The Cards Behind The Planes

SJE wrote:Is there a ranking somewhere of which planes are better than others? How do I know how to pick equivalent forces?

Steve

I ran across this post in another thread, and it got me to wondering about what the differnces are between the maneuver decks in WoW.

So I decided to take a closer look at the cards.

As far as I know, there are 13 maneuver decks in WoW; A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L & M.

When you include the altitude cards (dive & climb), there are from 17 to 24 cards in the various decks. Eack deck, except two (H & K, which do not have an immelman) all contain:

3 x straight
3 x 60 degree right turn
3 x 60 degree left turn
2 x stall
1 x immelman (not in H & K, the two seaters)
1 x climb
1 x dive

So with the two exceptions, all of the maneuver decks have some variation of the same 14 cards. Of theses 14 common cards, some represent faster planes than others, and so the turns may be wider for those faster planes, but other than that, the cards represent the same basic functions.

I also mistakenly thought that the basic turn cards were of a 45 degree angle, but in looking closer at the cards, it's easy to see that three of the basic turns, played in a row, will turn the plane around 180 degrees. So apparently I was off (hey I'm getting old, my eyes aren't what they used to be

), and the basic turns are of the 60 degree variety. So each plane has the ability to do a 180 turn to the right or left in one round, basic stuff.

The planes with the immelman can do the 180 in three cards too, so there are three basic 180 options to most planes.

The stalls and climb/dive cards are all basically the same, based on the planes speed. So all of the planes come with the ability to perform basic maneuvers in the game. So what's the difference in the maneuver decks then, you ask!?!

OK, let's take a look at the rest of the cards in each maneuver deck, now that we know what the basic 14 cards in each are.

A Maneuver Deck (18 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
Strength: Speed, I believe this is the fastest maneuver deck in the game.
Weakness: Small amount of additional maneuvers beyond the basics.

(Allied Aircraft: Spad XIII Central Powers Aircraft: None )

B Maneuver Deck (20 cards total)
3 x slip R
3 x slip L
Strength: Able to perform three slips a round, moderately fast.
Weakness: A good all around deck, but it too can perform only a small amount of additional maneuvers beyond the basics.

(Allied Aircraft: None Central Powers Aircraft: Albatros D.Va)

C Maneuver Deck (22 cards total)
3 x 90 degree R turn
3 x slip R
2 x slip L
Strenght: This deck is able to go into a tight R turn, and stay in it indefinately. A great defensive maneuver.
Weakness: No 90 degree left turns, not as strong in slips to the left.

(Allied Aircraft: Sopwith Camel Central Powers Aircraft: None)

D Maneuver Deck (22 cards total)
2 x 90 degree R turn
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
1 x wide slip R
1 x wide slip L
Strength: This deck has the tightest 90 degree turn in the game thus far. It is able to slip better to either side with it's wide slip maneuvers. The best maneuver deck from Famous Aces.
Weakness: With only two 90 degree R turns, this plane isn't able to maintain the tight right turn indefintely. No 90 degree left turns.

(Allied Aircraft: Sopwith Triplane Central Powers Aircraft: Fokker DR.1)

E Maneuver deck (20 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
1 x wide slip R
1 x wide slip L
Strength: Slips well
Weakness: Slow, nearly identical to the I deck, except it is slightly slower.

(Allied Aircraft: Nieuport 11 & 21 Central Powers Aircraft: Schuckert D.1 )

F Maneuver Deck (22 cards total)
1 x 90 degree R turn
1 x 90 degree L turn
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
1 x wide slip R
1 x wide slip L
Strength: Extrememly balanced maneuver deck, able to perform nearly all maneuvers represented in the game
Weakness: With only 1 card on some of the advanced maneuvers, it's unable to maintain these maneuvers through the three card maneuver sequence.

(Allied Aircraft: Hanriot HD.1 Central Powers Aircraft: None )

G Maneuver Deck (18 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
Strength: Well...lets see, it um...well... it can hang with the two 2 seater maneuver decks? I mean, at least it can Immmelman...

Weakness: This is basically the same deck as the A deck, only with about 1/2 the speed. Or to put it another way, it's like the K deck with an immelman. Yuck! IMHO, the worst deck in the game so far!

(Allied Aircraft: None Central Powers Aircraft: Halberstadt D.III )

H Maneuver Deck (17 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
Strength: Two seater
Weakness: No immelman

(Allied Aircraft: DE Havilland (& Airco) DH4 Central Powers Aircraft: UFAG C.1 )

I Maneuver Deck (20 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
1 x wide slip R
1 x wide slip L
Strength: Not a bad maneuver deck, able to slip well.
Weakness: No 90 degree turns.

(Allied Aircraft: Nieuport 17 & 23 Central Powers Aircraft: None )

J Maneuver Deck (20 cards total)
3 x slip R
3 x slip L
Strength: Well, this is another "toughy". It slips better than the G deck? It's a little faster than the G deck?
Weakness: Same basic deck as the B deck, only about 1/3 slower.

(Allied Aircraft: None Central Powers Aircraft: Albatros D.III & PFALZ D.IIIa )

K Maneuver deck ( 17 cards total)
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
Strength: Two seater
Weakness: No immelman. Same deck as the H deck, only about 1/3 slower.

(Allied Aircraft: R.E.8 & Breguet BR.14 B2 & Pomillo PC Central Powers Aircraft: LFG Roland C.II )

L Maneuver Deck (24 cards total)
2 x 90 degree R turn
2 x 90 degree L turn
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
1 x 60 dgree "stall" turn R
1 x 60 degree "stall" turn L
Strength: The best deck in the game, IMHO. Able to turn extremely well to both the left and right. With the combination of the two 90 degree turns and (for lack of a better way to describe it) the 60 degree "stall" turns, it can stay in a turn nearly as tight as the C deck, only to both the right and the left.
Weakness: No wide slips. This deck is only out turned to the right by the Camel's C deck. The only real weakness I see with this deck is that it may cause the player using it to become overconfident.

(Allied Aircraft: None Central Powers Aircraft: Fokker D.VII)

Last, but not least...

M Maneuver deck (24 cards total)
2 x 90 degree R turn
1 x 90 degree L turn
2 x slip R
2 x slip L
2 x wide slip R
1 x wide slip L
Strength: Great range of maneuvers. Probably the best Allied deck.
Weakness: Does not perform as well to the left.

(Allied Aircraft: Sopwith Snipe Central Powers Aircraft: None)

Nothing gets passed you. Does it!

excellent analysis

i ran 4 games last night (with my shiny new set 2 planes one of each) and the question came up how do you balance this game with the 2 seaters and the late war (really excellent planes)

all i really could say is make sure each side has something comparable and we have not discussed aces yet... which is anoughter balanceing factor...

your thoughtfull and clear look at each manuver deck will help with balancing forces...

In looking at the "Upcoming" section, from the home page, I was suprised to see the following:

"Dogfight and Immelman Blisters

Two new blister packs of Wings of War cards, including new planes and maneuvers from World War I.

Expected at FFG: June 2008"

Looks pretty interesting to me. I'm kinda hoping that maybe we'll see the ole' SE5a.

Looking at the Fokker D.VII's maneuver deck, one understands *why* it was the only piece of
Central Powers war material specifically mentioned in the Versailles Treaty.... (Every time I've
shown that deck to folks at a con, the reaction is "Holy *&^%$#@!". :) )

Personally, I prefer the Hanriot HD.1 -- I've never found having 2+ advanced maneuver cards
all that useful; usually after using one, the turn ends, and I can use it again.

Mention "WW1 fighters" to people, and pretty-much no one ever mentions Halberstadt aircraft.
There Is A Reason For This. :)

Holy crap, message was edit 53 times

you must really be into this game.

Well, I guess there are two ways you can look at the movement sequence in WoW. Each three card sequence can be viewed as either a single maneuver made up of three "stick" movements, or a period of time in which three seperate maneuvers are performed.

Kaufstick- I'm sure you've seen this before at the WoW Nexus yahoo group-

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cAUVSG-dmD9f5cTI_FhrEuOtO3_cyGmnh-hpjfhYAOEZ0g6ajrf-fS8D-CxI3iI8SRpjblKcCUqaxGHvx52pMoA-hE85afp1/Comparative%20maneuvers%20eng.xls

Its a comparitive maneuvers spreadsheet at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wow_nexus/ Files section apparently devised by Angilliio.

May be useful.

SJE

Thats an excellent break down of the decks Kaufschtick. I was attempting to do the same one night in front of the Telly but I was too distracted and gave up for another day.

Angiolillo wrote this in another thread referring to the upcoming N set in Dogfight for the SE5a

Flight: the N... coming in May in the "Dogfight" booster pack. It is like an A but with a few more cards: 4 steeps that are a right large sideslip and a left large sideslip (as cards 21/22 and 22/22 from the M deck) and a right 9Â° turn (is that 90Â°) and a left 90Â° turn (as cards 4/22 and 6/22 from the M deck). If you do not want to wait for the N take an A, add those 4 cards from a M deck (they should be a bit longer but the difference is acceptable) and consider all of them steep <>.

Fire: A deck.

Have fun!

A good post with a good summary of the differences between the decks.

My only criticism is that it appears to overlook one advantage of the decks that represent faster aircraft. (Four speed increments so far. "A" deck the fastest, a fairly wide set of decks at the second fastest, another wide set at the third increment, and a few decks for planes that are outright slow.)

The "slower" planes have a tighter turn (for their 60, or 90 degree turn cards). However, the faster decks give that plane an ability to disengage by simply running away from an opponent. And a slower scout might be unable to get a good position on an observation plane in time due to an inability to close the distance in time.

That's the advantage the Spad XIII has in the Famous Aces set. It's can't turn with a Dr 1 (or a Camel), but it has some ability to "boom and zoom" and cover a lot of ground quickly.

The Snipe vs Fokker DVII duels are also interesting. Both have excellent decks with a wide set of options in a fight. The Fokker has the special stall abilities and better movement to the left. The Snipe has the wide side-slips which can be combined with tight turns to really throw the plane around.

- Kurt

P.S. - I'm also a fan of the Hanriot HD1's abilities. It's the only pre-1918 plane with the 90 degree left turn. And it makes a good match for the other Famous Ace planes (assuming one uses one of the 2 MG planes to keep the firepower even.)

owktree wrote:A good post with a good summary of the differences between the decks.

My only criticism is that it appears to overlook one advantage of the decks that represent faster aircraft. (Four speed increments so far. "A" deck the fastest, a fairly wide set of decks at the second fastest, another wide set at the third increment, and a few decks for planes that are outright slow.)

The "slower" planes have a tighter turn (for their 60, or 90 degree turn cards). However, the faster decks give that plane an ability to disengage by simply running away from an opponent. And a slower scout might be unable to get a good position on an observation plane in time due to an inability to close the distance in time.

That's the advantage the Spad XIII has in the Famous Aces set. It's can't turn with a Dr 1 (or a Camel), but it has some ability to "boom and zoom" and cover a lot of ground quickly.

I agree, you're right. I like to use the Spad to "Shoot & Scoot" myself!

Angiolillo posted once that he favored the maneuverabilty of the Fokker Dr.1. The only thing with the shoot and scoot, IMHO, is that it winds up taking a larger playing area to really use. I have a 3 x 5 kitchen table, and the edges force the fast Spads to turn back into the fight most times well before I'd like to, especially across the narrow part. But even along the long part, I find that I'd usually like to go out another two feet or so, before turning back into the fight. Oh well, I call the table edges "cloud banks".

Another thing that I didn't touch on is the vertical aspect of this game. I happen to think that the altitude rules, and especially the climb rates of the various planes, are a huge part of the game that, I'm guessing, a lot of people don't use.

owktree wrote:The Snipe vs Fokker DVII duels are also interesting. Both have excellent decks with a wide set of options in a fight. The Fokker has the special stall abilities and better movement to the left. The Snipe has the wide side-slips which can be combined with tight turns to really throw the plane around.

- Kurt

P.S. - I'm also a fan of the Hanriot HD1's abilities. It's the only pre-1918 plane with the 90 degree left turn. And it makes a good match for the other Famous Ace planes (assuming one uses one of the 2 MG planes to keep the firepower even.)

Another kudos to be thrown to the Hanriot HD1 is it's excellent climb rate.

Of course, a quick breakdown of the various climb rates can be found in the Burning Drachens rulebook.

owktree wrote:P.S. - I'm also a fan of the Hanriot HD1's abilities. It's the only pre-1918 plane with the 90 degree left turn. And it makes a good match for the other Famous Ace planes (assuming one uses one of the 2 MG planes to keep the firepower even.)

D'accord. The Hanriot is, IMO, the best "all-around" unit prior to the introduction of "next-gen" units like
the D.VII or Snipe. I keep waiting for a Hanriot mini, but....

My experience with using the altitude rules so far is limited - haven't gotten my brother and niece to start using minis for our free-for-all matches yet. However, a dive and superior speed is a good way to break off against a maneuverable enemy working into a good shooting position.

Another factor to bring in play is the "ruggedness"; e.g. how much damage the plane can take. That's one weakness of the Fokker Dr1, it's a bit more fragile than the other Famous Aces planes. You can afford to be a bit more aggressive with a Spad XIII with 9 points of damage than a Fokker Dr1 with the same. If you include the Hanriot with the Famous Aces planes you get a nice range from 13-16 points with only 15 duplicated (Camel and Albatros).

Randomness of drawing from the Damage Decks still a big factor in that. I'm sure everyone has seen a plane get flamed in only 4-5 cards while another picks up a dozen zero damage cards. I saw a DR1 go down from *3* cards in my last play, including taking 5 and 5 from a close range side shot that finished it off.

On the Hanriot front it doesn't look like an official mini for it will come out for a while. Series 3 looks to be Nieuports and such. Plus I presume time will be taken for at least one series of Dawn of War minis.

- Kurt

owktree wrote:My experience with using the altitude rules so far is limited - haven't gotten my brother and niece to start using minis for our free-for-all matches yet. However, a dive and superior speed is a good way to break off against a maneuverable enemy working into a good shooting position.

Having all of the minis allows you to use more altitude pegs when you play, which I find makes the altitude rules a little more visually appealing. It's also easier if a plane goes "outside" the set altitude levels as the miniature rules state. You don't have to redefine the ceiling and the floor as much.

owktree wrote:Another factor to bring in play is the "ruggedness"; e.g. how much damage the plane can take. That's one weakness of the Fokker Dr1, it's a bit more fragile than the other Famous Aces planes. You can afford to be a bit more aggressive with a Spad XIII with 9 points of damage than a Fokker Dr1 with the same. If you include the Hanriot with the Famous Aces planes you get a nice range from 13-16 points with only 15 duplicated (Camel and Albatros).

I've been in more than a few games that wound up with the winning airplane limping back to it's airfield with only a point or two of damage left!

owktree wrote:Randomness of drawing from the Damage Decks still a big factor in that. I'm sure everyone has seen a plane get flamed in only 4-5 cards while another picks up a dozen zero damage cards. I saw a DR1 go down from *3* cards in my last play, including taking 5 and 5 from a close range side shot that finished it off.

I had the idea when I first started playing this game, that there ought to be some kind of "to hit" number needed when a plane fired, instead of always hitting. Then it occurred to me that the "zero" cards were the misses.

I also think it's pretty realistic how you really don't know, not only if you've even hit the target, but if you've caused any significant damage beyond what is visible. IMHO, the damage is simple, yet extremely realistic in WoW, I really like how it's done.

Oh no, I feel another thread coming on...The Cards Behind The Guns!!!

Seriously though, a couple of us one night took a look at the various damage decks to see what the breakdown was. It's just interesting to know the components of the game and how they work and what the various odds are. We were puzzled by the green and red "jammed guns" symbols on the cards for a while, thought they had some different functions.

owktree wrote:On the Hanriot front it doesn't look like an official mini for it will come out for a while. Series 3 looks to be Nieuports and such. Plus I presume time will be taken for at least one series of Dawn of War minis.

- Kurt

I will have to take a look and see if there isn't a Hanriot HD1 available in 1/144 scale.

Skytrex has a 1/144 Hanriot kit (lead). It even comes with the decals for Italian markings.

I picked up two a while back, but have been too busy to organized materials for construction and painting. That might be the June project.

- Kurt

owktree wrote:Skytrex has a 1/144 Hanriot kit (lead). It even comes with the decals for Italian markings.

I picked up two a while back, but have been too busy to organized materials for construction and painting. That might be the June project.

- Kurt

I'm shying away from the all lead models, although I like the added weight it brings to the WoW minis with their fusalages being lead, or whatever metal they used.

Can't say I'm too impressed, those Brisfits are becoming an absolute pain to make them look half decent.

Roger_Wilco wrote:Can't say I'm too impressed, those Brisfits are becoming an absolute pain to make them look half decent.

That's one plane that I would go to the trouble of breaking out a blow torch and welding mask to do if there were no other options! In looking for pics of a 4 bladed prop on one last week, I really fell in love with that plane! It's a gorgeous looking plane, and I always liked the way the fusalage didn't really "conect" to the lower wing. Don't ask me why, but I always thought that was really cool.

It sure is great to see a game on WWI areal combat these days. Brings back a lot of history.

Note: Tea spilt on my keyboard (it blew up), and I'm suffering through using an old spare back up. I think someone spilt molasses on this one.

Not too fussed about the 4 bladed prop as I've already remodeled the prop to 2 blades, I figure 4 blades is for a later 1918 version, I'm sticking with an earlier version. Still working on replacement plastic struts and have also been toying with using some superfine armature winding wire I have in the shed to rig the thing with wing cables.

Roger_Wilco wrote:Not too fussed about the 4 bladed prop as I've already remodeled the prop to 2 blades, I figure 4 blades is for a later 1918 version, I'm sticking with an earlier version. Still working on replacement plastic struts and have also been toying with using some superfine armature winding wire I have in the shed to rig the thing with wing cables.

Oh Lordy, my Dad has about 775+ (?) 1/72 scale planes (cursing old keyboard), of which there are a large amount of WWI planes. Well, if they make it in 1/72 scale regular plastic injection or vacuform, he's built at least one. Anyway, I did a few WWI kits that way when I was young, but I never fooled around with the wire rigging. I was a fair hand too at modeling in my early adulthood. The Fokker D.VII from set two with the red and white stripes on the top of the upper wing, I built and painted before there were decales for that; I don't know what they call it, but that crazy multi colored camoflage with the little irregular five sided shapes that's on the underside of the upper wing, and on the lower wing and undercarridge.

I taped the wings with regular masking tape, cut in the camo pattern with an exacto knife, then peeled off and painted in the colors, one color at a time. I got lucky in that when I got past the first color, which was easy to paint as the rest was still all masked off, that I had used just enough pressure when cutting the camo pattern with the exacto knife, that it scored the plastic just enough to allow the piant to settle in to just the "spots" I needed. Even my Dad was impressed at the time. A couple weeks later, he showed me this "new" decale you could buy with all kinds of that type camo on it!

Anyway, back to the wires, I'd try just about anything other than doing the wire rigging. My Dad used thread on all of his. He built a huge "Cutty Shark" sailing ship once, complete with full rigging, which unfortunatey did a great job of catching hold of my sisters jump rope one day many, many eons ago. If anyone builds sailing ships - BEWARE KIDS WITH JUMP ROPES INDOORS!!

I don't know why, but I've never liked doing the wire business. Maybe that's why I stayed primarily with WWII planes!

I also used to war game in Napoleonic naval (Battle of Trafalgar, Horatio Hornblower etc) I used to collect and construct GHQ's white metal 1/1200 scale models. The problem with them is that the sails were cast onto the masts and were heavy so they had to be rigged. I used to paint all the components and then assemble from the bow and do one mast at a time (out of three) and rig the little things, took about 4 hours for each mast then I ran the fore and aft rigging through. I used hairless thread at first but then I found the superfine armature winding wire had better properties and was much finer and less clumsy looking. A friend used to make his own electric guitar pick ups and I used to score the tail end 10 metres or so of his spools. After the models are rigged I would paint the lines either black or tan depending if it was either standing or running rig lines. I n the end the models are much stronger and robust and really look the part. My friends think I'm a bit of a psycho when they see the wrok I put in. The fine copper wire has so many uses for modeling, it even conducts electricity (Duh!) so it can be used for "live" HO scale telegraph/electrcal lines on model railway layouts and dioramas.

Great information!

Roger_Wilco wrote:I also used to war game in Napoleonic naval (Battle of Trafalgar, Horatio Hornblower etc) I used to collect and construct GHQ's white metal 1/1200 scale models. The problem with them is that the sails were cast onto the masts and were heavy so they had to be rigged. I used to paint all the components and then assemble from the bow and do one mast at a time (out of three) and rig the little things, took about 4 hours for each mast then I ran the fore and aft rigging through. I used hairless thread at first but then I found the superfine armature winding wire had better properties and was much finer and less clumsy looking. A friend used to make his own electric guitar pick ups and I used to score the tail end 10 metres or so of his spools. After the models are rigged I would paint the lines either black or tan depending if it was either standing or running rig lines. I n the end the models are much stronger and robust and really look the part. My friends think I'm a bit of a psycho when they see the wrok I put in. The fine copper wire has so many uses for modeling, it even conducts electricity (Duh!) so it can be used for "live" HO scale telegraph/electrcal lines on model railway layouts and dioramas.

You sir, are a maniac!

Seriously, that sounds awsome.

I've got to believe that sailing ships, in miniatures, is fantastic looking.

Roger_Wilco wrote:... collect and construct GHQ's white metal 1/1200 scale models. The problem with them is that the sails were cast onto the masts and were heavy so they had to be rigged.

I still do this! I use the finest pin-vice drillbit I have found, then thread the things. I have done a small French and Royal Navy fleet. Good fun, but time intensive.

Also I should add I have a Roden Brisfit in 1:72, a two prop version.

Before I found Wings of War, I had every intention of playing the very old and highly outstanding Dawn Patrol/Fight in the Skies with 1:72. Then, I found Wings of War, and the minis were just too bloody good to say no to...