Compare/Contrast with other games?

[Brasidas]

Hi guys, I've been keeping an eye on this game for the last few months, and I'd like some more information (gotta wait a week or two before I can order it, so might as well do some homework in the meantime).

I'm pretty familiar with J.D. Webster's Fighting Wings series, and a bit familiar with the Airpower games and Birds of Prey. Can someone give me an overview of the similarities and differences between Warbirds and the other games?

[Canvaschicken]

Hi Brasidas,

I'm not sure that I am the most qualified to answer as I have a love for WWI a/c that means I would get this game whatever.

I am also a FWs player which I do like but it definitely feels more of a chore to do than Canvas Falcons (CF). I have only been playing CF since last Saturday but it already feels more intuitive and easier to play. I can pretty much think what I want to do and then go straight to the log sheet. With FW I usually have to check the rules in case there is an exception to the rule etc.

Please understand that I am not saying FW is bad - it isn't - but I think CF gets 99% of the effect with, say, 60% of the rules overhead. I am also not saying that CF is more simplistic as it isn't. It just seems to get there with less baggage.

Similarities include 30 degree facing, ADC (Aircraft Data Charts) whilst the rest (at least for me) seems slicker and more intuitive. The combat system seems more refined in CF as well - no odds based attacks which always seemed strange to me. Oh I also love the fact that I can do transitions for part of the move and roll for part of the move - it feels good to pull the nose up and then roll on the a/cs back (in one turn) ready for an inverted dive on the next one.

I have also played Birds of Prey (BOP) which is good as well, but you are pretty much forced to focus on a single aircraft as the Nomographs take some filling in. I like the fact that I can easily fly several a/c in CF without too much brain burn.

Finally I would say that I like the idea of being able to learn a single set of base rules that I can carry forward into all eras.

As you can tell I'm becoming a bit of a fan boy for CF so take this into account but I would say that if you like WWI aircraft then get it, get it now.

Maybe we could have a VASSAL game sometime?

Hope this helps

Ross

[Brasidas]

That helps, thanks Ross. Once I get the game and read through the rules, I'll hit you up for a Vassal game (might take me a couple weeks).

[Luppas]

Hi Brasidas,

I would sign the points Canvaschicken wrote.

I'm into the series and rules for 4 weeks now and played two ftf games in that time (basic rules without the advanced or optional rules). Currently I learn the Advanced/Optional rules.

What me really wonders is, how easy I learned the system and how fluently you can play and can concentrate on your maneuvers instead of the rules. One really big aspect is the "PY Chart" where you measure distances and angles to your enemy and how much HFP/VFP you must use. You can see this chart and some examples on the Homepage.

I also play the Fighting Wings series too, so I'm familiar with boardgame flight sims and that also speeds up the learning process. Another good point in this system is the good tutorial book and the various examples in the rulebook. For nearly every point you find an detailed example, that really helped me a lot!

If I must compare this system with the FW system, I would say that Warbirds has the better rules (more detail but simpler to use) and the better and more realistic flight model. (banking, vertical turning, thrust and drag etc.)

The plus for FW is that you have more content in form of ADC's/Scenarios.

Cheers,

Luppas

[Apex1701]

Hi guys,

I am part of the playtesters team and what struck me at the time is that I can easily do maneuvers I had in my mind.
And I did play WW2 and Korean war scenarios not only WW1 !
For me this game system is more intuitive to play than FW and Birds of Prey.

BTW let's forget about Blue Max and Air Force

Jean

[Brasidas]

Okay, y'all sold me. I just bought & downloaded. Will start reading through everything asap.

[Brasidas]

(05-06-2014 07:34 AM)Canvaschicken Wrote:  Maybe we could have a VASSAL game sometime?

Ross, if you're still willing, I'm ready to play a basic rules game. (I think I need to get at least one more basic rules game before I move up to the advanced rules.)

If you're willing to do a pbem over vassal, I was thinking we could start a thread for it here, and maybe put out a call for a couple others to join in?

[Mogadeet]

Don't subscribe to a thread before you post your message. I wrote a long one and it dumped it like yesterday's trash.

The big difference between the basic game and the advanced rules is how "lively" the aircraft are. In the advanced game, you have a tighter relationship between bank angle and ability to change nose angle or turn. To make maximum use of your turn rate you need to be in a 90 degree bank angle, but then your ability to change your nose angle is really compromised. To have full use of your aircraft's ability to transition you need to be in a 30 degree bank angle or less, but then your ability to turn is really reduced. In the basic game a 60 degree bank angle allows you to do anything you want. Other than that the differences are mainly detail.

Aircraft feel really realistic in the advanced game, and you get to see why flyers make some of the decisions they do. But the basic game gives you a rollicking fight.

A good starter game would be Albatros D-IIIs vs SPAD VIIs. In a game like Fight in the Skies, the Albatros D-III is a real dog. However, here you quickly find out why Bloody April happened despite the Pups, Nieuports, and SPADs. The Albatros is a killer, a consummate warplane (as opposed to a "sports plane" like the Pup). The SPAD VII is pretty mediocre in FITS, but here you quickly see why it was so popular among its pilots. It's one Hell of a warplane. And since both have in-line engines and nothing special, there's little extra that needs to be learned (like with Rotary engines or Wing Lewis guns). The result is a simple and exciting fight.

Mogadeet

[Chris_Riches]

I put my thoughts down on the BGG review thread. As enthusiastic praise as a grumpy 50 year old Brit can manage...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1168...ons-review

[Mogadeet]

I enjoyed reading your review. You and I feel the same way.
I began WW-I air gaming with Milton Bradley's Dogfight when I was young, and from there I graduated to Guidon Games Fight in the Skies when it came out. I was hooked. But, as a kid, WW-I pilots were the heroes and adventurer's (WW-II not so much. EVERYBODY'S father was in WW-II, and with so many veterans all over the place, it was too commonplace and recent for us kids).

One of the things CF impressed me with, and all the other games lacked, was that you could read about something written by a pilot and then see the same thing develop in the game. The airplanes performed realistically enough to make my Air Combat Maneuvering book really useful. And what clinched it was (this may sound odd) discovering what the utility of a Hammerhead Stall was. In all the other games, such a maneuver was either useless, or couldn't really be reproduced, or was a messy form of suicide. So here I was flying an early model Albatros D-II against Nieuport 17s. Nieuport 17s are like Zeros. Speedy enough, incredibly maneuverable, light, and fragile. But, like the zero, you did not dogfight them. And when they got on your tail you were in serious Kimchee. The early Albatros D-II was very much like an F4F to them. I was tough, had lots of firepower, and was not near as maneuverable. The Nieuport, flown by our illustrious designer, got on my tail and stuck there. I was staring at some serious trouble. And thus the utility of the Hammerhead stall. I pulled the nose up, did my stall, and he shot right by! Saved my precious German butt! And the stall acted just like they did in the air shows.

Joe