Cloud Camping – Playtest help needed
February 7, 2019 at 2:59 pm #154677RenkoParticipant
Hi everyone. Over on the Ready Room Facebook page we have a fairly active community, and since the launch of BRS we have received loads of feedback from players, and continue to do so. We pass this on to Andy Chambers and it helps him when he is working on new rules or updates. This is really good and is very welcome. Over here on the Warlord Forum traffic is less, but we appreciate some people don’t like Facebook but may wish to contribute. One issue that this feedback has highlighted is the way some games devolve into “cloud camping”, with both sides hiding in clouds and making the game a bit pointless, which is not really what BRS is about. We don’t want to make massive changes as we like the way clouds work and think on the whole they are about right, but we think some nudges may be needed to the way clouds play to avoid this issue. As a result we have looked at a couple changes and one we would like the community to give us some feedback is the following….
“Aircraft in clouds do not count towards Squadron strength when calculating Squadron morale”.
We think this is not unreasonable as historically planes in clouds quickly lose contact with their Squadron mates, and also we think it will stop players filling every passing Stratocumulus with Spitfires and Me109s. So we would appreciate it if players could give it a test or two and let us know how it works out? Thanks in advance. CheersFebruary 8, 2019 at 7:18 am #154690NatParticipant
Not seen that discussion on FB (due to the wonders of FBs selective feeds, if your not careful you can miss entire weeks of page updates and status’!)
Thanks for re-posting hereFebruary 9, 2019 at 11:25 am #154773Cat Shot OneParticipant
I like the idea. I simply suggest a slight re-phrasing with the aim of eliminating the term “squadron morale” since that isn’t a defined game term judging by the rulebook. So it would cause confusion.February 10, 2019 at 11:56 pm #154828Mark BarkerParticipant
Like many others I’ve not really come across this too often. I don’t have a problem with what is being proposed but it strikes me that the change will not address hiding in clouds at the outset of the game because it relies on boom chits being in play in play to have an effect.
Couple of comments.
1. If you play the existing rules as written you can’t camp in a cloud for that long. Each cloud is 6 inches max on long axis, so moving minimum you can only stay in for two turns and then you are out. Granted you can burn advantage to spin around and 180 but you can only do this once (as you cannot climb for advantage in a cloud) so you will pop out in another two turns.
2. You also need to consider why players want to fly into cloud anyway. Ok there are those defensively minded players who try to find cover even when they are given Viking Berserkers as a unit to play (and we’ve got one) but what is the attraction of clouds ? Answer, they turn my Skill 2 rookie into a hidden ninja just waiting someone to point their tail at my cloud. If they stray within 1 move distance of me I can burn advantage to manoeuvre, come out of the cloud neutral and tail them for a shot. If they get within 2 moves of me on a straight line I can dive out for the same effect. That makes clouds very dangerous to be near to, unless you go and hide in the cloud yourself.
3. This did come up during our early games and I wrote to Andy Chambers on it before I knew the Forums existed. There are BoB accounts where pilots spy targets through breaks and layers of cloud and that is fine, but at the moment clouds give an attack advantange with none of their downsides (loss of what is now called situational awareness and the fact you don’t know who or what else is in that cloud). Our answer (which Andy did not object to) was to make any pilot leaving a cloud take a manoeuvre test. If they pass they can tail, shoot or outmanoeuvre normally. If they fail they can’t take any pilot action that affects another aircraft because they are still working out which way is up. They can climb for advantage, but that’s it. This sorts the Aces (who have the dice to make stalking through cloud a viable option) from the Rookies (who generally don’t unless they get lucky). The effect in our games has been to make clouds more a refuge you dive for when you are in trouble than a place to perch in to attack.
Using your suggested change would certainly prevent this being overused, and would reflect a battered squadron breaking for home and using cloud to avoid further losses.
MarkFebruary 12, 2019 at 12:20 pm #154977
You can burn advantage for free in clouds as you always end neutral, so you can stay in as long as you want. Personally I think you should not be allowed to burn advantage in clouds, and I think that would solve the cloud hiding issues, and also stop clouds being used as ambushes; they should really just be for avoiding people.February 12, 2019 at 12:54 pm #154983NatParticipant
Except there is evidence of clouds being used by fighters to bounce the enemy.
As they are clouds are fine, its just the players who are gaming the situation that have messed it up…. so we have a gaming rule that is being discussed to fix it.
As I said to the guys in my gaming group on this subject … we dont really have an issue with this at our group as the only person who plays BRS whos likly to do this is me… and i’ll get board of it after a couple of turns anyway :pFebruary 12, 2019 at 3:41 pm #154998
You can still use clouds to bounce the enemy if you are not allowed to burn advantage in them; it’s just a bit harder as you just have to be facing the right way to start with.
As you say, we are discussing fixes to the ‘camping in clouds’ problem, and I’ve just proposed such a fix. Saying “don’t do it” isn’t a fix.February 12, 2019 at 9:11 pm #155010Mark BarkerParticipant
As I read it, I think the statement that you can burn advantage inside a cloud forever is wrong (I’ll await an official view from Andy and stand to be corrected), and it is that view that allows ‘cloud camping’ to become an issue.
We don’t allow it, and in the dozen or so games at at the Bognor Club with up to 4 players per side we have just not found this as an issue.
What is the logic ?
Read the rule:-
Moving into or through clouds removes any Advantange or Disadvantage, … making it neutral.
So, go into a cloud – you go neutral. Go through a cloud and come out the other side – you go neutral.
Start inside a cloud, Burn Advantage for free and leave the cloud – you go neutral.
A plane ending its move in a cloud cannot take a pilot action and that includes Climb for Advantage.
So my reading is that if you start in a cloud, Burn Advantage in the cloud to Manoeuvre and end up still in that cloud, you cannot then Climb for Advantage and are therefore disadvantaged.
When you leave the cloud on the next turn or the turn after – then you go neutral.
In effect, the act of entering or exiting a cloud resets advantage to neutral – so you can stalk and quickly attack through cloud with a single Manoeuvre, but if you decide to muck about inside for several turns (which with the instruments of the time you would just not do) you get disoriented and disadvantaged and your exit options are reduced as you have no advantage to burn for free. You exit normally, coming out in a straight line a normal move distance with your usual 45 degree turn at the end and becoming neutral as you cross the cloud boundary.
Cloud camping problem fixed, no new rules … just a tighter reading of the rules as written.February 13, 2019 at 12:19 pm #155041
Whether a plane which stays in a cloud is neutral is arguable, I agree (I’d say it is moving through a cloud). But your interpretation does not fix the problem with smallish clouds like those which come with the game.
The camping plane doesn’t stay in the cloud; it pops out (neutral) does a 180 degree turn (disadvantaged) and goes back into the cloud (neutral). The rules definitely allow that, and I really think they should not. I think a plane which starts in a cloud should not be able to burn advantage.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.