I fly close to my man, aim well and then of course he falls down.
- --
Hauptmann Oswald Boelcke, 40 victories
One of the earliest board war games to cover World War II air combat was Spitfire, published by SPI in 1973. Like its sister games, Flying Circus (1972) and Foxbat and Phantom (1973), Spitfire was designed by Jim Dunnigan. These three first generation designs are relatively rudimentary yet have contributed a few innovations.
Flying Circus, Spitfire and Foxbat and Phantom feature an aircraft chart for every plane in the game, an innovation that's still in practice in today's air combat games. Each aircraft chart contains miscellaneous information such as the plane's turn mode, maximum level speed, victory point value, etc. The Spitfire aircraft charts even contain a combat results table (CRT) specific to each aircraft. All three games in the series use sequential movement whereby all planes on one side would move, followed by a round of simultaneous combat. Then planes of the other side would move, and combat would again be resolved simultaneously.
Combat in Spitfire is a simple affair: roll on the firing aircraft's CRT; the lower the die roll and the shorter the range, the greater the number of hits obtained on the target. Each aircraft can sustain a number of hits, and each hit forces the maximum level speed of the target to be decreased by one movement point. Thus, a single die roll on the CRT accounts for hit probability, hit total, and hit effect-answering questions 1, 2 and 4. Hit location is immaterial because hit effect is identical and uniform.
Featuring a simple combat system, Spitfire ignores factors such as:
- 1. Pilot quality: every pilot is equally skilled, making the focus of the game more around the machines than the men who fly them.
2. Size of target: a bomber is just as easy to hit as a fighter plane.
3. Target aspect: a head-on shot is just as effective as a beam attack on a fast target.
4. Critical damage: damage always affects the structural integrity of the target, lowering its maximum dive speed-no consideration is paid to the vulnerability of certain components such as the fuel tank or even the pilot.
The aircraft charts, however, do not explicitly tell players that the Spitfire I, for example, is armed with machine guns, while the BF-109F is armed with machine guns and cannon. For example, looking at the CRTs of each aircraft tells the player that the Spitfire I has better firepower at range one than the BF-109F fighter plane but little else. The combat system doesn't teach you much about the details of air combat during World War II.
Interestingly, the BF-109F has a 1-in-6 chance of scoring one hit at its maximum range of 12 hexes (600 yards) while the Spitfire I has a maximum range of just seven hexes (350 yards). This likely accounts for the Messerschmitt's cowling-mounted armament.
Because Spitfire doesn't have any rules on ammunition usage, it's in the best interest of the German player to simply stay far away and take pot shots at every opportunity. He may even be tempted to split up his twoplane element to ensure better coverage and cross protection of his less maneuverable fighter planes. This is actually a step down from the design of Flying Circus, which did include rules for ammunition limits. Thus, the combat system of Spitfire is fairly rudimentary, doesn't quite impart any lessons, doesn't educate the player on the tactics of the era and may perhaps even mislead players as to what the effective historical tactics were.
However, Spitfire (borrowing from Flying Circus) does contribute to the design of air combat games by introducing rules for deflection shooting, a crucial component of air combat. Maneuvering at speeds of over 250 miles per hour, pilots had to aim ahead of their targets-to apply sufficient lead-in order to hit their targets. Although not simulated in the actual combat determination, deflection is accounted for in Spitfire through the use of a sighting rule. Because of Spitfire's sequential movement, Dunnigan simulates deflection shooting by requiring the firer to keep his target in his aircraft's line of fire for the last 1/3 of the its movement as a prerequisite for firing. For example, a FW190A moving at 9 movement points needs to finish the last 3 MPs of its movement with its target in its line of fire (straight ahead of the aircraft).
Overall, Spitfire's combat system has marginal simulation value, although this system pioneers the use of aircraft data cards and the use of deflection shooting rules.
Another first generation air combat game is Richthofen's War (TAHGC, 1972), a game covering the aerial combat of World War I. While not strictly within the scope of an analysis of World War II designs, Richthofen 's War is well worth examination because of the innovations it contributes to the design of air combat systems.
Richthofen's War is aimed at playability over realism, as designer Randy Reed readily admits in his Designer's Notes. Like its contemporaries Spitfire and Flying Circus, it is on the lower end of the complexity scale. Yet its contributions are significant. It is one of the earliest games to use the to-hit /to-kill system. Richthofen c War's combat resolution system is very simple: the target damage table cross-grids range versus firepower. The shorter the range, the better the firepower and the higher the dice roll, the more hits that are obtained. The only dice roll modifiers in Richthofen c War are for ace (or double ace) status, and negative modifiers for more difficult deflection shots. A successful strike inflicts hits upon the target, which can take a specified number of hits (dependent on the aircraft type) before being destroyed.
In addition, instead of assigning a CRT peculiar to each aircraft, Reed grades the various configurations of armament, assigning each a letter. This is actually strikingly similar to the system Dunnigan came up with in Flying Circus. Where the different weapons configurations in Flying Circus were assigned numbers, Richthofen's War assigned alphabets, from best to worst, as follows:
- A: twin-machine guns aimed through the prop (Fokker DVII; Sopwith Camel)
B: two machineguns-one aimed through the prop and one upper wing-mounted (SE5a)
C: single machinegun aimed through the prop (Nieuport 17; Spad VII)
D: single machinegun; flexible mount or upper wing-mounted (Nieuport 11, DH-2)
As a comparison, Flying Circus assigned CRTs number 1 to 4 (best to worst) to the same aircraft as above in the following order:
- No. 1: Fokker DVII; Sopwith Camel
No. 2: SE5a
No. 3: Spad VII; DH-2; Nieuport 17
No. 4: Nieuport 11
Each configuration in Richthofen's War has its own hit probability and kill probability. Surprisingly, Air War (SPI, 1977), arguably the most complex air combat game yet designed shares this design feature of assigning a certain letter denoting the firepower of each weapon system. The notion that two simple World War I air combat games would share a design feature with a complex jet war game simulating modern tactics and systems, is interesting, but Air War features a design that is better categorized as a second generation system.
Therefore, Richthofen's War introduces a number of improvements (accounting for target attitude, pilot experience, limited ammunition) over Spitfire, while retaining playability and simplicity. The use of ace pilots enhances the sense that cardboard altar egos are at war, instead of the stoic automatons of Spitfire. Richthofen 's War also features a sighting rule similar to that of Spitfire, although presumably because of the lower airspeeds involved, the requirement that a firer keep its target in its line of fire has now been reduced to just two movement points.
Perhaps Richthofen's War's most important contribution is in highlighting the use of "critical hits" in tactical game design. The use of critical hits in Richthofen's War was possibly derived from Mike Carr's World War I design Fight in the Skies (1967), a rather innovative and imaginative game for its time. Combat in Spitfire and Flying Circus required aircraft to be hacked to bits. It is rare that a single burst of gunfire could destroy an aircraft. This is obviously at odds with historical outcomes. Aircraft are fragile machines that can sometimes take many structural hits but often are brought down simply by damage to a particularly vulner able part of the target.
For example, the pilot could be killed, the engine damaged or fuel lines severed-all spelling a premature end to the flight. Richthofen 's War's combat system's to-hit roll also determines the inci dence of critical hits. One dice roll on the critical hit table resolves hit location and hit effect simultaneously. Thus two dicerolls neatly resolve four questions: hit probability, hit total, hit location and hit effect.
While certainly not the last word in air combat design, Richthofen's War does impart certain lessons of air combat. It rewards players who attempt to open fire from their target's 6 o'clock position with an easier and more deadly attack. Players are also more selective in their shooting because of ammunition limits. With pilot experience being a factor, running from a losing fight becomes more likely. Richtofen's War was so much fun, however, that it was one of the best selling air titles of all, topping 100,000 copies and highlighted to the mass market the use of critical hits in air combat games.
Tactical Level Air Combat A Survey of Combat Resolution Systems
- Introduction
First Generation Systems
Second Generation Systems
Third Generation Systems and Conclusion
Back to Table of Contents -- Against the Odds vol. 2 no. 2
Back to Against the Odds List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2003 by LPS.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com
* Buy this back issue or subscribe to Against the Odds direct from LPS.