?*

Scum of the Earth - Napoleonic land warfare?

* were there any sub conflicts between the wars, or if not theoretical conflicts that never came to pass? those could be fun too

Pigboats will cover WWII only, for the same nations as covered in Aces And Angels, all of which had considerable sub fleets.

And you definitely know your Wellington if you recognize "Scum of the Earth!" I'll be writing that one with Kyle Aaron. :D

-clash

Just to add, I'll be working with Michael Scott on a new concept - In Harm's Way: Wild Blue, dealing with a modern mercenary air wing in a fictional country wedged between Kuwait and Iran, with a wierd mix of planes, helis, choppers, and people. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmicePigboats will cover WWII only, for the same nations as covered in Aces And Angels, all of which had considerable sub fleets.

And you definitely know your Wellington if you recognize "Scum of the Earth!" I'll be writing that one with Kyle Aaron. :D

Righto, makes sense and WWII subs are also fun.

I had watched Waterloo :pundit:  not long before and was looking up a certain other battle as well. :o Wellington and Waterloo aren't my Napoleonic favorites but that film is very fun and used to be on weekends sometimes back before cable really took over.

Quote from: flyingmicePigboats will cover WWII only, for the same nations as covered in Aces And Angels, all of which had considerable sub fleets.

And you definitely know your Wellington if you recognize "Scum of the Earth!" I'll be writing that one with Kyle Aaron. :D

-clash

So you mean that you will eventually be providing me with the means to play out the Sharpe series should I find players for such?!?! :D

Quote from: cnath.rmSo you mean that you will eventually be providing me with the means to play out the Sharpe series should I find players for such?!?! :D

King George commands and we obey, over the hills and far away!

:D

-clash

Totally off topic but:

Every damn time I see the thread title, I immedeatly think 'what does Clash want with a can opener?'

/insert imaginary pic of an army p-38 dogtag can opening device.

(http://www.georgia-outfitters.com/images/P38CanOpener.jpg)

Mad Props to Gunslinger for comin' through with the pic!

:D

Fun factoid: the army does not want paratroopers to wear said P-38 on their dogtags as they are afeared said paratroopers might stab themselves on it during a jump.  Nuisance injuries for the Win!

I imagine they don't want the other sort of p-38 on the dogtags either, but I bet it hasn't been an issue.... yet.

Quote from: flyingmiceKing George commands and we obey, over the hills and far away!

:D

-clash

One of the best songs for flavor ever added to a show imho. (although the "Though I may travel far from Spain..." verse still hits me harder due to the episode/movie it's in.)

Damn...  this is going to be where I will regret not knowing if those in my gaming group have any interest in military non-fantasy gaming...  Still...  

I'm almost wondering if we need to either have the title of the thread changed or have a new one entitled "The Kickass Cool Stuff Class is working on":D  Maybe that title idea, but with more C/K words.

Quote from: cnath.rmOne of the best songs for flavor ever added to a show imho. (although the "Though I may travel far from Spain..." verse still hits me harder due to the episode/movie it's in.)

Damn...  this is going to be where I will regret not knowing if those in my gaming group have any interest in military non-fantasy gaming...  Still...  

I'm almost wondering if we need to either have the title of the thread changed or have a new one entitled "The Kickass Cool Stuff Class is working on":D  Maybe that title idea, but with more C/K words.

I love the song - every time I watch a Sharpe's I end up singing it. For those not priviledged to know the song:

1   It's forty shillings on the drum
    To those who volunteer to come,
    To 'list and fight the foe today
    Over the Hills and far away.

Chorus:

    O'er the hills and o'er the main
    Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain.
    King George commands and we obey
    Over the hills and far away.

2   Through smoke and fire and shot and shell,
    And to the very walls of hell,
    But we shall stand and we shall stay
    Over the hills and far away

3   Now I may travel far from Spain
    A part of me shall still remain,
    And you are with me night and day
    and Over the hills and far away.

Beautiful verse, and such a sad, sad movie!

4   Then fall in lads behind the drum
    With colours blazing like the sun.
    Along the road to come what may
    Over the hills and far away.

5   When Evil stalks upon the land
    I'll neither hold nor stay me hand
    But fight to win a better day,
    Over the hills and far away.

6   If I should fall to rise no more,
    As many comrades did before,
    Ask the pipes and drums to play
    Over the hills and far away.

7   Let kings and tyrants come and go,
    I'll stand adjudged by what I know.
    A soldiers life I'll ne'er gainsay.
    Over the hills and far away.

-clash

Quote from: SpikeTotally off topic but:

Every damn time I see the thread title, I immedeatly think 'what does Clash want with a can opener?'

/insert imaginary pic of an army p-38 dogtag can opening device.

How else am I supposed to open my C Rations? :O

-clash

Quote from: SpikeMad Props to Gunslinger for comin' through with the pic!

:D

Fun factoid: the army does not want paratroopers to wear said P-38 on their dogtags as they are afeared said paratroopers might stab themselves on it during a jump.  Nuisance injuries for the Win!

I imagine they don't want the other sort of p-38 on the dogtags either, but I bet it hasn't been an issue.... yet.

Would be an interesting parachute... :D

-clash

Quote from: Gunslinger(http://www.georgia-outfitters.com/images/P38CanOpener.jpg)

I used to have one of those, Gunslinger, for when I went wilderness camping in me youth. It worked great at opening cans, and slitting up bark for tinder, and a bunch of other useful things. Now that I'm old and camping means inflatable beds, a gas grille, a multi-room tent, and enough gear to fill a van, I wonder how the heck I used to do that!

-clash

I wish I still had my old P-38 can opener.

I'd give my eye teeth to have a Lockheed P-38 too, but who wouldn't?

Quote from: Old GeezerI wish I still had my old P-38 can opener.

I'd give my eye teeth to have a Lockheed P-38 too, but who wouldn't?

I know where we can find several (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.huvard.com/adventures/images/images_b/lost/toddscared_p38.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huvard.com/adventures/lost/&h=426&w=280&sz=82&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=Eo7Q0uR-ZA1DLM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dp-38%2Bgreenland%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN), if we don't mind digging though a couple hundred feet of ice! :D

Quote from: SpikeFun factoid: the army does not want paratroopers to wear said P-38 on their dogtags as they are afeared said paratroopers might stab themselves on it during a jump.

I've seen a few of them with a bit of masking tape or duct tape around them to keep them from opening up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M29HbfkaM8Q

You bastids, now I want to watch the tv show again. Too many years. Don't think any network shows it now but it has to be on DVD. :o

OTOH me WFRP game just came into focus. :eek:

Quote from: Casey777http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M29HbfkaM8Q

You bastids, now I want to watch the tv show again. Too many years. Don't think any network shows it now but it has to be on DVD. :o

OTOH me WFRP game just came into focus. :eek:

I've been ordering them from netflix, so they are definitely available on DVD.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI know where we can find several (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.huvard.com/adventures/images/images_b/lost/toddscared_p38.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huvard.com/adventures/lost/&h=426&w=280&sz=82&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=Eo7Q0uR-ZA1DLM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dp-38%2Bgreenland%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN), if we don't mind digging though a couple hundred feet of ice! :D

GRIN!

You know that "Glacier Girl" is flying, of course.

Did you hear about the one that just got uncovered in England?  It's earlier than Glacier Girl, so it MIGHT be a P-38D!!!!:D :eek: :haw: :)

Quote from: SpikeFun factoid: the army does not want paratroopers to wear said P-38 on their dogtags as they are afeared said paratroopers might stab themselves on it during a jump.  Nuisance injuries for the Win!

Also notorious for ripping up pants pockets if kept on your key chain.  My dad still carries his from Vietnam.  I hadn't even thought of it until you mentioned it Spike.  

Quote from: flyingmiceI used to have one of those, Gunslinger, for when I went wilderness camping in me youth. It worked great at opening cans, and slitting up bark for tinder, and a bunch of other useful things. Now that I'm old and camping means inflatable beds, a gas grille, a multi-room tent, and enough gear to fill a van, I wonder how the heck I used to do that!

Since I moved here I try to keep my camping gear to just the essentials.  Hammock, bottle opener, and a case of beer.  Just like my ancestors.

"Pearl rememberance day"?!
For realz?

Like in: "We mourn the dead!", or what´s it like?

Quote from: Settembrini"Pearl rememberance day"?!
For realz?

Like in: "We mourn the dead!", or what´s it like?

Mostly ceremonial.  More of a local thing than a national thing, though the government, I believe, does keep the flag at half-staff.  There might be other ceremonies elsewhere.  Here the last remaining survivors are presented and the military branches, even the non-existant Air Force at the time, basically rehash the events.  I had to help the command staff figure out the Engineer plotter to print out maps for the staff ride.  Pictures help soldiers a lot (I keed, I work too closely with the military to take them seriously).  ;)

Quote from: Old GeezerGRIN!

You know that "Glacier Girl" is flying, of course.

Did you hear about the one that just got uncovered in England?  It's earlier than Glacier Girl, so it MIGHT be a P-38D!!!!:D :eek: :haw: :)

And she's a lovely thing is Glacier Girl! The one in Wales is fairly likely a D, based on the timing. If so, she's the only one left. Didn't someone post a link on her to this thread? She's under the sand and water on a beach. :D

-clash

Quote from: GunslingerMostly ceremonial.  More of a local thing than a national thing, though the government, I believe, does keep the flag at half-staff.  There might be other ceremonies elsewhere.  Here the last remaining survivors are presented and the military branches, even the non-existant Air Force at the time, basically rehash the events.  I had to help the command staff figure out the Engineer plotter to print out maps for the staff ride.  Pictures help soldiers a lot (I keed, I work too closely with the military to take them seriously).  ;)

My late uncle was at Wheeler Field IIRC on December 7, 1941. He never went back to those memorial ceremonies, though.

Funny story about Uncle Bill. He was an enlisted man in the AAF during the war, and went to school on the GI Bill after. Became a well respected civil engineer. The Air Force came to him to work on Cheyenne Mountain. He agreed to work for them, when they said he needed a military rank to do the work they wanted him for. They said "What rank would you like?" He said "I always wanted to be a fort..."

They settled on Colonel, and Colonel he remained for thirty years, until he retired. The military can be strange sometimes...

-clash

Oh sure...now you know I'm going to have to play a military character with the rank of Fort one day don't you?

Hehe! I've always been tempted myself, David! :D

-clash

Fort Rock.  I out rank Battle Ships SIR!

Sorry! Bad post!

How are early returns so far clash?

Where all does one/do you announce new games like this offhand?

Quote from: cnath.rmHow are early returns so far clash?

Where all does one/do you announce new games like this offhand?

Early returns are good, but not spectacular, sales wise, though feedback has been very good. Noth of those may change as folks review it though. :D

I announce them over various news feeds, like RPGnow and RPGnet and Flames Rising, which go out to a number of different sites. I also announce them in various sites I frequent, like here.