Hope it lives up to your expectations.

In all likelihood, yes... it'll take a little time, tho. I've got a spreadsheet that created the planes in the rulebook, but it's not exactly user-friendly.

Printed counters, maybe -- but die-cut is something I've never been able to find a vendor for. Any suggestions?

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

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

All things in the planning stages... stay tuned.

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.

Exactly the problem -- I know the data exists, but how to get at it is a mystery. Thus the decision to stick with basic stats, and values derivitive from those, like wing loading and power/mass ratio.

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.

There were a few other things that I thought were a little odd too.
Planes are actually more maneuverable the faster they go. Not that they can turn sharper, but they can actually get more turns in  because they're moving faster.
Along with this, the turning rating should probably get larger at faster speeds.
Right now there are no provisions for decreased performance due to damage. And this is one that would definitely be easy to include.
I thought the deflection modifers were a little strange too.
In almost every hex-based plane game I've played, the ease of attacks are as follows: tail shot, rear-side attack, front attack, and front-side attack. In SF there is no penalty for either side shot.
But all of this aside, the game is a lot of fun to play.
Just cast only a fleeting glance at historical perfromance.
:wink:
Kevin
PS: I had enough fun that I've even had Dan draw me up some new charts for planes from another popular pulp-era game.

It was a moment of weakness.

I'm not sure whether he wants this broadcast, but I will say that it's the only one (that I know of) with plastic clicky planes.

Kevin

I don't want to cause any excess drooling or anything, But I'm also working on several optional rules, as well as a bunch of optional pilot skills to go along with the "clicky" version.

We'll just need to run them by Dan "Snake Eyes" Kast for point costing.
Kevin "Showstarter" Smith

Can't say I can tell if this is meant to be complimentary or not...