This area deals mainly with my 15+ years’ effort to create a game that doesn’t depend on pointing models at each other to determine firing opportunities.  While currently focused on WW1, the concept may apply until the speed and range of jets and missiles breaks the core idea of ‘engagement areas’.

While the odd(unique?) ‘no-pointing’ aspect of the game* stands out the most, the facet of the concept that may be the most useful for gaming the genre is its ‘fog of movement’ (that goes beyond, imo, the occasional skill test for difficult maneuvers found in many point-to-shoot rules) which gives a few (2-4) gamers using these rules the ability to play a sizeable aircombat game without the need to gather a half-dozen or more players around the table or conceding/dealing-with a great deal of ahistorical coordination between multiple aircraft controlled by a single player. dunno…

*Edit 9 Apr 26: Joe Legan recently released “Boom and Zoom”

—————— Some tldr blathering on my thinking for the concept —————-

These rules aim to put gamers in the heads of their warrior alter-egos, concerned with and deciding what to do, rather than in the bodies concerned with and deciding how to do it.

Instead of choosing which specific move / maneuver to use to position a model* on the tabletop (as is common in most aircombat games) players in this game choose amongst tactical objectives (such as “attack that guy” or “be over there” or “help Bob”) and then decide on the risk level undertaken to achieve that goal.  The success of an effort is determined in a manner like most/all RPGs, i.e.: by dice rolls that are influenced by pilot / aircraft quality and the level of risk chosen.

In addition to the difference in decisions made, the level of control held by players regarding the positioning of the models* (and the degree of detail of the action displayed on the tabletop) is very different from -and significantly less than- that found in the games common to the genre in which a player’s chief (if not only) concern / input involves the movement and positioning of models* on the table.

*Not to be confused with the aircraft being represented

The point-of-view of this game is similar to that of many / most hand-to-hand skirmish games: Players control the general movement and actions of their character-warriors, but once in close combat their concern (and control / input) lies not in the specific details of each cut and thrust but instead with the overall tactical intent that I believe occupies the mind of the warrior being represented on the tabletop much more than the technical motions and actions of hand-to-hand combat —or, in the case of aerial combat: the movement and positioning (i.e.: flying) of the aircraft.  I believe that pilots don’t think much about flying (I didn’t) —any more so than martial artists think much about hand / arm positioning or footwork (I didn’t).  I therefore believe that players shouldn’t have to think much about flying either.

I recognize the oddity of this idea and have received quite a few doses of vitriol from aircombat devotees who bristle at the thought that they let go of the control stick.  I ask that a deep breath be taken, the premise accepted that the training and experience of the little fellow in the model (not the player) can handle the nuts and bolts of flying the aircraft and that the question be asked: What are the essential decisions made by a pilot in a dogfight?

I don’t think they’re anything like those asked of players in most games that involve moving a model on the tabletop, the answers to which are things like “I’ll do a wingover” or “Maneuver 27 is the thing to do”.  I think they’re more along the lines of “I want to shoot at that guy” or “I need to get away!”  As stated earlier: decisions on what to do, not how to do it —the details are left to the model’s pilot (and the player’s imagination).  The issue concerning the progress of the game is answering tactical-level questions such as: Can I shoot? (-or be shot at)…if so, how good a shot is it?  or: What’s my position –good? …bad? …dangerous?  That’s all that really matters. The rest is just window-dressing -fun to imagine and great to flesh out the story (I’m all for both)- but not something that is necessary to game the genre.

————————— end of rambling ———————————–

There is a copy of the rules (such as they are…) that can be downloaded and used to either generate a playtest or frame a question or fuel the fires of ridicule. It is -as most/all of my scribbling- far from polished and certainly not comprehensive (if even comprehensible). The details (what I term “fiddly-bits”) of particular performance mechanics or stats or modifiers or whatever continue to be tossed in or out as the mood strikes, and while I would happily receive comments on them, it is response to the core concept (centering on the use of amorphous ‘engagement areas’) that I am most interested in. There is a topic on The Wargames Website if you’re willing to ‘go public’, or simply comment somewhere here…or send me an email…or…?

The ‘Sample Play‘ section holds photos of play that include descriptions of the use/impact of certain rules.

The ‘AAR section‘ holds photos/descriptions of scenarios that are intended to display the type of game to be had using the rules. Unless otherwise noted assume that all are played solo – a feature of the rules that arises naturally from the vague display/control of each aircraft’s activity on the tabletop.

There are also some (mostly) 1 v 1 fights posted to a thread on “The Wargames Website”