DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Wing Leader Rules Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 581--------------------------------------------------
Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 19, 2018, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some general notes as I do another edit pass, with an eye to
being more ruthless with unnecessary verbiage:
As I review page 6 of the rulebook, this page is something of a
mess, going on a long , wordy discussion of concepts such as
Class, Type and Model of aircraft. With the perspective of two
core games and two or three expansions, I think a lot of this
guff can be cut down. Some of it is unnecessary. For example, we
can lose the concept of aircraft types without losing
anything--it only exists to explain why some counters list
aircraft models and others more general types. Also, there's
been a lot of stuffing text from later sections, such as on
fighter-bombers, to a point early in the rules, when all we need
to do is cut to the bare bones and add a sentence saying 'look
at rule 15.2.4 for more detail'.
#Post#: 582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 19, 2018, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, though the distinction between bomber and bomber class
as well as fighter and fighter class needs to stay, I think.
#Post#: 583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 19, 2018, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm kinda wanting to shift the emphasis in this section to the
notion that 'some behaviour is related to class but most
behaviour is determined by mission', and then sidebar the idea
that bombers *do* perform fighter missions in some scenarios and
fighters *do* perform bombing missions more commonly.
Congrats on making Squadron Leader. . . ;D
#Post#: 584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 19, 2018, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Question: do we really need to define the Sea, or can we remove
the concept of Sea from the game? It would need to be excised
from scenarios and campaigns, but that's no biggie.
I've wrestled with this for a bit and I cannot see any more
reason to keep the concept in the game.
#Post#: 585--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 20, 2018, 2:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! :D
I've really wondered when sea matters too. I think the only time
it could possibly have an effect is when torpedo bombers hit
ships in port, and even then I can't think of a situation where
they wouldn't be coming from the seaside, so if it ever matters,
it should probably be a scenario rule.
#Post#: 586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 20, 2018, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed with regards to the Sea.
What's very interesting on this edit, coming back with fresh
eyes, is that most of the rules are fine. Once into the meat of
the rules I have many pages that are untouched by my red pen.
The chicken-scrawl of proofing notes is mostly focused on rules
sections we haven't paid much attention to before.
Note, I'm not aiming to change much with this edit, other than
the handful of things I have noted above. This is really an
attempt to slim the text and make it more accessible. I'm trying
to get rid of legacy text that over-explains things, as well as
address places where clumsy qualifying text has been inserted.
#Post#: 589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 21, 2018, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm now considering swapping the numbering of rules 9.5.4 (Wing
Orders) and 9.5.5 (Wing Sweep Missions), as that would make
better sense in terms of organisation. I'll check the various
books, but I don't believe these rules are referenced in any
SSRs, so I should be able to make the change, provided I ensure
both rulebook and player aid cross-references are updated.
#Post#: 591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 21, 2018, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of superfluous rules, I'm kind of bothered by dogfight
facing. First you have strict rules for how to face in dogfight,
then you more or less say facing is ignored during dogfight and
you get a free reface after the dogfight. So why bother with all
the dogfight facing verbiage? I'd say facing is irrelevant
during a dogfight and both sides get to change for free when
exiting a dogfight. After all, a broken squadron will then head
towards the map edge anyway.
#Post#: 592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: pilotofficerprune Date: November 21, 2018, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone think of any issue with releasing dogfighting from
facing concerns?
#Post#: 598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rules Edit
By: Elias Nordling Date: November 22, 2018, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I dearly appreciate the picture legend for a target unit on page
35, and I think it would be even better if it had an underlined
flak value too. I realize it would have to be a fake unit.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page