Well, the good news is that I found a way to make the picture thing work (google is your friend big_smile ).  This evening, I'll put the pics into the excel file and reupload a version with pictures, but with all of the stats for the planes dummied to 1s or 0s or somesuch. 

Dan - you don't mind if the list of planes included remains intact, do you?

Doug

The images are almost certainly copyrighted, but if the spreadsheet is for my own personal, non-commercial use, I don't see much of a problem with it.  Oh, and yes - a tab full of jpg images would definitely make it a BIG excel file - but it sure would be cool.   smile   

Doug

p.s.

I've reuploaded the file, with only the data for the two French planes populated.

Nice work... although I don't know what I think about having all the plane data out there and available to any and all, even those who haven't bought the rulebook.!


Ack!  You know, I hadn't even thought about that.  Sorry!  :oops:

I guess I just assumed (and we all know how dangerous that is) that the folks reading the forum would be purchasers.  Feel free to yank the file, or to knock it back to a couple of planes - or if you like I can do it and repost a stripped down version of it.  It won't take long for people with the rulebook to enter the data themselves.

Doug
(who's now trying to figure out how to make excel do a conditional object embed so that when a plane is selected, the appropriate picture appears on its card)

54

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

When I did this a couple of years ago, I converted SXCA to use degrees (in 60 degree increments), instead of number of arcs.  For placement, I allowed the start and end points of firing arcs to be on any even multiple of 30 degrees.  Worked fine.

Doug

All:

Had a moment to fiddle in Excel today, and created the attached.  Let me know what you think.  Each of the 4 plane cards on the aircraft sheet tab can be selected independently, by clicking on the grey bar name field and selecting the short name from the drop down menu.

Hope you find it useful.  Now all I need is more planes to enter into the aircraft data sheet (hint hint).

Doug
(whose forte is obviously not subtlety)

<<>>

56

(3 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Cool - thanks for the clarification.  Those seemed to be the right way to handle things, but you never know - I had sunbursts in the wrong phase wrong in Starmada for the longest time.  :oops:

Doug

This may be obvious, but then I'm an easily confused sort.   :?   When attempting a tight turn or half loop, if you miss the die roll (roll less than the plane's turn rating - which seems like it will happen more often than not), you are obligated to move forward additional MPs.  If the number of MPs of forward movement required is greater than the plane's remaining MPs, the rules state that the turn cannot be made and he plane's movement ends immediately.  The question is this - does that mean immediately immediately, as in before the additional forward movement?  Or does the plane make the additional required forward movement (it will, by definition have enough MP to do that), and then stop?

Also, a tight turn or half loop has an MP cost associated with it.  I am assuming, since it is not mentioned, that a normal turn has no MP cost.  Is this correct?

Thanks,
Doug

58

(16 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

One thing to keep in mind about turn ratings-- they are fixed and do not vary depending upon how fast a plane goes. Thus, when determining "maneuverability", one should look at the ratio of turn rating to maximum speed, rather than just at the turn rating.

Looking at it this way, the Spitfire is more maneuverable (4.5) than the Zerstorer or Mustang (both 4.0); although this still means the Hornisse (3.4) can outmaneuver a Wurger (3.0)...

Another thing to keep in mind is that, as this is not a one-on-one dogfighting ruleset, the ability to turn inside an opponent is not critical. So while some of these numbers may seem odd at first glance, they certainly don't make or break an aircraft.

Fair enough.  I'll have to try it on the dog to see how it plays out.  It's got to be tough to try and make the planes distinct without overwhelming the play value of the game with a load of extraneous detail. 

I thought I had put something in there about what exactly the defense rating simulates, but I guess not. The defense rating does not translate to physical protection (that's what the damage boxes are for), but the ability to evade -- thus, a 5+ plane is one that is more maneuverable, not one that is more heavily-armored.

That makes perfect sense.  I knew I was missing something obvious.   :?

59

(16 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Well, I did say that they were inevitable at least.  lol

60

(16 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Well, I've had a chance to give the rules a couple of thorough read-throughs, and I like what I'm seeing so far.  I'd have given them a test game or two last night, but for some reason, I could not get the marker pages in the PDF to print on my printer at home.  Wierd, as they printed just fine on the printer at work this morning.  Go figure. 

Anyway, aside from some head scratching on the turn and defense values (which is probably inevitable - see below), it looks like a great product.  It has a lot of the feel of the old AH Mustangs game, with the detail scaled back a bit in the name of playability.  I can't wait for some bomber, ground attack, and nightfighter rules!  And, of course, for a plane calculator so that I can stat up all of those obscure planes I have models of (Do-24 or BV-138 anyone?). 

Ok - the inevitable nits to pick:

1) I am surprised at some of the turn ratings.  I know you were trying to be objective about this and not deal with which plane is "supposed" to be more maneuverable than another, but some of the numbers do seem a bit whacky.  We'll see if they still seem that way after a few games, but it certainly is counter-intuitive to me at this point to have a Bf-110 able to turn with a Spitfire and inside a P-51, or an Me-410 (one of my all time favorite planes, by the way) turning inside a FW-190. 

None of my reference books have it, but I know there ARE references containing the roll and yaw rates for different planes of the era ... these were used in building the flight models for the MS Combat Flight Simulator and IL-2 (and probably other) computer games.  You might even be able to yank the rates out of the airplane attribute files for those games.  If so, that might be something to consider including in the turn rating formula.

2) I am also a little puzzled by the defense ratings.  Most of them are 4+, which seems reasonable, but the ones that got 5+ ratings surprised me - particularly the A6M.  How were these derived?  It doesn't seem to me to be related to the amount of armor on the plane, or whether it carried an inline or a radial engine, or on the size of the plane (target area).  Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks,
Doug

61

(16 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

I've got no suggestions for die-cutting, but you might look at someplace like Litko Aerosystems for having them laser cut.  Heck, they mat be able to laser mark them, too.

Doug

62

(16 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

... and it looks great.  I've been looking all over for a game that would do for WWII air combat what Starmada did for space combat, and hopefully this is the one! 

Will you be putting together a plane builder calculator for this game?  It seems to me that no matter how many expansions you put out, you'll never get everyone's favorite plane published.  Aside from thatm, I like the "open source" feel of a lot of MJ12 games, and hope to see it continue with this one.

Also, is there any chance you'll be putting out printed die-cut marker counters?

Thanks,
Doug