Game: Canvas Eagles

Image

Azzarc — 2008-09-25T05:06:44+00:00

Canvas Eagles game at Recruits Con Fall '08

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-09-15T06:17:00+00:00

Mission in trouble

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-09-15T06:15:48+00:00

Sopwith Triplane, RE-8

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-09-15T06:14:29+00:00

Albatros D-III, Roland D-II

Image

megadoux — 2008-09-14T20:21:34+00:00

A naval Hansa-Brandenburg W29 (1/48) over the fields of France

Image

megadoux — 2008-09-14T20:16:14+00:00

Death form above: A Sopwith Snipe chasing a Pfalz DXII

Image

megadoux — 2008-09-14T19:56:31+00:00

Same pilot (Udet), different planes; Siemmens-Schukert DIV (1/48) and Albatros DV (Wings of War)

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-08-01T01:29:46+00:00

Smoking Sopwith

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-08-01T01:28:34+00:00

Sopwith vs Zeppelin

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

ronshippau — 2008-07-24T16:27:37+00:00

I have tried most ww1 games and Blue max/Canvas eagles is the one I always come back too. I now use the WOW planes on the 3 inch felt hex mats available from the home page of CE. Hexes give sure movements a bump of the table doesn't suddenly put you in someones arc of fire as happened in WOW, I recommend using CE with WOW planes cheers Ron

Image

red_zebra_ve — 2008-05-21T00:09:55+00:00

Fokker D-II, Halberstadt D-II

Thread: Re: A 'real' terrain

Wulf Corbett — 2008-03-02T13:56:33+00:00

dsvilko wrote:
No, I was not thinking of a real 3D terrain but a 2D representation. As I am yet to play my first WWI dogfight (still working on the planes and the stands), I am really not an expert but i thought that it would add an interesting tactical element as the maneuver selection would be more restricted. It could even affect the tailing (can't tail someone you can't see behind the mountain).
I agree it would be nice, but I think any tailing rules I've seem require you to be a lot closer to the opponent than would be the case if an entire mountain was in the way. It would be interesting if you could find any area with lots of steep hills - it depends on how coarse the altitude scale is - would big buildings count as a whole altitude level?
As for how realistic would it be for a WWI dogfight to be fought over such a terrain, do we rally care? Those planes could have fought over such a terrain and I guess that's enough realism for me.
Depends on the altitude of the mountain, some of them couldn't have flown there!
It's not like we strapped a jet engine on a triplane
I can do a biplane with a couple of ramjets...
]]>

Thread: Re: A 'real' terrain

dsvilko — 2008-03-02T09:11:14+00:00

Wulf Corbett wrote:
Do you mean "written on it" as you say, or actual 3-D terrain? Virtually all game maps DO have altitude on them, despite being flat. Granted the game rules as written may not include terrain height rules, but that's easily done, and worthwhile, I agree.

If you mean actual 3-D terrain, one problem with this is that the miniature has to stand on something - usually the spot on the terrain it's supposed to be flying over. Therefore, the mini will rise and fall with the terrain, unless you raise & lower it on it's stand. Double the effort and not a very satisfying result.

The map would look good though. How many WW1 air combats actually took place over the Alps though? Or any significantly lumpy terrain?

No, I was not thinking of a real 3D terrain but a 2D representation. As I am yet to play my first WWI dogfight (still working on the planes and the stands), I am really not an expert but i thought that it would add an interesting tactical element as the maneuver selection would be more restricted. It could even affect the tailing (can't tail someone you can't see behind the mountain).
As for how realistic would it be for a WWI dogfight to be fought over such a terrain, do we rally care? Those planes could have fought over such a terrain and I guess that's enough realism for me. It's not like we strapped a jet engine on a triplane

Thread: Re: A 'real' terrain

badinfo — 2008-03-01T23:47:40+00:00

This is the reason I originally bought a couple Heroscape sets. But then I started having too much fun with Heroscape and haven't gotten back to the WW1 airplanes lol.

Thread: Re: A 'real' terrain

Wulf Corbett — 2008-03-01T18:40:56+00:00

Do you mean "written on it" as you say, or actual 3-D terrain? Virtually all game maps DO have altitude on them, despite being flat. Granted the game rules as written may not include terrain height rules, but that's easily done, and worthwhile, I agree.

If you mean actual 3-D terrain, one problem with this is that the miniature has to stand on something - usually the spot on the terrain it's supposed to be flying over. Therefore, the mini will rise and fall with the terrain, unless you raise & lower it on it's stand. Double the effort and not a very satisfying result.

The map would look good though. How many WW1 air combats actually took place over the Alps though? Or any significantly lumpy terrain?

Thread: A 'real' terrain

dsvilko — 2008-03-01T17:06:27+00:00

I don't know if there already is such a variant of the original rules but wouldn't it be cool if the in-game map was not flat but if each hex had a actual altitude written on it? For example, if the hex had a height of '3', your plane would have to have at list an altitude 4 not to crash.
Now that I can build photorealistic terrain maps of, oh let's say the Alps I think it would be interesting to fly over such a terrain.
What do you think?

Thread: High resolution, realistic hex maps

dsvilko — 2008-02-29T15:59:23+00:00

For extremely high resolution (100 megapixel!) hex (and non-hex) maps that I made, go to this thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/296837

Thread: Re: Somewhere between counters and mini's

dsvilko — 2008-02-27T18:57:04+00:00

I have just added a few fiddler's green 1/144 scale paper model photos to the gallery. With 8 planes per A4 sheet, ink is really not an issue. Scaled this small, the level of detail is really fantastic! It does take a few hours to build each plane but I think it is worth it.

Thread: Re: Matchups

Ward — 2008-02-08T17:16:31+00:00

I'm not so sure a Tripe vs. Dr1 is more evenly matched than the Camel vs. Dr1. The Tripe has a single gun and an A stability. The extra maneuvers are nice, but having to use a straight between lefts/rights reduces it's maneuverability compared to the Dr1, which has a C stability and can flip from side to side easily.

Thread: Re: Matchups

TheChin! — 2008-02-08T15:08:46+00:00

That's the consideration I'm wrestling with. No one in my group will have played the game previous and I think only one guy might have enough WWI aerial combat knowledge to know what planes were historically better than others and why. After reviewing the Plane sheets, it looks like the two triplanes are pretty evenly matched (DR1 Vs. Sopwith Tripe) so that on a presumably even skill first battle, no one feels at a disadvantage.

I like that the Sopwith seems sturdier, but in order to get the firepower of the DRI, you have to surrender a couple of maneuvers. It's a minor enought tradeoff for a first battle.

Thanks for the input though!

Thread: Re: Matchups

Thomaso827 — 2008-02-08T14:10:44+00:00

I think they do pretty well. Look at the availability chart if you are looking at their Yahoo group, and find when certain aircraft became available. If a matchup seems to unbalanced, give the lesser aircraft a better pilot. A DR1 vs a Camel would be a good matchup to me, each having some characteristics better than the other and some inferior. Just as in history, in part the thing to consider is the pilot's (or player's) knowledge of those characteristics and how to use them that makes the battle more than the aircraft themselves.

Tom Oxley

Thread: Matchups

TheChin! — 2008-02-07T20:02:51+00:00

As a potentially new player trying to put together a cheap, balanced tryout of the rules for my gaming group, is there a good source for even matchups of Allied Vs. Central aircraft? The sheer numbers of different planes is both exhilirating and overwhelming. I assume there is some correlation between availability dates, but not necessarily so since technology has a tendency to leap frog. I also assume that there is some balance in the classic matchups like DR.I Vs Camel, but do these assumptions hold up well with the actual implementation of aircraft types in this game?

Thread: Re: Somewhere between counters and mini's

craniac — 2008-01-30T17:13:35+00:00

The $8.00 price was at http://timewellspent.org (I have no financial connection). I have seen magnetic telescoping pickup tools at Harbor Freight Tools.

It would be interesting to see someone paint the papercraft models. That would probably look good and be much more affordable than burning inkjet cartridges, although refill kits are cheaper.

Thread: Re: Somewhere between counters and mini's

Thomaso827 — 2008-01-30T14:20:16+00:00

We play Blue Max here in Dayton, and use the 1/72 models, but I am seriously looking at those pre-painted 1/144 models for some upcoming Jump Or Burn games. Yes, a bit pricy, but no assembly, no painting, so it is a matter of how much is your time worth to you. The games have counters for altitude, so while the mounting with some sort of telescoping base is great, it isnt really necessary, at least to get the game on the table. I like the paper models, but there is also the build time, ink and card stock to think of there. That comes back to how much is your time worth. You could get by using the bases that come with the planes, ignoring the card in the base, and just use the altitude counters or dice for keeping track of altitude for early games. And if you can get those models for $8, grab them. They sell here for $12, and we consider that a bargain against how much time it takes to build and paint a nice model.

Tom Oxley

Thread: Re: Somewhere between counters and mini's

craniac — 2008-01-30T01:50:56+00:00

Those are very cool ideas. The wings of war minis are $8.00 apiece plus the cost of bases and magnets--not that cheap I guess. I wonder if there aren't some other papercraft planes out there.

Here's some stuff found by googling papercraft biplane 1/144

http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/n/8/n8hfi/card-faq/freeb.h...

Thread: Somewhere between counters and mini's

TheChin! — 2008-01-29T18:13:01+00:00

I've been thinking about putting together a Canvas Eagles game, but don't want to invest in mini's and am under the personal conclusion that some of the games fun would be lost with 2d counters. So, hoping to come to a compromise I remembered these:

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/early20th.htm#ww1air

They look like they can be resized fairly well and should be easy enough to mount on dowels or something. Does this seem like it would capture the spirit enough to get a good feel for the game?

Taken to another level, filddlersgreen ( http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/index.php?pg=order&cat=wwi ) makes very nice paper models of WWI planes and you can get infinitly printable versions of all their planes pretty cheaply. Maybe, if the 2d/3d models from JG go over well with my group, the fleshed out FG models would be the next step. The selection isn't as much, but that is easily circumvented.

Thread: Re: Source of RED and BLUE Chits

LimboLance — 2008-01-19T00:19:55+00:00

My group is using a chart that requires 2 six sided dice and a ten sided die - posted in the Files section. Give it a try! If you do - please email me with comments!

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

LimboLance — 2008-01-19T00:17:51+00:00

I used Telescoping Inspection Mirrors from Harbor Freight (though you can probably get them in most any Hardware store). Cut off the mirror with wire cutters (leaving the stem below the mirror). Purchase some small fuel line hose (from most Hobby stores - used for gasoline powered model racing cars and such) and attach to stem and on mini - fits both easily and sturdily. Then the swivel the stem is attached to can be turned to show airplane dives, climbs and spins. I posted a picture in the Images section.

Thread: Re: Length of Antennas?

LimboLance — 2008-01-11T00:16:06+00:00

I used telescoping mirrors, simply detach the mirror - keeping the "rod' that the mirror was attached to. Use small fuel line tubing (available in most hobby stores) that will slide over the rod and onto the small "tip" on the bottom of the model. These mirrors have 5 sections - this will give 9 height adjustments by making a black mark halfway between each section (then slide up or down and the number of sections left visible is your height). For the base - I don't use plexiglass or wood. I bought hexstock - its made from steel. A buddy of mine and I cut them into 1 inch high sections and drilled holes through which the telescoping mirrors could be attached. I will post some pictures.

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

vlmarshall — 2007-12-03T02:22:47+00:00

We've been playing with the cardstock altitude markers from the CE website, as they seem to be a faster way of marking and reading altitude.

We still have our planes mounted on antennas, but we only adjust them vaguely to indicate the relative altitude difference between planes.

Most of the aircraft in the game can't use more than 8 segments, making the 10-segment antenna an unneeded expense.

Thread: Re: Is the the same as...?

megadoux — 2007-10-30T13:42:05+00:00

Some people seem to present it as the new edition of Blue Max. I don´t know till what pint will be true, but the differences are not ver y big, indeed

Thread: Re: Is the the same as...?

Hawk — 2007-10-30T13:14:42+00:00

The base rules are identical, but there are some additions, namely the altitude and flight constraints ("C/L/D" ratings found under each maneuver).

Further, there are over 140 different Maneuver Schedules in CANVAS EAGLES.

Thread: Is the the same as...?

Slotracer — 2007-10-30T07:39:31+00:00

Hi,
is "Canvas Eagles" the same game as "Blue Max" but just with miniature bi-planes?
Seems to me that the movement chart for the bi-planes looks very much like the once from "Blue Max".

Thread: Re: 1/300ths available

VictorBarone — 2007-09-10T21:11:09+00:00

Hello.
How much for the lot?
You hagve some pics ?
Thanks

Thread: 1/300ths available

kduke — 2007-08-31T17:17:54+00:00

Due to lack of playing time and other things, I'm giving up my 1/300th scale WWI minies.

I have about 45 painted and well over 100 unpainted. Of course, i'd like to move the lot.

I won't clutter up space here with a list-- anyone interested, please contact me directly.

kevin

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

RichardC — 2007-07-31T00:39:31+00:00

Thanks for the help..I went a different route, I bought 24(at $1.16 each) 5 segment pick-up tools with the swivel head and magnet attached..I found some 3/4" thick plywood boards(from a packing crate), and cut out about 30 5" hexes. I attached all the magnets to my plane models,(making sure of the polarity), and the stands support the airplanes just fine without any counter balances,(I even have three 1/72 scale Gotha Bombers that are supported by the same stands).I went over to using the rules and game components for the Aerodrome game,simply because the rules seem easier to understand. Now I just need to find some players..thanks again for all the help..

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

dkwd — 2007-07-30T22:35:42+00:00

The other thing you can do if you are going with the magnetic pick-up tools is put a paperclip inside the plane instead of another magnet. This way you don't havd to worry about polarity.

David

Thread: Re: Miniatures?

kduke — 2007-06-17T18:22:10+00:00

And if anyone got some 1/144th WWI minies and decided they did not want them, contact me directly.

I'm working on a couple things that might be able to take them off your hands.

OR, if you might be interested in trading some planes, I have "extras" of some rather obscure things, as well as a couple extra "pop stars." Let's talk about that.

Thread: Re: How close are Blue Max and Canvas Eagles?

kduke — 2007-06-16T20:00:12+00:00

Actually, Canvas Eagles has about double the "damage" options over BM-- more damage chits, more different permutations.

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

kduke — 2007-06-16T14:38:03+00:00

INDEED

FwiW, the other planes have fewer available moves too.

I tend to the "dancer" side of the equation in terms of preferences, but in comparing how "comfy" I feel with a "runner" in CE/BM compared to one in WoW... I think I feel a little bit better in WoW. Conversely, I feel more confidence in a BM "dancer" against a runner.

Some of this is the difference in complexity and some of it is the difference in shooting. WoW has a much broader/wider shooting arc than BM-- your plane will get to shoot in more situations. But the results are limited and more random-- it doesn't get any worse than "2 damage cards with +1 to the hit numbers," so you don't have quite the horrible feeling of, say, getting caught in that zero ranged shot and having 7 Rs tapping on you.

One could say that was a weakness too. Matter of taste, I suppose. I like both games, and had a couple people in my Nashcon demos who are veteran CE players (one of them the game master for a couple sessions of CE.) They both seemed to have a good time.

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

Dudd — 2007-06-15T23:22:14+00:00

CE has a few more maneuvers available per plane-- with some planes more than a few extra.

I havent played Canvas Eagles, but looking at the number of possible maneuvers available for the planes, I'd say that is one big appealing thing about it compared to Wings of War. Planes like the SPAD and Albatros in WoW just seem too limited in the amount of different maneuvers they can do, especially turning (only one type of turn is available for them).

Of course WoW had to limit the number of manuevers available because of their "maneuver deck" implementation, with each maneuver on a separate card (rather than choosing from a list of maneuvers), but it can seem like a severe restriction at times. Definitely pros and cons to each type of system.

Thread: Re: Which game is easier to learn?

kduke — 2007-06-15T21:37:37+00:00

I'm more familiar with Aerodrome under its original title, "Sopwith."

Fire plotting/guessing was part of the game. Damage was based on range-- not a randomizer. You did X damage adjacent and 1 less damage for each hex farther away the target was. So the chance was in guessing where and when to shoot-- and having a limited number of chances.

Again, I'm citing sopwith, but you plotted 3 impulses per turn and had 3 chances to shoot-- with a wide potential arc (facing the flat side of the hex you could should "straight" (BM CE style) or down either the 2 oclock or 10 oclock spine. You could fire down all 3 if you wanted to (but just for one impulse) and juggling when and how was a part of the game. It wasn't hard to teach-- just a matter of guessing right.

I worked on a system pre-aerodrome trying to factor in some more elements and the way I played it was to allow "opportunity fire"-- which you are asking about, the ability to shoot when a target presents itself-- but to also allow programming and give a big bonus if the programmed fire worked out correctly.

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

kduke — 2007-06-14T14:51:27+00:00

I think one of the main advantages CE/BM has over WoW is the greater range of airplanes. (I'll just use CE from this point forward-- we all know we're talking about a sort of 4th edition Blue Max).

CE has a few more maneuvers available per plane-- with some planes more than a few extra.

Some of the maneuver charts in CE are "debatable." For example, CE has the German copy of the N-17 (the SS D1) use the same exact chart as the N-17. They are completely the same. The WoW folks noted that the SS D1 was heavier but not quite as sharp as the N-17 and has it use the N-11 maneuver deck instead but make the SSD1 able to take more damage.

In fact, though we might conceded WoW is "lighter," I'll give them credit for being a little sharper sticklers for things like this. When the boosters were first being discussed (what planes would come out next) I was pushing to get the Se5 included and used the CE point that the Pfalx D12 uses the same chart, thus giving them "another plane" for the same maneuver chart (which they like to do with then can.). They said the performance was different enough for the Pfalz that they didn't want to do that, and in fact, when they brought out the Snipe, they also did not follow the "use same chart" for the SSD3 and SSD4. That those planes use the same chart as the Snipe (in fact, the same chart as each other) is something that could be debated.

Also, in WoW, the Snipe is a very good plane, but it's not the super-plane that the Snipe/SSD3/SSD4 is in CE. That is a good thing-- this chart pretty much runs away with the game in CE, and is sort of "to popular" in the on-line "you play it" system. (lots of pigeon shooting scenarios).

WoW does not give the Triplanes the sharp turn to the left that CE does-- Rotary right is the sharpest turn in the game.

Hmmm. I'm starting to find several areas where the obvious "WoW is lighter" comes into question.

One other element of WoW that I think works nicely is that the 3 impulses give greater chances of shooting taking place. Where planes might move 1, 2, or even 3 hexes in CE and only fire (or be shot) at the last hex, in WoW there are fire/target opportunities after every card. That most-devestating attack in CE-- where the faster plane enters the slower plane's hex and gets shot at zero range-- ignores the fact that the faster plane probably should have gotten a shot at the slower plane before it entered the hex. We totally lose that in CE, but in probably would not happen in WoW.

I think one element that encourages the "lighter" feel is that WoW is, frankly, a little easier to move. It's much less likely you'll make "illegal" moves (like moving from speed 3 to speed 1 in CE) and a little easier to avoid going left when you meant to go right. That makes WoW easier for beginners to pick up, and-- my experience at least-- a little faster to play. If someone does make an illegal move-- 2 stalls in a row, or the wrong sequence for an Immelmann (the only two illegals there are)--then the game lets you choose from 2 simple mechanics-- an auto straight move (my choice) or instant death. When an illegal move happens in CE...

I give CE credit for "incremental damage." With WoW, your plane takes X # of hit points and-- except for the rare engine hit-- suffers no decline in performance until it's shot down completely. So if you take 13 hits, at 12 hits your plane is still performing at full strength. Much as I hate the dread "fabric tear" items in CE, I do think it's better that planes have progressive damage. But putting that into the WoW system would be difficult (except, say, for tossing out Immelmans.)

CE has fuel and ammo use-- more detail but more difficulty-- and the choice of burst length which impacts the chances of jamming. WoW just has "jammed" outcomes on the damage decks, without regard for what sort of shot you were making. WoW jams and fires have an impulse based removal system (jams last 3 cards, fires last 3 turns) versus the die roll for both in CE. In fact, WoW uses no die at all-- which might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your luck of the day.

WoW has only 2 possible damage modifiers-- 2 damage cards at short range and 1 at long, and the "+1" point of damage if you shot at the person on the last card played before this one. CE has many more variables and rewards for the circumstances of the shot, plus a modifier for the stability of the shooting platform, which gives considerable shooting realism kudos to CE... altho the 6 die based system can have a huge range of different results (as anyone who has been in a head on shot and rolled a 1 versus a 6 will shout about!)

I have both games and will keep both. I probably find myself playing WoW more often, if only because it's easier to use with new gamers.

Hope that helps-- I'm sure there are other differences I've missed.

Thread: Re: 1st time with telescopic magnet things

craniac — 2007-06-01T04:10:04+00:00

Harbor freight sells them. I've seem them by themselves, in-store, for even less:

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnu...

http://www.sjdiscounttools.com/lis66500.html

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

Lawn Dart — 2007-05-31T01:27:18+00:00

I've already using my WoW minis in Canvas Eagles. We have antennas with magnets on top...I just glued a magnet on my minis right behind the peg and they can now work with either Canvas Eagles or WoW.

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

Bostich — 2007-05-28T20:18:32+00:00

Canvas Eagles is further along the game->sim continuum to be sure. I think WoW shares a lot of elements with (from) CE like the 2 damage decks vs. red/blue damage chits.

I've actually just started making bases for my soon-to-be WoW Minis to adapt them to Canvas Eagles. I've been waiting for this day for a while, 1/72 planes are just too fiddly to make myself and the pre-painted Wow figures are a blessing.

Some ideas for conversion:

1) Use "Green Stuff" to mold around the peg coming out of/in to the WoW mins and affix that to the top of the antenna. A little bit of work.

2) Affix one of the little plastic altitude bits from the WoW minis to the antenna. This is less work but means if I want to use the Minis for WoW there'll only be 3 levels of altitude not 4.

3) Modify some templates to make the CE movement orders work with the rectangular WoW bases. This would be a bit fiddly as I'd need a lot of templates and firing arcs to make it work. That might not be worth it.

Wow is a great game and certainly faster than CE, but there are times you need a bit more detail.

j.,

Thread: Re: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

Hawk — 2007-05-28T20:05:38+00:00

I have played both, and find WoW to be lighter than CE. I still prefer CE, especially when using altitude. With CE, there is no line of sight (LoS) problems at all, and no 45 degree shots; with fixed guns, one can only fire 3 hexes straight ahead, +/- 1 altitude level, and planes do not block LoS.

You are correct in that some of us will certainly be giving these 1/144th scale minis a try with CE, although we'll need to adapt them to our bases.

Thread: Has anyone played both Wings of War and Canvas Eagles?

craniac — 2007-05-28T14:14:22+00:00

I'm curious about how they compare to each other, in practice. Obviously WoW is a lighter game. I imagine that WoW minis will start showing up in Canvas Eagles games soon.

Wings of War - Miniatures

[edited to remove a few dumb, obvious things I had put in the original post]

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

Hawk — 2007-05-21T05:32:25+00:00

RichardC wrote:
as for the base, does it matter if its solid wood or plexiglass? I guess it depends on user prference, and money constraints
Sorry for the delay in replying, I had to prepare for a gaming convention (which just ended a few hours ago).

You can use whatever material you prefer. Weight and size of your base will be dictated by the length of the magnetic recovery tool. The base is your counter balance, and it needs to be wide/heavy enough to prevent your plane from tipping over. Best bet is probably to test different sizes and/or material, unless someone here has built bases for a 36" stand for a (1/72nd or 1/144th scale?) plane.

Thread: Re: Which game is easier to learn?

RichardC — 2007-05-13T19:02:49+00:00

couldn't you just skip the "firing plotting" rule in Aerodrome and say that once you made your required movement to take your shots if you have a viable target?

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

RichardC — 2007-05-13T18:58:11+00:00

Thanks..I found some magnetic recovery tools cheap on Ebay. they are 8 segment(counting the main segment and about 36" in lenght, I bought six for $17.17 (shipping included) and will get 4 more if I can get them at the same price($1.49 ea., plus shipping($8.00)..as for the base, does it matter if its solid wood or plexiglass? I guess it depends on user prference, and money constraints..also found on Ebay are sets of the "rare earth" magnets that I can glue to the inside bottom of the planes to attach the recovery tool too..I already have about 20 planes that I found cheap on Ebay and the Great Models website..time to get to gluin' and paintin'...

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

Hawk — 2007-05-13T18:21:59+00:00

The height can be whatever you want, and has the previous poster mentioned, it is the number of segments which may be more important. Not to mention finding extendable "poles" may prove challenging and expensive, so you may want to consider this as well.

There are cordless phone antennas (you can find these in electronics store) as well as magnetic recovery tools (found at hardware stores).

Another thing to consider, if using antennas, is the need to drill a whole in the bottom of your model, so you may mount a hook/bracket. You'll also need to solder an alligator clip on the antenna's top. If you go the magnetic route, then all you need to do is mount a magnet on your model.

Last but not least, the length the "pole" tool along with the weight of your model, will dictate the weight and size of your base.

Personally, I went with the a 5-segment (21") magnetic recovery tool with swivel head, and a 5" hex base (I used 1" thick red oak and drilled 3 to 6 counter weight holes the size of a penny).

Edit: If you choose to go the magnetic route, then you'll want to keep an eye out on the polarity, as the way you install the magnet on your plane becomes important. This is not the case if you have many recovery tools with different polarities.

Thread: Re: Which game is easier to learn?

Hawk — 2007-05-13T18:09:26+00:00

Richard, both games are fairly easy to learn and teach, as the rules are intuitive, especially if you have played this type of game before.

There are still a lot of rules to learn in CE, so teaching them to players who have not played this type of game (aerial combat) before may prove challenging. But, after running them through a few turns and combat rounds, the game will teach itself.

In AERODROME, you have to pre-plot firing, which is not so in CE. Personally, I prefer CE, as it's like 3D aerial chess.

You could also use BLUE MAX to teach CE, as CE is the same as BM, but CE has altitude and flight constraints. So, BM is 2D, therefore making it easier for new players to visualize (and you can play/teach with counters instead of models).

Thread: Which game is easier to learn?

RichardC — 2007-05-13T14:09:05+00:00

I'm trying to decide between getting Aerodrome or Canvas Eagles.. I know Canvas Eagles is basically free, but I'd rather have the game thats easier to learn/teach and play, so I would appreciate any help in steering me toward the best game, simplicity-wise

Thanks

Thread: Re: Lenght of Antennas?

lexen — 2007-05-13T13:38:39+00:00

you need a 10 piece atenna.
For each of the 10 levels.
You could get away with a 8 piece but good luck trying to find one.
Cheers
Lexen

Thread: Lenght of Antennas?

RichardC — 2007-05-13T13:24:49+00:00

I'm trying to make my own hex bases to save a bit of money and would like to know what's the best/standard lenght of the antennas used in this game, whats a good starting height with a closed antenna?

Thanks

Thread: Re: How close are Blue Max and Canvas Eagles?

Ward — 2007-04-12T16:15:04+00:00

I'm pretty sure that most of the counters required for Canvas Eagles (except the altitude ones obviously) are contained in Blue Max. I haven't verified that though, but that is my understanding of it.

Thread: Re: How close are Blue Max and Canvas Eagles?

craniac — 2007-04-12T15:27:38+00:00

Blue Max can also be played online for free. And not to answer your question, but Wings of War is coming out with nifty miniatures, prepainted, in a month or so.

Thread: How close are Blue Max and Canvas Eagles?

L4D2 — 2007-04-12T09:21:29+00:00

A question for all you Blue Max/Canvas Eagles aficionados: I was looking over the list of wargames as listed by rank and discovered Canvas Eagles – very highly rated. I went to look at the game and, lo and behold, the game is free – just download it. So I began to look over the components, downloading as I went along, and found all these counters: altitude markers, smoke/fire markers, damage markers (two colors), move written markers, besides tables and tailing cards, etc. Then I got to thinking, making all these parts is going to be a pain, besides trying to make them look sharp. So my question: is Canvas Eagles such a close spin-off of Blue Max that if I buy Blue Max I can use the same counters/markers, cards and tables to play Canvas Eagles? Of course, it would no longer be “free”.

Thread: Re: Combat Table 6.2 question about Fire Base

lexen — 2007-03-26T23:38:12+00:00

The fire base is on the sheet on the airplane
Depending on what kind of weopons that particular plane was equipped.

The fire base is located on the plane sheet under the fuel consumption!

Hope this helps
Cheers
Alex