Wingman takeover at altitude

[Pawlock]

Something that I think has been glanced over in the past but not much input on it, so think needs re-examining possbly.

As you know when a wingman takes over at highter altitude unless damaged he gets a full quota of (normally) 6 cards even at very high.

Most all know the game mechanics insofar higher altitude's represent more energy used etc ,etc . The game as it stands now makes going for a leader kill at the high alts very dangerous and dare I say it unrealistic in game balance. Reason being all planes have used energy to reach required high, yet when leader dies his wingy is treated differntly and gets a full boat from the get go.

If you start a game at high or very high, you are penalised by -1/2 cards to reflect this, cannot the same principle be transferred to the wingy upon taking over as lead in these situations?, even with 4 or 5 cards chances are they will still have a card advantage at this high.

Thoughts ..............

[bartbert]

Sounds reasonable to me. But as game designer, that is ultimately Dan's call.

[kuroi neko]

Bah sc<censoded>w realism, the fact that a wingman could be let loose with a fresh hand of 6 cards regardless of altitude is just a very fun and interresting tactical parameter to be taken into account.

On the defensive, it makes climbing worth the limited cards and redraws, and on the offensive it forces to do more than simply pour lead into the leader hoping to get better draws.

After quite a few games against humans, I noticed the "instant wingman revenge" tended to occur less and less often. Most of the time the player with the advantage would adopt more refined strategies, like letting his wingman get the kill on the leader to be able to climb out of reach with his own leader, damage the wingman before going after the leader, etc.

IMHO, the "fresh wingman threat" is a major element of the game strategy. It offsets the huge loss of the leader with a possibility for the loosing pilot to spend the rest of the game doing more than escaping a pair of bloodthirsty maniacs (although this may also happen from time to time ). The presence of this threat will force the advantaged player to implement careful risk management, unless he wants his leader to experience a really short-lived triumph .

I would rather let it stay as it is.

[Northstar]

I have to admit I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand Pawlock's point is well taken; it does seem a bit unfair and unrealistic for a wingie who takes over at altitude to get a full hand of cards.

On the other hand, I also agree with Kuroi that it gives a player with a smoking leader some sort of strategy (albeit a desperate one)to play rather than just pray for cards. Try to get high and make your oppenent think twice about finishing you off without at least trying to damage the wingman.

Earlier today, I had a battle where I damaged the leader on the second turn, at high altitude. I went on through to Medium to replenish cards, and he climbed to Very High. "Fine", says I, "I'll come up to High and wait. He gets no cards, and I draw one a turn. Hopefully, I'll get something decent in a turn or two and go up to finish him off." But then he uses a "Take the Lead" and comes zooming down on me with seven cards, spanks my leader, and a few turns later shoots me down for the minor victory.

Now on the one hand, that was a annoying turn of events, and one can argue (like Pawlock) that it was an unreasonable event and there was no way that Wingie should have been able to come down like and Avenging Angel with all that energy. On the other hand, it was an excellant tactical move to reverse the game momentum. And really, if I'd been more concientious in checking out the pilot skills, I should have seen it coming.

So after rambling on, and on. I have to say I'm agnostic. It is a bit "gamey" and unrealistic, but it adds some tactical decision making to the game, which is a good thing. The game depends quite a bit as it is on luck of the draw, I don't see any reason to remove something that can actually be controled (to a degree, at least) by the players. A little uncertainty and the chance to turn around a losing game add to the fun factor, if not the realism factor, in my opinion.

I think it should be left as it is, at least for now. Although I wouldn't be teribly upset if it was changed. Ultimately,it is Dan's decision.

[bartbert]

That was a great "war story", and a very creative use of the "Take the Lead" skill. I never would have seen that one coming.

I'll have to admit that you guys have convinced me that while not terribly realistic, it does seem to add some interesting tactical choices to the game.

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by kuroi neko:

After quite a few games against humans, I noticed the "instant wingman revenge" tended to occur less and less often. Most of the time the player with the advantage would adopt more refined strategies, like letting his wingman get the kill on the leader to be able to climb out of reach with his own leader, damage the wingman before going after the leader, etc.

I do this against the AI - I fear the instant revenge!!

However IMO giving a lessened hand to wingman at altitude is still reasonable - if they're not damaged they'll still get 4 cards at very high, which is not to be sniffed at!

Edit: And of course then the reverse should also be true - more cards for the wingmen if they take over at lower altitude!

[ September 14, 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]