URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Airbattle Games
  HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Wing Leader Rules Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 1155--------------------------------------------------
       Evasion
       By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 24, 2019, 4:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We don't see a lot of evasion, but this expansion should have a
       lot more occasions when fast bombers can evade biplane fighters.
       This was not uncommon in Spain and reflects either a speed
       deficit or insufficient overtake in pre-war fighters.
       I can see that someone might comment that this should not apply
       to head-on attacks. I'm a little reluctant to chrome up a rule
       further; however, evasion already has exceptions for Lufberys
       and flying bombing profiles. Maybe it should also have one for
       head-ons. Any thoughts?
       #Post#: 1157--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: Elias Nordling Date: January 24, 2019, 4:57 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Makes sense to me. A -3 mod would make head-ons more or less
       useless.
       #Post#: 1158--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 24, 2019, 5:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Or incentivises people not to make head-ons, which I'm okay
       with.
       #Post#: 1159--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: Elias Nordling Date: January 24, 2019, 6:46 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would imagine head-ons being one of the few ways you COULD
       attack bombers with fighters that are slower than them. Also, I
       would expext head-ons to be less harrowing when the speed
       differential is a few hundred mph less :-)
       #Post#: 1160--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 24, 2019, 8:12 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Let's see if the existing rule provokes an outcry.
       #Post#: 1188--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: Elias Nordling Date: January 25, 2019, 10:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I had a vague memory that you couldn't use evasion when bounced,
       so I checked the Evasion rule. It listed a number of cases when
       you couldn't evade, but bounce wasn't one of them, so I assumed
       it was OK. Turned out it wasn't, so I think it should be in that
       list.
       #Post#: 1247--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 27, 2019, 5:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Good catch. I've added it to the list in the rule.
       I'm still not 100% with the idea of adding an exception for
       head-ons unless test convinces us it is necessary. However, the
       issue has been raised, so we should keep an eye on it.
       #Post#: 1499--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Evasion
       By: pilotofficerprune Date: February 6, 2019, 7:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I shall be locking down the rulebook in the coming days. At the
       moment I'm still on the fence as to whether to add an evasion
       prohibition for head-ons. However, given that I'm not committed
       to the idea, I'm happy to leave the rule as-is. Though of course
       I shall ensure bounces are added to the exception list, as they
       were an existing rule.
       *****************************************************