Re: (TFT) Magic Carpets and Brooms

[Jay Carlisle <maou.tsaou@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Chris wrote:

> Jay,
> I can't recall us using a ground scale or time for each turn.
> The game was scaled for playability using mainly Airfix and Revell kits
> (1/72 scale).
>

Wow Chris, ask and ye shall, and all that.
Thank you.
I'm not too worried about an exact ground scale or time as that is very
dependent on the period and I can cover it in detail if I need with True
Course (or Track) and Ground Speed navigational computations which lets me
throw wind into the mix in a general way seeing as I already had to have a
general wind for pirate ships anyway.
I wouldn't make players solve wind triangles but assigning a bit of drift
per "unit" of windspeed isn't too rough...


>
> I mainly took the data from Kenneth Munson's pocket encyclopedias of
> world aircraft in colour.
> A wonderful collection I still have and enjoy browsing.
>

I love the Canucks.
I can usually dig up a Canadian version of anything English (I'm guessing
based of the u) that isn't too obscure.
Amazon Canada spit out several of Munson's titles with afordable choices
used.
On this side at the same time period several publishers were printing in
this format.
I take warship development data from a Bantam 'Knowledge Through Color'
series volume 'Warships' circa 1972 (weird pub. history including a '71
hardcover and possable English pub. in '70).
Many of my favorite atlases and other refrence books are from this era.
I'm sure some if it is psyco-logical as I'z a kid during the period in
question but being something of a bibliophile in the day and age of the
computer who's gotten to cherry pick several school libraries and has
examples of a number of different eras of printing technology IMHO the 70's
produced some graphically wonderful stuff.
So now I'm ANOTHER sawbuck (ten dollars) into this thing?
LOL


> Les Ward is/was a great enthusiast of WW1 aircraft among other things
> and had his own well stocked library.
> So we had some well informed discussion on the ratings for various
> aircraft.
>
> When I added new aircraft, I tended to work on 1000 feet for each
> heightband, and 10 mph for each MP.
> These were generalised or rounded down for aircraft in combat
> conditions.
>

I can't help grinning a little bit here.
Reverse engenering a thought process isn't the same as cracking open the
back of an electronic device is/used to be and the only way one can be sure
is to get it from the horses mouth so it's nice to see that I infered
correctly here.
As I'm starting to have moments where I think that maybe I can't out-expert
everybody on the planet in all possible subjects all of the time I'm
starting to develop a super seceret backup plan where I try to set realistic
limits in technology and maybe bump it up a touch to allow for "record"
breaking effects (3 on 3d6, etc.).
If I get my basics right I don't have to get as scared if a renowned expert
like Mr. Ward shows up to play.


> Climb, Dive and Acceleration rates were derived from commentry in KM's
> aircraft notes.
> e.g. Sopwith triplanes could climb like a rocket.
> Pfalz's were exceptional divers, some other aircraft had a nasty
> tendancy to fold their wings if pushed too fast. etc.
> To some extent we might have over-emphasised the difference between
> various aircraft.
> Historically improvements in aircraft performance were fairly subtle at
> this scale.
> But Pilots tended to push their aircraft to the limit out of neccesity.
>

Yes, modeling brooms looks like it's going to work in a similar way as many
of the descriptions are in adjectives rather than data and brooms are
sometimes described in comparison to another model as in the Nimbus 2000 is
described as being "slower than a Nimbus 2001" the 2001 being the fastest
production broom until the release of the Firebolt.
As you say improvements in performance are fairly subtle at this scale even
when playing out the period in "downtime" would have the improvements
showing up frequently.
5 months until the next inovation can bring 2 or 3 per year but if your
flying 50 missions per month it's a long time to wait.



>
> The survival dice rolls for landing an aircraft may seem rather harsh.
> But you should take into context that they are crash landing in
> No-Mans-Land and were likely to be shelled and machine gunned by both
> sides!
>

Also a "secnario" opertunity in a RPG campaign.
I realise this wasn't setup for RPG stuff and I think the survival rolls
work great for how FF is setup.


>
> If a pilot flew off the table alive, they were assumed to land safely
> behind their own lines and could fly again in the next game.
> The club campaign grew very popular, with players customising their own
> aircraft.
> Snoopy's Sopwith Pup was always a popular choice and we had no end of
> Red Barons!
> I quite liked the two seaters and did surprising well (luck mainly!)
> flying an RE8 or Roland Walfish.
>
>
I can vaguly imagine I think, considering I've never been there.
Anything that encourages player "customization" without much rule
complication is good I think, especally in an artistic way.
This has gotten me wondering.
My Viking longships come in at 14 square-hexes in lenght for an average
warship.
This is actually on the minimum side of what they would call a warship but I
call it "average" owing to material limitations as we're on the steep side
of the bell-distribution of tree height for keel and posts.
Putting some of these planes into square-hexs could be interesting...

hmmmmm



> Regards,
>
> Chris - Rat-a-tat-a-tat!
>
>
>


Thanks again for the info Sir!
 I'll report back if the chits get interesting...
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"