Quote from: Stainless;574241Have you heard this interview with Mike Carr?

http://saveordie.info/?p=333

No, I haven't - thanks for linking it.

I am working on this issue myself. What edition of Boot Hill were you talking about using and did you, in fact, ever actually do this? I was thinking about running a Royal Flying Corps campaign starting in early 1916 with four players each controlling three pilots, one for each flight of four planes in those 12-machine squadrons. Observers would probably be NPCs unless someone actually thinks that would be fun to play when compared to the pilot. Aside from scouting and dogfighting and spying, there are the aforementioned rivalries intra- and inter-squadron, as well as between nations, plus bar fights and hijinx with the locals behind the lines. Some pilots were required to take a tender up to the front lines as well to ensure they understand the setup and requirements for their aerial observations so you could easily get into situations that way as well. Of course if they get shot down and survive you can steal from The Grand Illusion movie as well.

Aside from Dawn Patrol, I also have Blue Max from GDW and Knights of the Air from Avalon Hill.  Knights has the  best board/map. I inherited those but haven't played them yet. Any opinions on any of those as compared to or contrasted with Dawn Patrol?

Dawn Patrol isn't a fucking RPG.  It's a minor revision of "Fight in the Skies," which is and was and always will be an unabashed wargame.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964001Dawn Patrol isn't a fucking RPG.  It's a minor revision of "Fight in the Skies," which is and was and always will be an unabashed wargame.

Which is exactly why it's awesome.

Quote from: beeber;570263when i saw that pic, first thing i thought of was the planes in crimson skies.

I love the original FASA game and background, improved by the addition of Nathan Zachary's Fortune Hunters by Microsoft studios, and in need of a Flightpath-system reboot!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964001Dawn Patrol isn't a fucking RPG.  It's a minor revision of "Fight in the Skies," which is and was and always will be an unabashed wargame.

:rolleyes:

Aside from the old crank, anyone have anything useful to add?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964002Which is exactly why it's awesome.

At least you were half right.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964001Dawn Patrol isn't a fucking RPG.  It's a minor revision of "Fight in the Skies," which is and was and always will be an unabashed wargame.

Which is exactly why it's awesome.

Like Boot Hill?

Combining Boot hill and Dawn Patrol seems a little odd as they do not use a similar system? But you could just plug the BH wargame into the DP wargame and just switch out as needed since the DP pilot has no stats and advancement is a factor of experience in the air.

and speaking of WWI Air war games. Flying Buffalo a few years back reprinted their Ace of Aces game.

Quote from: Omega;964016Like Boot Hill?

Combining Boot hill and Dawn Patrol seems a little odd as they do not use a similar system? But you could just plug the BH wargame into the DP wargame and just switch out as needed since the DP pilot has no stats and advancement is a factor of experience in the air.

and speaking of WWI Air war games. Flying Buffalo a few years back reprinted their Ace of Aces game.

I'm not familiar with Ace of Acre. Is that an RPG, a board game, or a hybrid?

Ace of Aces is a booklet game.  Each plane has a booklet and a control panel, you swap books and keep the control panel.  In play you both pick your maneuver and announce them, then you look up the other guy's maneuver in his booklet and the two books cross integrate to give you both a visual and damage results and a new set of maneuver look up codes.  It's an analog first person air combat simulator.  They also did a Battle Tech version and a fantasy dueling game.

Yeah, I had (have? somewhere?) Ace of Aces, whose books seemed really brilliant but a bit limited to me. IIRC they also did a wild West gunslinger version. The main issues with the book system to me are the lack of any map/context, and the difficulty of tracking more than two planes (can be done, but...). But also they had more advanced rules and a campaign system which could be adapted to a game without the books. I studied those but didn't get to play them advanced or campaign rules with others. I liked the advanced hit location table which was based on a chart of the target from the direction of fire.

There's also Avalon Hill's Richtofen's War wargame, but I found that weird due to the turn-based movement and scale, such that a dogfight with two planes seemed to mainly be going around in a circle with non-simultaneous movement and rolling to hit. Didn't seem to satisfy my simulationist requirements so I lost interest quickly.

von Richtofen himself seemed to think the prime attribute was high marksmanship, suggesting that it took a goodly amount of skill to hit anything with a 1910's biplane, and also IIRC hunter's instinct to go for the kill, but (unless this was someone else's idea) that it also needed to be tempered with discretion, and that the main way to stay alive long enough to have the experience to be any good and not be a sitting duck, was to realize when not to engage. Flying skill was of course also needed, as well as situational awareness - the combination of good eyesight, understanding, attention, and habits of mind and looking, so that you have a good grasp of what's going on around you in all directions. Leadership skills would also be needed.

There are many good biographies and historical accounts to mine. Dogfights can be really interesting with a good set of rules. Managing squadron resources, the advances and differences in technology and which planes are sent on which sorties, are all fodder for potential interesting games.

(Tommy guns were first produced after the end of The Great War.)

Oh, and that mono-wing bomber was clearly sent back through time by Hitler...

Quote from: David Johansen;964049Ace of Aces is a booklet game.  Each plane has a booklet and a control panel, you swap books and keep the control panel.  In play you both pick your maneuver and announce them, then you look up the other guy's maneuver in his booklet and the two books cross integrate to give you both a visual and damage results and a new set of maneuver look up codes.  It's an analog first person air combat simulator.  They also did a Battle Tech version and a fantasy dueling game.

Interesting, but it sounds like too much hassle to incorporate more than 2 machines having a dogfight. Otherwise that sounds like it would be a fun 1-on-1 game.

Doesn't it really depend on what unique experience you are trying to play through?
Are the planes a focus or just backdrop?
I can see it as a war game but not so much as a RPG.

Makes more sense to me to play as "Barnstormers" than as WWI pilots.
That also was life or death, had additional aspects of trying to raise enough of an audience to make a living and pay for repairs.
Creating new stunts all while dealing with "personalities".
=

Quote from: Dumarest;964084Interesting, but it sounds like too much hassle to incorporate more than 2 machines having a dogfight. Otherwise that sounds like it would be a fun 1-on-1 game.

The other Lost World books could handle multiple combatants. So Ace of Aces probably could too. Lost World books are really meant for one on one. But say two on two is do-able. Ive only ever seen it as demoed by FB at Gencon and would like to see it in more depth.

Too bad it wasnt compatible with the other Lost Worlds books as that would have been hilarious to pit my Unicorn against a Sopwith Camel or a Battletech mech.

And bringing this full circle. Way back in the late 90s I talked a little with the Flying Buffalo staff about the idea of Wild West version of Lost Worlds.

Quote from: Greentongue;964093Doesn't it really depend on what unique experience you are trying to play through?
Are the planes a focus or just backdrop?
I can see it as a war game but not so much as a RPG.

Makes more sense to me to play as "Barnstormers" than as WWI pilots.
That also was life or death, had additional aspects of trying to raise enough of an audience to make a living and pay for repairs.
Creating new stunts all while dealing with "personalities".
=

I may be misunderstanding you but it sounds like your statement is "It makes more sense to play what I want to play than what you want to play because of things I like better than things you like." That is always true. But since you aren't in my group, we're going to play what we want to play rather than what you want to play.