Game: Luftwaffe

Thread: Re: An idea to improve combat by eliminating the combat table

ralpher — 2008-10-01T23:15:41+00:00

After checking the math, it may be better and simpler to change this to 3 dice of a particular symbol are needed to shoot an enemy down, instead of 3 for the first squadron and 2 for each thereafter.

22 factors of FW-190 cause an expected 7.333 factors of damage to fighters and 9.1667 against bombers without consideration of the bomber roll.

If they faced 22 factors of B-17s, they would lose 6 factors on average, and bomber losses would average 10.38. 50% losses on bombers seems a bit high, but it's actually lower than the numbers with the chart (12). As for bomber inflicted losses, the bombers would inflict an average 9 kills under the chart.

If they faced 22 factors of Mustangs, both sides would expect to lose 9.78 factors.

Thread: An idea to improve combat by eliminating the combat table

ralpher — 2008-10-01T20:19:54+00:00

Take the combat system from TSR's Battle of Britain:

In BoB you have similar values for fighters: Bf 109s and Spitfires a combat value of 4, Hurricanes and Bf 110s are 3, obsolete fighters like the Gladiator are 1.

in BoB you get these unusual dice, where the British dice have three sides with crosses and one with a rondo and two sides blank. The German player controls the black dice which are the opposite.

]]>

In combat, both sides roll dice equal to the number of combat factors. If you roll 3 rondos, and the British loses their first squadron, every two more rondos, another squadron is lost.

This could be used to replace the combat system in Luftwaffe. The German allocates squadrons that engage the enemy fighters. If he has more squadrons than the American, he can put extra squadrons against the bombers.

Resolve the fighters first, rolling dice for simultaneous combat. Losses are chosen by the player losing units. Then move onto the squadrons attacking the bombers. Add one die to the combat factor for fighters attacking bombers. Give 1 die for each bomber defending (B-17s and B-24s only). If jets are attacking, resolve this combat first and bombers get zero dice to attack and all crosses on black dice are ignored.

The result should be fast combat that is fairly balanced and historical. After all, it makes FW-190s and Mustangs even, Me-109s and P-47s slightly worse, and Me-262s superior. I guess the Me-163 will have to be treated as having a 4 combat rating against fighters and roll six dice against bombers.

If you don't own TSR's Battle of Britain dice, simply use regular dice and treat 1s as friendly fire hits and 4-6 as hits.

Since this isn't play tested, the issue is will combat be less bloody or more bloody than Luftwaffe? And what to do with half strength squadrons, eliminate the half strength? Halve their attack? Hopefully I can play test and come up with some refinements.

Thread: solitaire rules for AH's Luftwaffe...

kiowapilot — 2008-07-22T18:09:29+00:00

I seem to recall (years ago, when there was only the rec.games hierarchy) that there were some rules for playing Luftwaffe solo floating around. I'm not sure if the solo player played the Germans or the Allies, but I think it might be fun to take a try defending or bombing the Reich again.

Has anyone seen a set of solo rules (I checked my collection of old Generals and couldn't find anything there) or have a set of working variants to play the game solo?

Thanks,

Joe

Thread: Re: Is there some way to keep track of which planes have not dropped tanks?

GROGnads — 2008-07-18T23:43:42+00:00

The simplest "method" is to keep a written 'Track' for those, by denoting this with a "Dropped Tanks" column, and then writing under this with EACH of whichever "Squadrons" HAD 'done' it then. I sure hope this 'means' helps "matters" for YOU on that also.

Thread: Is there some way to keep track of which planes have not dropped tanks?

ralpher — 2008-07-18T23:29:22+00:00

Has anyone come up with a system, maybe a chart or chit system so that all units of the same type do not need to drop tanks when one unit enters battle? This would be the second biggest problem with the game.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-22T17:26:57+00:00

Front of the rules. They fold up like a road map.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-22T01:35:47+00:00

American Order of Battle for the Advanced Game.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-22T01:33:46+00:00

American Order of Battle for Tournament Game

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T18:56:27+00:00

German Order of Battle for the Advanced Game.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T18:54:12+00:00

German Order of Battle for Tournament Game.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T18:26:06+00:00

The game also included a 24-page book on the history of the campaign.

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T17:11:05+00:00

Target Map

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T17:09:43+00:00

Target Sheet

Image

MoraleCheck — 2008-01-21T16:56:36+00:00

Side of the box.

Thread: Re: the 3 die method

them — 2007-11-07T20:06:45+00:00

saxophone wrote:
Think of it as "throw out the high and the low."
Ah, that clears that up for me. Thank you!

Thread: Re: the 3 die method

saxophone — 2007-11-06T21:47:00+00:00

them wrote:
so chance of a 1 or 6 happening is about 14.82%

Wouldn't that actually be 4.6%, 1/216?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; if you roll three dice and take the middle one, you'd have to roll 3 one's or 3 sixes to get a one or a six, right?

The odds of rolling three of a kind are 1/216 (6^3). Am I missing something?

I think you only need to roll double 1's or double 6's, not necessarily triples. If you roll 1, 1, and 6, then the middle one is a 1.
Think of it as "throw out the high and the low."

Thread: Re: the 3 die method

them — 2007-11-06T20:28:36+00:00

so chance of a 1 or 6 happening is about 14.82%

Wouldn't that actually be 4.6%, 1/216?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; if you roll three dice and take the middle one, you'd have to roll 3 one's or 3 sixes to get a one or a six, right?

The odds of rolling three of a kind are 1/216 (6^3). Am I missing something?

Thread: the 3 die method

masaakunokouchi — 2007-11-06T09:00:25+00:00

in 2nd ed, i saw this mentioned, and here too... so for you all out there, I use the 3 die method for the CRT

Roll 3 dice, take the middle number. So it is still possible to roll 1 or 6, but rare. For you stat heads, I do belive this is right chances of occurance.

1: 16/216 7.41%
2: 40/216 18.52%
3: 52/216 24.07%
4: 52/216 24.07%
5: 40/216 18.52%
6: 16/216 7.41

so chance of a 1 or 6 happening is about 14.82%
you have almost 1/2 a chance of a middle result.
so there you go!

oh and cause I am both lazy, and a uber geek, I use excel to roll my dice, and have it tell me the resulting #. just 3 randoms, with in a median function! LAZY!

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

James_Blair — 2007-10-10T11:53:14+00:00

How about 3 dice and use the middle number?

So a '1' is still possible, but only if you roll 2 or 3 of them at once?

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Barry Kendall — 2007-07-31T14:32:58+00:00

Would someone who has played both the new "Luftwaffe" and Yaquinto's "Bomber" be willing to talk about preference?

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

kimbo — 2007-07-30T19:01:19+00:00

Separate BGG database entry has now been created for the Decision Games version of Luftwaffe.

Luftwaffe (2nd Edition)

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe - Two games or one?

kimbo — 2007-07-30T18:57:56+00:00

Luftwaffe (2nd Edition) database entry has been created for the new Decision Games edition of Luftwaffe.

That was fast!

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Doniphann — 2007-07-30T05:24:04+00:00

Nevin,

There are 26 pages to the rules. In my opinion, medium complexity. This was my first war game and I picked up on it rather quickly (I was in high school). Actually, your comment on the graphics made me look into the basic rules posted here on BGG. Most of the graphics in the old rules are on the new map. Gone are the formation counters showing how many steps there are in a stack. You now use formation markers (just has a number on it) and you keep your planes on the formation chart. The endurance counter does not haqve a graphic in the rules or on the map, but the two numbers on it are easy to read (X/Y= X=total turns with aux. tanks and Y=total turns left after dropping aux. tanks) Pretty easy I think.

Ben,

I think of the new game as a collection of variants. Even the old basic game allowed you to go after different target types as optional rules. I do not think this will be a big deal. I think the big stacks might be a thing of the past. Now there will more attacks with fewer planes in each attack. That should help with the crt a bit too. We'll see......

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe - Two games or one?

kimbo — 2007-07-30T00:05:54+00:00

tool wrote:
Go ahead and submit a new entry for the DG version, then.
Done!

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe - Two games or one?

tool — 2007-07-29T20:41:09+00:00

Go ahead and submit a new entry for the DG version, then.

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe - Two games or one?

The Maverick — 2007-07-29T19:52:09+00:00

kimbo wrote:

Better to separate the games now, while articles pertaining to the new version of the game are few.

Good suggestion!

Thread: Luftwaffe - Two games or one?

kimbo — 2007-07-29T15:37:26+00:00

Should the Decision Games version of Luftwaffe have it's own entry in the BGG database?

The new game has a new board. Not only has the board changed in terms of color, but there are new target symbols on the board that did not exist in the original game.

The counters have changed in DG version of Luftwaffe. Physically, the counters are now square instead of round. In addition, the counter information has changed. Also, there are a wider variety of aircraft types in the new game.

The game rules have been changed and now include:

Rules covering alternative production strategies and the interaction between various target complexes.

More realistic command control limits (stacking).

A vastly cleaned up sequence of play.

So the new version of the game is more than a simple reprint of the original. It is a revised and expanded version. While the basic mechanics remain the same, I think the differences warrant a new database entry.

For one reason, the games are different enough that articles pertaining to one might not be relevant to other. While much of the basic strategy remains the same, having two different rule sets could lead to misunderstandings and confusion when discussing the game.

Better to separate the games now, while articles pertaining to the new version of the game are few.

-- Kimbo

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

bkindt — 2007-07-29T10:38:01+00:00

I too have many fond memories of playing the original Luftwaffe with friends. I think it was among the first five or so wargames I ever played. So, when I saw the reprint coming out, I was pretty excited.

However, just from reading your article, quite a few changes have been made to the rules, OOB, and graphics. I'm going to hold off on buying this one until I hear how the new version plays.

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

gvchief — 2007-07-28T23:57:06+00:00

Pete, maybe we have different editions, but in my Third Reich, the Americans are green.

Mike

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Nevin — 2007-07-28T19:05:38+00:00

I'm interested in this game, but I need more information before I buy. How many pages of rules are there in Luftwaffe 2? How would you rate the complexity level? Do you think the lack of graphics in the rule book would make it more difficult to learn the game for those unfamiliar with the original?

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Peso Pete — 2007-07-28T18:09:47+00:00

Doniphann wrote:

At first I thought, “Why only one number on the counters?” Looks like the movement is there, I guess combat and e-ratings are handled another way. Then I spotted the e-ratings after looking at the counters for a while. If you have not guessed by now, I happen to have a VERY COMMON PROBLEM AMONG AGING MEN: a red-green deficiency (a scaled down sort of color blindness). I honestly did not see the e-rating at first glance. I guess the ratings are in red to signify something. Quickly looking through the rules (nothing there) and back though the counters (they are all in red) I am clueless why they were printed in red to begin with.

This single issue is probably my biggest complaint with wargame companies. They go on the assumption that everyone has good color perception and will be able to differentiate subtle color differences. Probably the most egregious company in this complaint is Clash of Arms who insist on not only making counters with subtle color differences but who make color perception necessary to playing some of their games (e.g. "Baron's War"). In fairness to COA, other companies are guilty of this and it was going on long before COA came along. In fact, you can go all the way back to AH's Third Reich with dark brown Americans with slightly-less-dark-brown Russian counters to see how long this has been going on.

The answer? It's actually quite simple. Realize that a fair number of people have color perception issues and use good judgment when deciding what colors to use. Barring that, at least make the game capable of being played by people with color perception problems. For example, I could not play any of the COA's Battles of Reason system games if not for the three-letter unit designations on the counters. With those designations, I can play and enjoy these games and it allows gamers with proper color perception to enjoy the games as well.

[Extracting self from soapbox]

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Doniphann — 2007-07-28T17:13:31+00:00

Robert,

I was going to upload a scan of the counter sheet, but you must choose one of two options to "be in agreement" with their system (1-You created the image or 2-You have permission to do so). So I will try to answer your questions.

yet I'd state that the "R" designation for the "Me-163" 'Komet' might just mean "Rocket"! While the same would then be true for the "Ba-349" 'Natter'-(if included) and should most likely indicate a "one turn use" feature with these.

I first thought rocket (if it is not an A) but the Me163 and Me262 are labeled as a rocket (solid triangle) and a jet (open triangle) respectively , so I thought it might be something different. I guess I might get an answer from Joe on CSW. There are no He-122 or Ba-349. I think some of the counters represent a composite and are labeled with just one type (there are five He-100's in the mix tho).

I agree with you on the color thing. I am actually working off and on with John Butterfield on one of his projects and have already mentioned this to him. I am hoping to run into him at the WBC next week

Scribidinus,

I saw that thread earlier and the averaging die has been one thing I am looking at for those reasons stated there. Along with.....

1) Rolling three dice (or maybe five) and tossing out the highs and lows. This gives the extremes a smaller chance of showing up, but for a crucial fight, two ones is still a one.

2) Redo the CRT. Maybe more work than I want to get into, especially with the two thoughts above.

3) I had read an article in the General (I will look for it later) that had you attack with so many factors of this, and this is what got killed off. More of a chess type combat, but interesting none the less.

So far, the averaging dice or rolling three looks best.

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

scribidinus — 2007-07-28T13:34:33+00:00

Here is one of my issues with the game as presented. You guessed it, the combat spread. There has been years of debate on this. I lived with it then, I will live with it now. I just wish it could have been done so there weren’t the extremes. Oh well.

It was one of my big issues too but one of my favorite war gamers offered up this solution an awhile back.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/45594#45594

Thread: Re: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

GROGnads — 2007-07-28T11:23:45+00:00

Very nicely done 'article' here, yet I'd state that the "R" designation for the "Me-163" 'Komet' might just mean "Rocket"! While the same would then be true for the "Ba-349" 'Natter'-(if included) and should most likely indicate a "one turn use" feature with these. You also bring up where some valid graphics distinctions ought to be created for those folks who will otherwise be deterred, due to viewing these 'icons' with greater difficulty. Should they address this with alternative kinds, possibly through the efforts of someone attuned for that, then it would be to everyone's benefit to implement them for improved enjoyment. As a parting 'shot' here, then what?-NO "He-112"?

Thread: Out of the Wrapper. Luftwaffe 2...

Doniphann — 2007-07-28T05:54:37+00:00

Here is my two cents….

I too have played the original for years. The original game was fun, even with its nuances (endurance issues and CRT to name a few). I have many fond memories there with friends, and planning raids and/or defense. That said, I pre-ordered it (2!) at once while lurking in the Luftwaffe folders. As usual, I was waiting for it to show up, and show up it did.

After I popped the packing box open, I was looking at some incredible box art. Some B-17s flying (one starting to burn) and some bandits doing a fly through. Cool. The game felt light when lifting it out of the shipping box (hmmmm). The game box (In my opinion) is the same size as other book case boxes and even slightly shorter than those from GMT. Works for me. Let’s see what is inside!

All the game components could have fit in a ziplock easily (taking up only ¼ inch in thickness). Pretty empty box, but that leaves room for the counter tray and future variants (I am an optimist).

First up, the rule book. 26 pages of rules. There are very few graphics or diagrams to be seen. Knowing the game already, I do not see this as a problem as I am assuming the game play to be very similar. I hope to find out. I did find something amusing while giving the rules a quick glance. “Rule 2.31 Units. German counters are green. American counters are blue”. A quick glance at the counter sheet shows the German units appear grey and the American units appear a light green. More on colors later, but this obviously is from the original game and it doesn’t take rocket surgery to figure out. Also, there is 16.0 on formations. 16.2 in particular states “You must reveal the exact units in a formation box whenever an enemy unit enters that hex, or when they bomb or strafe a hex”. Pretty straight forward. Looking at the formation box card, both the German and American formation boxes are on the same card (cover them up I guess). I will make a copy for each player to keep prying eyes from prying. While I am at it, I will make a copy of the Reinforcements Options for each player as the Germans are printed on one side, and Americans on the other. There is one card for the target sheet and on the back is the reduced planning map. Another thing for the copier (this replaces the pad from the original game). The planning map graphics and city names are blurry to my eyes, but I am 53 and I guess I will either adapt or make my own sheet for planning. So far, no big deal.

There are two Order of Battle cards (one for each player, just like the original). The cards are very colorful and the units depicted are copies of the counters. The full OOB is there for both the Tournament game and the Advanced game.

The Map. Know this on the front end: Map and counter mistakes are my biggest pet peeves. Gone is the flat white hex grid. The background is tan, with textures showing some mountains and variation in terrain with the water areas in various blues. This is a really nice looking map. Looking at the symbols on the map, I was confused by the use of flags for the German airbases. I will get used to it over time, but I think I might have preferred the more traditional airbase graphic. No biggie. I did have to go on a treasure hunt though. While looking at the map, there is a symbol (lightning bolt on a black jagged graphic), that is not on the terrain key. I had a feeling it was for the power grid. Taking nothing for granted (and no graphics in the rules either), I started matching city names that had that graphic in common to verify that it is indeed the power grid symbol.

The next thing on the map to be visited is the CRT. Comparing to the original, it is very, very close. With the new A/C types, different numbers of the original types and maybe a tweek here or there (I will have to look at it more closely later), it is same old CRT for all intent and purposes. Here is one of my issues with the game as presented. You guessed it, the combat spread. There has been years of debate on this. I lived with it then, I will live with it now. I just wish it could have been done so there weren’t the extremes. Oh well.

The counter sheet. Gone are the round counters. If you love round counters, you will complain. If you like square counters, you might rejoice. They look sharp (although a bit thin). At first I thought, “Why only one number on the counters?” Looks like the movement is there, I guess combat and e-ratings are handled another way. Then I spotted the e-ratings after looking at the counters for a while. If you have not guessed by now, I happen to have a VERY COMMON PROBLEM AMONG AGING MEN: a red-green deficiency (a scaled down sort of color blindness). I honestly did not see the e-rating at first glance. I guess the ratings are in red to signify something. Quickly looking through the rules (nothing there) and back though the counters (they are all in red) I am clueless why they were printed in red to begin with. While writing this, I discovered the asterisk for the plane types that are bombers (discovered in the rule book and had to go look again at the counter sheet to see it for myself). Then there are Rocket and Jet fighter symbols also in red. If all these had been in black, everything would have looked crisp and clean. Back to the rule book. Under the unit examples, specifically the Fighters and bombers section, it mentions that the e-rating for the Me163 has a “G”. Looking at the counters, I thought the counter for the Me262 was misprinted (it looks like a G to me) until I looked at the example in the rule book which looks closer to a 6. The Me163 counter, however, looks to have either an A or an R (I can not tell, but guessing an R for what? I do not know.) The grey and green unit colors are somewhat similar on the counter sheet and I am hoping that they will not look too similar on the map. The aircraft graphics look good, though small.

What’s new? Joe Miranda outlined this as follows:

1) Extensive research went into the new version. This resulted in any and all of the below:

2) Inclusion of the Reich power grid as targets. I dug up the original map from the US Strategic Bombing Survey for this.

3) More aircraft types. True, you do not get the unrealistic aerial armada of German jets and fighters from the original. You do get realistic numbers of alternative aircraft types: Me-309s, B-29s, Do-335s, flying wings, etc., etc. We even threw in some He-100s.

4) Rules covering alternative production strategies and the interaction between various target complexes.

5) More realistic command control limits (stacking).

6) A vastly cleaned up sequence of play.

7) Ploesti.

The stacking limits, new units, new options for both players and Ploesti will add great deal of variation to the game. The stacking limits and more targets might even disperse the forces to take some of keep the wild swings of the CRT in check. Only one way to find out!

Overall, I am looking forward to playing this. New look, some new twists and more stuff. I definitely am glad I got it. For a proper review of any game, one must play it, more than once. That’s where I am headed……. I am hoping for a Vassal module, but won’t hold my breath (another story there)

(cross posted on ConSimWorld)

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

hoop — 2007-07-21T14:36:43+00:00

Dirty Harry wrote:
morsecrossing wrote:
Another fix is to use the Tactical combat rules from the General vol.18, no.4.

Could anyone post the above combat rules at all if u have them please?

I've just scanned and submitted this article to BGG.

John

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

davepanzer — 2007-07-20T22:42:50+00:00

I played for many years with a modification I saw in a book on boardgaming(Unfortunately the name and author escape me). You use 2d6 to produce a 3-6-9-9-6-3 bell-shaped curve for the combat results:
Roll 2 or 3 - use column 1
Roll 7 - use column 2
Roll 5 or 6 - use column 3
Roll 8 or 9 - use column 4
Roll 4 or 10 - use column 5
Roll 11 or 12 - use column 6
Of course with this method the adjustments for "best vs. best" become column shifts rather than die roll shifts.
For whatever it's worth--

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

Dirty Harry — 2007-07-20T02:19:02+00:00

morsecrossing wrote:
Another fix is to use the Tactical combat rules from the General vol.18, no.4.

Could anyone post the above combat rules at all if u have them please?

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe rules replacement

Philswar — 2007-05-31T04:06:03+00:00

Thanks everyone! No, that wasn't me downloading those rules, but I'll most likely be the next download!

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

Fargofootball — 2007-05-27T01:38:26+00:00

I was playing WiF solo back in 86 and as I was taking a break, talking to a fellow gamer on the phone, remarking how I cound't get the Axis moving but the naval combat was killer, I was absent mindedly rolling the die and noticed it never exceed 3. As I took a closer look at the die, lo and behold I had played several turns of Wif with this die, which was a 1-1-2-2-3-3!
Ugh!
I smashed it with a hammer so it would never happen again.

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe rules replacement

DarrellKH — 2007-05-21T16:56:18+00:00

Phil, somebody downloaded them today, from right here on BGG: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=13338. Would that have been you?

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe rules replacement

maggico — 2007-05-21T16:07:34+00:00

Hi
there is this web site where it's possible buy parts of boardgames.It's
"www.finegames.com".Try to see here.

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

morsecrossing — 2007-05-17T00:29:38+00:00

Another fix is to use the Tactical combat rules from the General vol.18, no.4.

Thread: Luftwaffe rules replacement

Philswar — 2007-05-13T19:48:45+00:00

Once again I reach out to the geekcommunity for help. What I need is a site that will allow me to download game rules at little or no cost. Feeling nostalgic, I went get out my old AH Luftwaffe for a campaign game when to my utter horror I dicover that I had lost the rules at some point in time. Now that I'm aware I have no rules it's driving me batty. Some one please help this old gamer as you have in the past.

Image

morsecrossing — 2007-04-25T02:18:19+00:00

Setup of tactical combat for LUFTWAFFE

Thread: Re: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

cheekyredkopite — 2007-02-10T14:24:39+00:00

Hi there,

The dice you describe were commonly used in miniatures wargaming.
The die marked 1,1,2,2,3,3 were called FIRE DICE, and the die marked 2,3,3,4,4,5 were called AVERAGE DICE. They (Fire dice) were used to inflict casualties, dependent on type of troops/weapons etc. Average dice were often used as a starting point for morael checks.

Hope any/all of this information is useful.

Cheers

Thread: Re: I played it Wrong for years...and loved it!

dwarrowdelf2000 — 2006-03-26T16:02:24+00:00

I agree. Played it wrong the first 3 times...loved it. Played by the "rules" and hated it. So I just play it the wrong way.

Thread: I played it Wrong for years...and loved it!

jdakapluto — 2005-09-19T22:18:05+00:00

This was my first Air wargame, and got me hooked right away. I still admire what a great job Lou did getting this all together way back when - back when folks were not thinking about how to do Air Games. Luftwaffe has its flaws though.

The biggest flaw I think it has is that fighters fire only when it is their move, so this devolves this game into silly situations where US and German fighters are waltzing around trying to figure out how to get the first lick in. Especially if a large German stack builds up...since there is no stacking limit.

The funny thing is I never knew this for the first 5 years I played this game. I and my friends simply (wrongly) assumed that both side's fighters traded shots regardless of who attacked on who's moves. If you play it this way - its actually a well balanced game (die roll extremes aside), gut wrenching and hair pulling right to the last quarter.

Anybody else play it my way ... or did you all play it "correctly". Once I figured out I wasn't playing it right, and tried the way the rules intended, I hated it and moved on to Battleline/Yaguinto's Bomber. Funny how that works.

J.D.

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

BradyLS — 2004-12-26T07:39:01+00:00

Great article, Scrib'!

Fer goodness sake! You should be able to bull down an averaging die at an online shop somewhere online at the very least!

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

scribidinus — 2004-07-18T13:12:02+00:00

BillSkulley (#45637),

Yes. I just happened to have discovered averaging dice by accident. I bought them before I knew how I was going to use them, I'm a sucker for non-standard dice, and then began looking for applications. The subject matter of LW always intrigued me. BTW, the CRT is not the only flaw in the design. I suspect there may be newer better games on the subject.

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

BillSkulley — 2004-07-17T23:46:41+00:00

Wouldn't it just be simpler to say "any 6 is a 4, any 1 is a 3"? Not esthetically pleasing, perhaps, but functionally the same?

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

scribidinus — 2004-07-17T21:11:06+00:00

Walt Mulder (#45620),

"Roll a 2 = 4/36, roll a 3 = 8/36, a 4 = 12/36, a 5 = 8/36 and the chances of rolling the killer 6 are 4/36. Thus the chances of rolling either a 5 or 6 total is 12/36, same as the 1/3 chance when rolling a 5 or 6 on 1d6."

Oh yeah, I meant to point out that rolling two 1-2-3 dice also gives you 2/3 chance of rolling a total of 4 more instead of a 50/50/ chance with 1d6 or an averaging die. That's what drives up the average step losses.

There are other issues with the game's mechanical design but the extreme combat results is biggest one. I may dig into the game some more since LW failed to sell on e-bay.

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

scribidinus — 2004-07-17T20:26:45+00:00

Walt Mulder (#45620),

I found them in the dice assortment at a game store years ago and bought all three before I had a purpose for them. I'm assuming they are the last three ever made and will someday go for big bucks on e-bay

Bear with me while I work through the math.

An averaging die only has 4 results on the six faces, 2,3,3 4,4 or a 5.

Rolling two of your 1-1-2-2-3-3 dice generates 5 possible totals of the two dice ranging from 2 through 6 with the chances of any one of those totals coming up as follows:

Roll a 2 = 4/36, roll a 3 = 8/36, a 4 = 12/36, a 5 = 8/36 and the chances of rolling the killer 6 are 4/36. Thus the chances of rolling either a 5 or 6 total is 12/36, same as the 1/3 chance when rolling a 5 or 6 on 1d6.

So the Combat Table for 22 steps of FW190s could still cause the maximum 21 step loss(11.1% chance) and will average 13.4 steps loss, 10% more than the 1d6 or the averaging die.

I think it makes the problem worse that way.

It may be simpler to make a copy of the CRT and hand write 2-3-3-4-4-5 across the die roll line.

I have a set of eight 1-1-2-2-3-3 dice. too. I never figured out what to use them for.

Thread: Re:Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

Walt Mulder — 2004-07-17T19:41:21+00:00

scribidinus (#45594),

John, where do you get your averaging dice? I haven't found those you describe. I guess I could buy blanks and write the numbers on with a sharpie. I have a bunch of 6-siders with 1-1-2-2-3-3 on them. Would these do the trick by rolling 2 of them? You'd still get the 6's designed into the game table but wouldn't get the maximum swing since the lowest roll would be a 2.

Thread: Luftwaffe: The biggest problem and the simple fix.

scribidinus — 2004-07-17T14:37:38+00:00

Luftwaffe covers the strategic bombing campaign in Germany from 1942 onward. It was, to my knowledge the first of only a few to tackle the subject. One raid represented 3 months of air activity. I had no problem with that abstraction. A single unit was represented by a two sided counter, thus a full strength unit was two steps. A common allied strategy was to assign the bomber wings to a cluster of targets close together, send a big stack of bombers toward the cluster and split up the stack at the last minute.

When a stack of aircraft steps take hits, each counter is reduced by one step before any steps are eliminated.

THE PROBLEM: The extreme ends of the one die roll Combat Results Table were far too deadly or ineffective and there are not enough die rolls in a raid to average out these extremes.

For example: 22 steps of FW190s versus 22 steps of B24 bombers.

The 190s Combat table could cause the following range of bomber losses by rolling 1 d6: 3-7-10-14-18-21. An average of 12 kills rounded off.

The B24 counterfire table is: 2-5-8-10-13-15. An average of 9 kills rounded off.

The problems occur when one side or the other rolls very high and the other very low. Especially if a 1 or a 6 is rolled on the CRT. If the German rolls a six, then 21 of the 22 bomber steps is shot down before any targets are bombed and there is a chance that last bomber step would be shot down by AA before hitting the target. Even a die roll of 5 kills 82% of the bombers. A 5 or 6 is a 1/3 chance of killing an average of 89% of the bombers. Way too deadly.

If the 8th Air Force had lost 89% or more of it's B24 bombers in 3 months AND failed to bomb one target, I'm sure the big picture plans would have changed.

If the Germans roll 1 and eliminate 3 steps and the bombers roll a 6 and kill 15 steps of fighters, the Germans will be hard pressed to mount any type of follow up attack the rest of that raid and it would seriously impact the next quarter of the game. Historically, the Germans did a pretty good job of decentralizing aircraft production during the campaign.

THE FIX: We finally discovered the averaging die. The faces are 2,3,3,4,4,5. No 1s and no 6s with the probabilities weighted on 3s and 4s.

By using an averaging die the FW kill results are: 7-10-10-14-14-18. Average = 12 kills.

The B24 results: 5-8-8-10-10-13. Average = 9 kills.

In essence, the average # of kills for the FW190s is still 12 and the B24 is 9, same as before, but the possibility of game wrecking extremes is reduced to tolerable levels.

Granted, when very few steps are involved in a battle some results, the ones where only a six can kill, drop off the chart completely. These small engagements are usually not critical to the campaign anyway.

This change does not make Luftwaffe a great game but it does make it a playable one.