Game: Zero!

Thread: Re: the Japanese planes seem a bit underpowered

ralpher — 2008-10-08T20:26:28+00:00

How many times did the agile effect actually come into play in those three games? Not many times, I would think. Note that a pair of Zeroes does have a one point advantage over the Wildcats because of the inferior wingman for the Wildcat.

Thread: Re: the Japanese planes seem a bit underpowered

model359 — 2008-10-08T20:16:15+00:00

We played today, the Zero vs the Wildcat the the zero one 3 out of 3. That 6 card hand limit vs the 5 card limit of the wildcat came into play big time. That one card can make or break your dogfight.

Thread: the Japanese planes seem a bit underpowered

ralpher — 2008-10-07T17:38:19+00:00

From a balance standpoint, the US and the Japanese planes are balanced. From a historical standpoint, I think this is not accurate. The Zero undisputably outclassed the Wildcat in all aspects except taking damage and dive, and totally outclassed the Buffalo. In this game, the Zero is considered equal to the Wildcat. The Nate was an obsolete fighter, but compare it to the Russian I-16 Rata from Rise of the Luftwaffe, which the Nate fought in China, the Rata is far superior (+1 HP, +1 damage, +1 burst).

Perhaps the balance problem is Japanese planes are being balanced the "Agile" fighter rule, which is very streaky and disappears immediately with the first hit. I suggest tweaking this rule, for historical purposes--to allow agile to allow a discard of a "Tight Turn" or "scissors" when undamaged rather than simply scissors. The agility is not simply the ability to pull a scissors but tight turn as well. In the alternative, the agility shoudl not disappear until the Japanese fighter is flipped over to damaged. Damage that's not enough to flip the card shouldn't be enough to decrease its performance. These variants each add half a point to the point value of the Japanese fighters.

Thread: Re: New Down in Flames Forum!!

Kozure — 2008-07-23T13:51:39+00:00

Just in case you hadn't noticed or heard about it, there's a new, revamped DiF system coming out:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36325

It looks like it addresses many issues with the old game.

Thread: Re: Seeking Aircraft Card Manifest

Bearcat89 — 2008-06-20T10:21:59+00:00

Zero! - 130 Cards

Action Deck
Ace Pilot (3)
Barrel Roll (10)
Half Loop (2)
In My Sights, 1 Burst, 1 Hit (9)
In My Sights, 1 Burst, 2 Hits (4)
In My Sights, 2 Bursts, 2 Hits (6)
In My Sights, 2 Bursts, 3 Hits (2)
In My Sights, 2 Bursts, Fuel Tank (1)
In My Sights, 3 Bursts, 3 Hits (3)
Maneuvering (15)
Out of the Sun, 1 Burst, 2 Hits (1)
Out of the Sun, 2 Bursts, 3 Hits (1)
Out of the Sun, 3 Bursts, 4 Hits (1)
Scissors (5)
Tight Turn (9)
Vertical Roll (4)

American Aircraft
B-17D (2)
B-17E (2)
F2A3 (2)
F4F (4)
P-40B (4)
P-40C (2)
P-40E (2)
PBY-5A (1)
SBD-3 (2)
TBD-1 (2)

British Aircraft
Blenheim Mk I (2)
Buffalo 1 (4)
Hudson Mk I (2)
Hurricane IIb (4)

Japanese Aircraft
A6M2 Zero (4)
B5N2 Kate (4)
D3A1 Val (4)
E13A1 Jake (1)
G3M2 Nell (4)
G3M1 Betty (4)
H6-K4 Mavis (1)
Ki-21 Sally (4)
Ki-27 Nate (4)
Ki-30 Ann (2)
Ki-43-I Oscar (2)
Ki-46 Dinah (1)
Ki-48 Lily (2)

Thread: Re: Seeking Aircraft Card Manifest

Eric the Red — 2008-06-20T05:46:45+00:00

Urhixidur wrote:
Bearcat89 wrote:
http://www.relativerange.com/dif/componts.htm#Zero

Complete card manifests for all Down in Flames titles are available at Relative Range.

Not any more. Googling can't find 'em either. Anybody got that manifest handy?

Try here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070210060558/http://www.relativerange.com/dif/

You'll have to cut n paste the link. BGG's editor is choking on the URL

Thread: Re: Seeking Aircraft Card Manifest

Urhixidur — 2008-04-09T23:30:35+00:00

Bearcat89 wrote:
http://www.relativerange.com/dif/componts.htm#Zero

Complete card manifests for all Down in Flames titles are available at Relative Range.

Not any more. Googling can't find 'em either. Anybody got that manifest handy?

Thread: Re: New Down in Flames Forum!!

hunter368 — 2008-01-23T21:18:42+00:00

Sweet I look forward towards your comments on DiF games. Don't be shy about posting.

Thread: Re: New Down in Flames Forum!!

Dazooz — 2008-01-23T20:35:29+00:00

Nice!

I'm registered!

Thread: New Down in Flames Forum!!

hunter368 — 2008-01-23T16:04:14+00:00

Check us out!

http://ww2downinflames.freeforums.org/

Thread: Re: Anybody have a multi element dog fight example of play?

sefton — 2008-01-14T14:41:44+00:00

I know that the Example of Play in the Eighth Air Force rule book has two elements against two elements and it really helps clear up any confusion as to how the different leaders and wingmen can attack, but the only rules posted for that game are a Spanish translation.

Image

matthewjhoskins — 2007-07-15T22:35:27+00:00

Zero! Campaign Book cover scan

Thread: Questions on solo campaign

matthewjhoskins — 2007-06-29T01:18:38+00:00

Here are some of my questions and calls for clarifications from the Pearl Harbor Campaign. Help from you folks with more experience with this game than I have is much appreciated.

When drawing American defenses when you draw "out of the Sun" you reduce the number of cards drawn for a strafe by 1. According to the campaign book you always draw one card for strafing? The Rule summary on the Pearl Harbor Zeros draw 1 card for a strafe.

My question - do Zeros always draw one card in the PH campaign?

When assigning Zeros to attack the B-17 element do you draw one card for each plane assigned to attack or one card for each L/w pair?

When do you decide to use "magazine hit" or "Tip to Tip" to modify damage results?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Can a wingman use a Vertical Roll card as an attack?

colinkun — 2007-05-31T16:00:24+00:00

Thank you.

I didn't remembered that agile aircraft special ability rule until about halfway through the game.

Thread: Re: Can a wingman use a Vertical Roll card as an attack?

Sprydle — 2007-05-31T06:29:29+00:00

Vertical Roll is used as an attack to change altitude (so that you match the altitude of your target) only. Otherwise it's used as a response to attempt to avoid being attacked. Drawing two for your wingman's mini-hand doesn't help your situation--10.2 lists exactly what cards can be used. But, lucky for you, you were flying a Zero, an AGILE aircraft--that means you can, once per aircraft's turn, use one card as a Scissors. Scissors can be used as an attack if your leader is disadvantaged--it makes the leader become advantaged if the enemy leader doesn't respond. Because you can only do this once, if the enemy leader uses a Scissors or an Ace Pilot card, you're out of luck at that point. Remember, only agile aircraft have this option.

Thread: Can a wingman use a Vertical Roll card as an attack?

colinkun — 2007-05-31T03:26:06+00:00

Can a wingman use a Vertical Roll card as an attack? I couldn't find the answer in my quick check of the rules, so I'm not sure.

My leader was disadvantaged and so I wanted to do a wingman attack on my opponent's advantaged leader. My A6M2 Zero with and offensive value of 2 drew 2 Vertical roll cards.... and I wasn't sure if I could use them.

Thread: Re: Anybody have a multi element dog fight example of play?

fatso — 2007-05-30T02:18:29+00:00

I'm in the same boat, I picked it up and am reading the rules... It looks fun but I haven't put it all together.

Thread: Anybody have a multi element dog fight example of play?

colinkun — 2007-05-30T01:45:45+00:00

I just picked this one up from the FLGS and I'm reading through the rules. They don't seem that difficult, but I'm still working out the rules.

So I'm wondering if there is something like the Extended Example of Play but with multiple elements involved. Anyone?

Seems like a pretty cool game system, and I'm looking forward to getting into the campaigns.

Image

asm_zero — 2007-04-01T15:11:38+00:00

Back of action card.

Image

asm_zero — 2007-04-01T14:28:26+00:00

Back side of counter sheet.

Image

asm_zero — 2007-04-01T14:27:40+00:00

Freshly opened box. Including a nice little thank-you note.

Image

DrChek — 2007-03-27T15:21:19+00:00

Clean scan of the box cover art.

Thread: Re: Multi-player Campaigns

Kozure — 2007-03-19T14:51:58+00:00

I'm going to be experimenting with multi-player campaigns this weekend. Does anyone have any experience in doing this?

I'm still planning on doing the "side-balance" thing as described above.

I was also wondering if anyone had ever come up with a free-form campaign design framework - that is, something like the old Lucasarts PC games Their Finest Hour and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, or in the modern age - Falcon4 - where you assign CAP, escort and bombing missions to various targets (ports, factories, railgrids, etc.), using a limited pool of assets. Your assets increase over time as you build new planes - the capacity to build new planes depends on the health of your factories. The war progresses, affected by the success of bombing missions against invasion and ground forces, rail networks and other targets.

Thread: Multi-player Campaigns

Kozure — 2007-03-06T14:45:57+00:00

I know that the basic (dogfighting) game can accommodate multiple players, but all of the campaign games seem more suitable to two-players only. It's apparent that with some quick tweaking (adding one or more elements to each side) that the campaign missions could easily become multiplayer, but what resources exist to make this more "official"?

I'm sure someone out there has done it - (maybe in the various C3i magazines) but I haven't seen reference to such variants here.

With the addition of additional elements, some bombing missions would become more heavily opposed (even with escorts) and the addition of more bombing formations could skew the VP results for bombing runs.

My current plan is to do the usual resource selection for each side, see how many "player slots" exists for any given mission, then add elements (balanced by element value) to accommodate the number of players.

Thread: Re: Seeking Aircraft Card Manifest

Bearcat89 — 2006-12-21T20:01:31+00:00

http://www.relativerange.com/dif/componts.htm#Zero

Complete card manifests for all Down in Flames titles are available at Relative Range.

Thread: Seeking Aircraft Card Manifest

saxophone — 2006-12-21T16:38:35+00:00

I'm trying to determine if I have a complete set. My total aircraft card count doesn't match the number listed in the rulebook. Can someone point me to a manifest of the aircraft cards? I don't need to values on the cards, just the aircraft name, whether it is a Fighter, Wingman, Light Bomber, etc., and the quantity of each card. Thanks.

Thread: Re: Solo playability

Shijuro — 2006-11-06T21:49:14+00:00

dr glaze et al wrote:

...I'vre tried the solo Pearl Harbor scenario and it was just OK. I sunk the Helm, which I think was later salvaged from Pearl Harbor and that my grandfather served on early in the Pacific!
Wow, that's a pretty detailed scenario. Is my grandfather mentioned too?

Thread: Re: Solo playability

dr glaze et al — 2006-11-06T19:32:38+00:00

hanzelmans wrote:
I am on the verge of purchasing Zero! and Corsairs & Hellcats. I see that GMT rates them as Medium in solo play, however, I wanted to see how folks that play the game rate it in that area.

There are a handful of solo scenarios where you draw cards for flak defense against otherwise-undefended targets. But don't gamesteurbate - Zero! is great fun and plays fast, so share it with someone else!

I'vre tried the solo Pearl Harbor scenario and it was just OK. I sunk the Helm, which I think was later salvaged from Pearl Harbor and that my grandfather served on early in the Pacific!

Thread: Re: Solo playability

GeoMan — 2006-11-06T18:52:17+00:00

If you want to play solo try the PC adaption:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/eastern_front/bundle.htm...

It plays exactly the same as the card DiF series and you can play online. It costs about $35.

Thread: Solo playability

hanzelmans — 2006-11-06T16:32:05+00:00

I am on the verge of purchasing Zero! and Corsairs & Hellcats. I see that GMT rates them as Medium in solo play, however, I wanted to see how folks that play the game rate it in that area.

Thread: Re: Is Turn Order Too Much a Deciding Factor?

Scootergsp — 2006-08-05T06:37:39+00:00

In addition to the first to go not getting a wingman attack, you should consider alternating elements.

For instance, if you go first, start with the P-40, turn it over to the Oscars, then go with your Hurricanes, then Zeros (or some combination as long as turn changes go with elements and the order of those turns is maintained).

Well, we did remember the no-wingman-attack-on-first turn rule; and we did alternate elements between each team. In fact, we did it exactly as you described above.

I argued that both my team mate and I just happened to get a really good hand on our initial draw. The other player maintained that with the distribution of the cards weighing toward more attack cards, the odds are always going to be heavily in favor or the team going first.

I think that we need more plays to get a real grasp of the dynamics. I just hope that their early opinion doesn't dissuade them from playing more so that we can actually test the theory...

Thread: Re: Is Turn Order Too Much a Deciding Factor?

MadGonzo — 2006-08-04T17:15:31+00:00

Thread: Re: Is Turn Order Too Much a Deciding Factor?

sdiberar — 2006-08-04T15:44:34+00:00

Please do note that the player that goes first does NOT get a Wingman Attack phase. This helps the balance a bit, and it's a rule that's often overlooked.

Thread: Re: Is Turn Order Too Much a Deciding Factor?

cktenhoff — 2006-08-04T04:25:49+00:00

I've never thought turn order was the deciding factor, but rather card flow and how useful the cards you draw are.

I've started second and have easily turned the tables on the first player. I've also started first and couldn't do a blasted thing, because of my starting hand and subsequent draws (starting with defense and then drawing attack when I was disadvantaged).

But then again I know quite a few of the tricks of maneuver for this game so I might have a bit of tunnel vision on the game start.

Thread: Is Turn Order Too Much a Deciding Factor?

Scootergsp — 2006-08-04T03:58:21+00:00

Played a session last week, simple dogfight.

Two players on each side, Allies (including me) had P-40Es and Hurricanes. Japanese had Oscars and Zeros.

Allies won the flip and went first. Due to draw of cards both Allies were able to shoot down both Japanese wingmen on their very first turn. By the end of game the remaining Zero was also downed.

We then had a lengthy discussion in which one of the loosing players decided that the game essentially breaks down to who wins the flip and goes first. He maintained that because the initiative losers will always be reacting and will never have a full hand of cards, the winner of initiative will always win the game. Despite my arguments I could never convince him otherwise.

We then played a second game, only this time both Japanese players took Zeros and we gave them the flip outright. The Japanese side did win, but not nearly as decisively as the Allies won the first game.

He took this as proof of his belief; but I'm not convinced that the initial flip is THE deciding factor in the game.

What thoughts do you have?

Scooter (JKN)

Thread: Re: Gunners Attacks from Lt. Bombers

Scootergsp — 2006-06-27T07:30:37+00:00

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

Thread: Re: Gunners Attacks from Lt. Bombers

rafial — 2006-06-25T23:23:23+00:00

During regular card play for the leader with the gunner, that leader may play attack cards (In My Sights or Out of the Sun) against a leader toward which it is disadvantaged or tailed (9.22) Or against that leader's wingman (9.24)

So think about it this way: a gunner just expands your firing arcs. Normally a leader may only play attack cards against another leader to whom it is advantaged or tailing (or neutral if your plane has bursts > 0). The gunner allows you to shoot at the guy that is behind you (but using the gunner burst rating rather than the regular burst rating for the plane).

Is this explanation helpful to you?

Finally, does the fact that all the Lt. Bombers seem to have a rating of "1" mean that then can only a "1 Burst" card?

Correct. Per 9.23, a gunner's bursts may never be increased, except by a pilot with a G rating.

Thread: Gunners Attacks from Lt. Bombers

Scootergsp — 2006-06-25T20:43:09+00:00

When does a gunner in a Lt. Bomber get to make an attack against an attacking enemy, and how exactly is it done? The rules are a bit vague as they say it is played like any normal attack. An example would have been helpful...

Also, is the attack card played from that planes normal hand of available cards or is drawn like a wingman's mini-hand?

Finally, does the fact that all the Lt. Bombers seem to have a rating of "1" mean that then can only a "1 Burst" card?

Thanks for any help?
Scooter (JKN)

Thread: Re: Starting cards amount at the beginning of the game?

bluekingzog — 2006-03-16T23:45:42+00:00

6 I believe. Certainly playing the excellent computer version (from battlefront.com) you get given an extra card if you start low and 1 less card if you start high. It makes 'sense' in game terms as well as you would have greater power at lower levels. Of course you cant refill your hand to 6.

Thread: Re: Blooding a non-gamer

ronster0 — 2006-03-15T23:39:38+00:00

I won this game but have yet to break the shrink wrap.

I think I know what will be opened next!

Thread: Blooding a non-gamer

bluekingzog — 2006-03-14T03:40:17+00:00

A quiet night shift at work (will not say where in case the boss is a geek!). Reading through the Rules of my new copy of Zero when Ben a total non gamer says he'll "give it a go" against me. Me ! a mighty hard core wargamer of 30 years experience who can boast of having spent 6 months playing the old SPI monster "War in Europe".

We carry out of a few dog fights and I ease him in gently, introducing rules (like variable height and mulitple elements i.e having lots of planes) slowly. I see that he picks up the game quickly but fail to appreciate how many of my planes he is actually shooting down. After a w hile we feel confident enough to give a campaign a go and so go for the Malayan Campaign (Jan 42). I promise to go easy on him. Simon - Japs Ben- Brits

Turn 1 - Gemas-Tempin Two Blenheims fly off with Buffalo escorts (with missing parts!)to bomb advancing Japanese ground forces. I intercept with 2 Zero's , one furious dogfight later and I have 2 damaged Zero's whilst he loses both Blenheims and 1 Buffalo. There is no damage to the Advancing Japanes army. I'm way ahead.

Turn 2 Its a biggie Singapore Docks. A big push by the Japs, 4 Ki-21 (Sally - Medium bomber) with 4 Ki-27 escort (Not so good vintage fighter nicknamed Nate). I'm facing 2 crappy Buffalo but 2 shining Hurricane IIb 's (Yikes). It starts well one Nate gets on the Hurricane leaders tale shooting it up for 4 points of damage - on the first turn!. I smile inwardly not realing this is my high water mark. The Hurricane recovers position , the wingmen of the two attacking fighters take out a bomber, flak takes out a second damaged bomber (ouch!). A third bomber gets shot down as it limps for home (double ouch). I take out 1 Buffalo wingman with the help of some British Flak. Disaster .I do only minor damage to the docks and the Brits have scored big !!! Its as though the Japanese escort isnt there, oh yes I lose 1 fighter as well.

Turn 3 Endau 2 Hudson and 2 Blenheim medium bombers set off to bomb the Japanese amphibous invasion forces at Endau.I rub my hands bombers are falling out of the sky everywhere my chance to score big. He escorts them with 2 Antiquated Buffalo's , I ve got some nice shiny Zero's. True to form the zero's got stuck in, 1 Blenheim and 1 Hudson go down , the other two get away, the invasion force suffers only minor damage but I do lose 1 Zero.

Turn 4 Unbelievably I tot up the points we are neck and neck with one mission to go. As every bombing mission has given away more VP's than its recieved I pray for some British bombing mission . Im in luck. its Kuala lumpar 2 Blenheims undaunted by what has happened to 7 of 10 bombers in the last three missions , fly North West to bomb the Japanese forward air base. We have both used all our fighter resources so its a straight Bomber vs Flak run.I ask Ben does he have the balls and expect him to fly high and go for an uneventful last mission and a game draw. Nothing of the sort, he flies his Blenheims in Low or very low Bombs and strafes the runway, and craters it badly, coming within a whisker of knocking the airfield out completely. He loses 1 Blenheim in the process from Flak but the other gets away scot free.

I score 10 vp for his downed bomber , he scores 5 vp for his surviving bomber and 6 vp for cratering the runway. So he wins the campaign by 1 vp !!!

Technicaly a final score of -1 vp is supposed to be an outstanding Japanese victory , I hold with none of this as far as I can see the game was close and he had the guts to go for it big on the last turn , so I give him a well deserved victory.

A thouroughly enjoyable game and the fact that a non-gamer was able to get into it so quickly is a testament to its playability. I put his win down to the fact he was once in the air cadets, well thats my excuse.

Thread: Starting cards amount at the beginning of the game?

model359 — 2006-02-16T16:33:37+00:00

Does your starting altitude effect the amount of cards you start out with?

If my performance is 5 and I start the game at a low altitude, do I start the game with 6 cards or 5.

Thanks

Model359

Thread: Japan no match for USA in this one.

model359 — 2006-02-13T22:25:57+00:00

First game of Zero!

Players playing
Owen: 2 US F4F wildcats
Pilot: Jackson - Wingman: Porter
Pilot: Worthington – Wingman: Jones
Matt: 1 Japanese A6M2 zero’s
Pilot: Shicaro – Wingman: Tongo
Eli: 1 Japanese A6M2 zero’s
Pilot: Suzari – Wingman: Onozaki
Since this was our first game playing, there was a lot of rule searching. I think we nailed them all, but who knows. The game was fun.

The Americans got the luck of the flip and was ready for battle. After drawing a very good offensive hand, I was able to take it to them.

Turn 1:
Jackson on his wingman are flying in formation one altitude lower than his partner Worthington he spots a group of Zero’s flying right towards Worthington. Without hesitation he climbs and gets into position to take a shot at Tongo, Shicaro wingman. With a precise hit, Tongo goes down in a burst of flames.

Shicaro reacts swiftly and positions himself and gets the advantage over Jackson. He fires his guns but Jackson was able to roll out of the way to avoid taking any damage.

Jones sees a Zero moving in on his leader and attempts to block out the attack. With a swift maneuver he was able to get a shot off. But because there were caught of guard he completely misses. To compensate for his wingman’s miss, Worthington tries to get the advantage on Suzari, but Suzari better piloting avoided it.

Onozaki moves in on Worthington and lays some lead into his wing cause a little damage, but the hit was not to bad. Suzari then moves into position to take out Worthington, but was not successful.

Turn2:
Jones realizes that Jackson could be getting into trouble he moves into position to fire at Shicaro. Shicaro catches on and was able to roll to safty without taking a scratch. Jackson now feeling the heat dives away from Shicaro but was unable to shake him. Shicaro follows him down and out of the clouds.

Being in good shape, Shicaro was able to get behind Jackson and is now tailing him. With him in his sights, he was able to get a great set of shots off and Jackson is now smoking heavily from his port side.

Jones is desperately moves and gets into a great spot at Suzari’s wingman. With a few presses if his trigger, Onozaki his hit… Flames engulf his cockpit and down he goes. SPLASH one more Zero. Worthington seeing that Jackson is in trouble, dives to try to lend him a hand.

Suzari dives as well and trys to get into position on Worthington, but was unable to break the dive fast enough and could not get into position. And is now flying parallel with him.

Turn 3.
Porter knowing that Jackson is in trouble tries to get a shot off on Shicaro. But again Shicaro ACE piloting skills avoids the attack. Jackson again tries to avoid the attack by diving even lower and still can not shake Shicaro. Shicaro follows Jackson down and is not really on his tail.

Shicaro gets the right moves and BAMB… Jackson is toast. Porter is in shock watching his leader go down.

Jones sees what happens and takes a shot at Suzari and just clips his wing. Then both Jones and Worthington dive to give Porter a hand with the Zero that just splashed Jackson. Suzarki was so fixed on Jackson, that he did not see Worthington come from the sun and down Suzarki goes. 3 zero’s down and 1 to go.

Shicaro moves down and tries to get an advantage on Porter and fails miserably. Porter was able to ascend into the sky and lose Shicaro.

Turn 4.
Porter limping along ascends even higher to get away from the action. A regroup is needed.

Jones moves in for the kill on Shicaro and was able to maneuver Shicaro into an advantage spot for Worthington. Taking the shots needed, Worthington splashed the remaining Japanese Zero!

Chalk one up for the good guys!!!

Thread: Re: Attacking Formation aircraft from the front?

rafial — 2006-01-06T22:57:20+00:00

So the brutal answer according to Chris Janiec on the Consimworld DiF forum is "yes".

But then, after several posts debating house rules to make this not quite so ugly, we see this from the DiF developer:

Mike Lemick wrote:

In retrospect, what I probably should have done is to leave the Attack Angle optional rule out of Zero all together. The rule was included in 8th Air Force to reflect the historical German tactics developed to deal with the American heavy bomber formations.

So it sounds to me like this is an optional rule best ignored. That's what I believe I'll do in future campaigns.

Thread: Re: Carrier Campaigns -- when does damage take effect

rafial — 2006-01-06T22:50:15+00:00

I put the same question to the Consimworld forum for DiF and got this reply:

So at this point, when we go to play my invasion force mission, do I still have both bombers, or do I lose one because of the -1 strike aircraft. Or are the bombers considered "en route", and damage only applies to successive rounds?

You're down to only 1 bomber, per 25.63.

...so I guess the way to envision it is that the bombers haven't actually left yet. My F4F wasn't "called back" it was sent up as extra CAP and now can't be turned around in time for the strike. And the second bomber got killed on the flight deck.

Sucks to be me

Thread: Attacking Formation aircraft from the front?

rafial — 2005-10-20T00:05:02+00:00

So at least in Zero, most formation aircraft have a turret defense rating of 1, so if you attack from the front (which lowers the defense rating by one) you can do so at no risk. Given that you are +2 bursts for attacking formation aircraft and -1 for attacking from the front (+1 overall) you can still take pretty effective shots from a 1 burst fighter (2 burst) without exposing the fighter to harm. Is this and intended and legal tactic?

Thread: Re: Carrier Campaigns -- when does damage take effect

rafial — 2005-10-19T06:53:36+00:00

That was my logic, but I began to wonder because of the rule ordering the strikes. Why order the strikes if damage is only applied at the end of the round.

Thread: Re: Carrier Campaigns -- when does damage take effect

Wargamer777 — 2005-10-19T00:55:38+00:00

I would apply the damage after the current strike is over. I mean, the bombers are already on the way, right?

Thread: Carrier Campaigns -- when does damage take effect

rafial — 2005-10-18T23:33:21+00:00

A friend and I started our first carrier campaign last night (Corel Sea). He chose a large strike, and I went for the invasion force strike. I used the Extra CAP resource to call back my F4F to defend the fleet, and sent the two bombers on alone. Then as the rules say, we played his strike first, because his resource number was lower (scout mission).

His attack on the carrier fleet did 4 damage and killed three aircraft, knocking me into the first damage bracket on my fleet (-1 strike aircraft).

So at this point, when we go to play my invasion force mission, do I still have both bombers, or do I lose one because of the -1 strike aircraft. Or are the bombers considered "en route", and damage only applies to successive rounds?

Thread: The Zero that Wouldn't Die

Von Cougar — 2005-08-02T16:25:53+00:00

**Originally posted at the Canucks Amuck forum**

So I got to Bill's house at I believe exactly 9:30 this morning. The emphasis is there because I am often late (usually not my fault), and I think I was pretty on time for B5 at David's last week. Score!

So anyway, after a few seconds of introduction we got into Down in Flames. I've played this game a few times with Christopher, sorties from both Zero! and Rise of the Luftwaffe, but I hadn't played any of the campaigns until today. I'm glad I did, and I am now looking forward to getting my own copies of these games.
Alright, so went through a practice run to get me familiar with how bombing missions worked. Pretty much you've got your bombing force (at least one bomber and one escort, but it varies) that heads to the target taking two turns, at which point the bombing run begins. There are three turns for the run itself - ingress, bombing, egress. In each of these turns, depending on the target, there are a number of flak guns popping up shiney surprises for any planes that are at an altitude below High. You can have your escorts opt not to go over the area, especially if the defender's escort stays out there building up and you want to dogfight him out there for the three turns. Meanwhile, the bombers over the target area suffer flak (can sometimes block it, but I'm still hazy on exactly when they can), but if they survive to the second turn they release their bombs and can fly back home (still catching flak on the way out). Cards are drawn for flak, as well as for bombing values (Miss, Hit, Direct or Vital). Flak draws can also "spoil" a bomb, so if the defender pulls a "spoil" symbol, the highest bomb value is ignored. This saved Bill a couple times, as seen below.
That's pretty much how bombing works.

The scenario we played was the Coral Sea campaign. Like any good wargame based on actual battles, there is a nice little history blurb on what happened. Pretty much this campaign has four turns where each player assaults the other's carrier or other target. During each turn the players secretly decide what type of strike they'll make (None, Small, Large or Port Moseby (Jap)/Invasion Force (US) strike). After those are revealed, they also secretly choose one of 8 "resources" which help you out in the coming strikes in some way. These include the ones I'll describe below, as well as "Mistaken Target" which offers the chance for the opponents strike to be diverted somewhere else (either a Cruiser, a Destroyer or the Carrier, depending on a drawn card colour). There is also the Shoho Strike, I believe it is, where the Japanese force the US to make their attack on a different target (not the carrier), and forces a card draw to determine the victory points. Here, the wrong draw could actually give more points than the average bombing run, without the aircraft losses!
Alright, got that? Here we go with what happened in our game.

I shall call this report "The Zero That Would Not Die", as you'll see why.
I took the US forces, and Bill took the Japanese Invasion Force.
On Turn one I chose to make a Small Strike, with a Radar Resource (which makes the in-bound run for Bill's strike two turns longer, i.e. giving me more time to knock out his planes). Bill chose to also make a Small Strike, but used the extra Bombing Run Resource (which gave him a free bombing run before his main strike that could damage my CAP (carrier-defending planes)). As my resource was lower on the list, my strike went first.
I forget the exact makeup of my forces (pre-determined on the Campaign Info Card), but by the end my Dauntless bombers survived the strike and inflicted six points of damage on his carrier, added to the one point from knocking out one of his defending planes. Every four points of carrier/plane damage you suffer brings you to the next level - the opponent gets victory points and you lose available aircraft for strikes and carrier defense. But you can only take 13 points of damage, at which point the opponent gets 28 points and the game is over at the end of the turn (remember this important last point). Bill was actually able to knock down one of my planes, and so he got one point, while I got a whopping seven!
Next it was Bill's turn to assault me. First came his extra bombing run, which didn't do any damage to the carrier. It may have done a bit of damage to my carrier-defender, but I'm not sure. Now it was time for his strike, which in the end did four damage to my carrier! PLUS I wasn't able to knock out any of his aircraft, so the damage inflicted as 7-5 for me at the end of the turn, although we were both in the -1 aircraft bracket during strikes.

Turn two saw myself choosing a Large Strike (ooooh!) with a preemptive Scout Mission (aaaaah!). This was a four-turn sortie between two planes. Depending on how long I could survive I would be given extra planes for my upcoming strike. As it turned out I survived the four turns and was given three (?) extra planes! My strike was going to be goooood. Bill also chose a Large Strike, but this time chose the Loaded Deck Resource. This beauty of a resource caused bombing hits to do extra damage (e.g +1 on a Hit, but +4 on a vital, which was already at 7!)
So after my successful scout mission it was time to make my Large Strike.I had my extra planes from the resource, but also minus one for my damage bracket. Thus, my run started withan F4F leader w/ wingman, a Devestator bomber, and two elements of Dauntless bombers! We had to make a little bit of room on the playing field because my forces were so massive The run towards the target was sort of uneventful, especially considering Bill only had one measely carrier-defender to intercept, which I failed to damage!. I got over the target and the interceptor followed me in. This second strike of the night did not turn out like my other one, let me warn you. It wasn't bad, it just didn't win me the game. Bill's flakwork was great! It damaged almost every one of my bombers, and SPOILED half of my bombs! It was one of those very exciting and anxiety-provoking few minutes you get only in great wargames and during childbirth, I would think I got 5 points of damage, depressingly ONE point away from sinking his carrier. ONE! To make matters worse, Bill's interceptor was getting hit by his own flak (right to the point of breaking apart), but stubbornly FAILED to die! He was coming apart at the seams, leaking oil and smoking like a chimney, but still he would not let himself die and give me that ONE needed point! Sadly there was nothing I could do but watch as Bill prepared his own forces for his Large Strike.
Now, let us recall that destroying the carrier would end the game at the end of the turn. I'm not sure if it is at the end of the TURN, or the end of each player's round. If it was the latter, then I could have won if that dang Zero had just dropped out of the sky like a proper bushido-following samurai pilot. But nooooooooo. Anywho, if it is at the end of the full turn, then it doesn't matter. But let's continue, shall we, for the ultimate climax to this story.
Bill began his bombing strike with much fewer planes than my own strike. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was only one or two bombers(?!) and their escorts. However, the important thing is that Bill came in, lost one plane so that I got my last point, but swooped in and laid his eggs of destruction: he drew a Vital bomb hit, and took the damage up to my last spot...."That's it! It's over! It's OVER!" we should have screamed.
How dumbstruck I was at this point you wouldn't believe.
The game ended a tie at 28 victory points each! Oh the humanity... Two turns; just over two hours; two vicious forces neck-and-neck in the final run, and it ended in a tie.
Just so you understand the extent of this final play: Bill NEEDED a vital hit to destroy me and take the tie. NEEDED it. With his two decks together (192 cards), there are only EIGHT (8) vital cards! I don't do odds well, but he got ONE of the EIGHT cards in ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO that was necessary to win.
It was a GREAT game, and Bill was a great opponent. When I get back from vacation we will definitely be playing more campaigns.

Image

buergerberatung — 2005-05-17T11:36:46+00:00

Image

adolfinger — 2004-12-13T13:49:34+00:00

Thread: Re:optimal

fermmoylle — 2004-05-24T20:07:45+00:00

The short answer is: it depends. ,)

The game is designed such a way that 10 players can easily have fun together... it would be a nice furball (10 players, 2 planes each - leader and wingman) or a really large bombing mission.

But I think that 2 players is the best to play campaigns and 4-6 to play dogfights. Campaigns are not meant to be played by more than 2 players... and dogfights... well, I've never seen any movie scene with more than 6 planes on each side.

Thread: optimal # players

them — 2004-05-21T19:34:04+00:00

Will this really seat 10 players as noted?

Where's the sweet spot for # players for this game?

Image

Schatzy — 2004-05-20T10:20:38+00:00

Thread: User Review

Kozure — 2004-05-13T23:28:07+00:00

Concept
Zero! The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Air Force is a stand-alone, non-collectible card game of air-to-air combat in the early years of the Pacific theatre in WWII. Up to six players can fight, each controlling one or more aircraft. Using a fairly simple "attack-response" combat system which has added layers of complexity built onto it with the addition of wingmen and altitude, the game does a really decent job of simulating quick and deadly aerial combat in 15-30 minutes. The game is a stand-alone sequel in the Down in Flames series from GMT Games, coming after Rise of the Luftwaffe (stand-alone) and 8th Air Force (requires Rise of the Luftwaffe).

Game Mechanics
The game uses basic (dogfighting only) and advanced (bombing/strafing and campaign rules) rulesets. The advanced rules build upon the basic rules without using a number of exceptions or rule replacements, which makes the learning curve smoother. This review is for the basic rules only. I'll add more if I manage to rope some players into a campagin game.
Players select sides, time period and then aircraft, each controlling one or more elements (a leader and his wingman) of aircraft. A quick hidden-setup establishes altitude and a random initial player, and the action begins.

Drawing a hand of cards which vary with the performance of each aircraft at the start of the game, the players then use the cards to jockey for a good position (neutral, advantaged or tailing) while trying to avoid bad positions (disadvantaged or tailed). Using a simple "attack-response" mechanic, each player can line up a target and perform manoeuvres, while the target player tries to use cards to cancel the acrobatics. The number of cards in hand approximates "potential energy" a concept well known to combat flight sim enthusiasts, and is replenished by drawing cards equal to the horsepower of the aircraft (which varies with each plane) modified by the altitude where the fighting is taking place.

Looking at some reviews of the original Rise of the Luftwaffe rules, it appears than some aspects have been cleaned up and additional altitude levels have been added.

Rules for positioning and manoeuvring are somewhat more complex than presented here, especially when the wingmen are thrown into the action, but overall the mechanics represent the chess-like move-counter move combined with seat of the pants terror that historical accounts of WWII combat recall.

While most of the mechanics are quite smooth, a few exceptional situations are a bit bumpy. Fortunately, one or two plays can iron out these difficulties.

Artwork and Components
GMT tends to have very well done, simple and clean line-art work with relatively simply coloured counters. This game is no exception. Unfortunately, the majority of other card games feature much more attractive artwork, so when set side by side, the look is relatively spartan. In comparison to the first two games in the set, however, they are certainly much improved. The cards communicate the information well, though I imagine some of the attack/response cards might benefit from better wording and perhaps some additional explanation. The campaign sheets and rulebooks are also quite staid, with very little visual interest. The rulebooks themselves are quite thorough, but lose somewhat in the comprehension, as it they written out in old early 1980s wargame style with numerical references and frequent duplication of information where concise editing/writing might have made cross-referencing less necessary.

Gameplay
Gameplay is smooth and quick... once you've gotten the concepts down. Our group usually picks up on games quite quickly but we found ourselves having to stop and quickly reference a rule exception on occassion. Not as bad as many wargames, certainly, and less often than some other, more complicated German games, but often enough that our first game lasted 40 minutes when it should have lasted 15 or 30. Subsequent games took less time and I'm certain that future sessions will be even faster. Be prepared on the first couple of play-throughs to have things not be quite as zippy as the gamebox summary might make out.

Summary
I really enjoyed playing Zero!, but I fear it may suffer from "wargame trying to be a simpler card game syndrome" that many of today's 'new and improved' wargames suffer from - the basic system is quite simple and elegant, but a number of fussy exceptions make it difficult for non-wargamers to penetrate... which is basically a general critique of all the "real" wargames I played prior to 1998 or so. As a former hex-and-counter wargamer and a WWII flight fan, I found this game quick to learn and set up, while remaining very fun. Some people complain about the randomness of card draws but the strategy is also apparent in how to manage altitude and position, when to press the attack and when to break off. For me, at least, an excellent way of bringing aerial combat to the tabletop.

Image

tathui — 2004-05-12T02:07:50+00:00

Image

alkaiser — 2002-12-10T16:14:56+00:00