After my first game of X-Wing Miniatures, the first thing I said to my mate was,

"Now imagine the X-Wings were Tomcats and the TIEs were MiGs…"

Who else thinks that, with a little tweaking, these would make GREAT modern dogfighting rules?

I think more in terms of Widcats vs Zeros.

I think more in terms of Widcats vs Zeros for pure dogfighting.

DB Draft said:

Indeed, that would work, too.

But with the X-Wing rules even covering "missile lock" situations, the stretch to modern fighters is easily there.

If you like the movement mechanic, then it's worth checking out Wings of War (now Wings of Glory) for a WWII version!

Morrissey said:

Truthfully, there would need to be a whole heck of a lot added to the rules for modern fighters. As fun as X-Wing is, it's a ruleset that works for what we've seen in the movies and other media around Star Wars over the years, but there's a whole bunch that falls way short for modern jet fighters.

shade_1313 said:

Yes, but it depends on how deeply you want to take it. Some grognards would want to cover every nook and cranny of modern jet fighters. For those wanting a simple, "beer and peanuts" game, where their jets are easy to manoevre, and have canons and missiles, it's basically all there.

Morrissey said:

I'm not even remotely saying it needs to get into the extreme minutae. But 20 years of maintaining modern fighter jets, and of dealing with the pilots on a day to day basis, means I can't ignore some aspects that are just not right with the X-Wing rule set if applied to real world, in atmosphere settings.

DB Draft said:

What would be cooler would be… X-wing's vs TIE Fighters

Seriously, this is a good dogfighting mechanic, and it looks like there is going to be a Star Trek game that is using it, but I cannot think of a cooler dogfighting game than star wars star fighters

shade_1313 said:

I took it as a given that people wouldn't assume I was suggesting a Tomcat can, for example, move forward three, then flip 180 degrees, but if it needs saying: I'm not referring to each and ever manoeuvre in the box. Most of them are highly doable by modern fighter jets. Some are not. Because I'm talking more about the way movement and firing are handled "in general"; I'm not expecting someone to pull a piece out of the box and shout at me, "A Tomcat can't do that, therefore your idea sucks!" I'm just saying it's a simple, elegant system. It would be well suited to beer and peanuts gaming. If you don't think so, or you assume too much about what I'm saying (ie: that you think I'm suggesting fighters can move a tiny amount, then flip 180 degrees when that's not what I'm saying), then that's your deal.

Hrathen said:

The best dogfighting in a Star Wars film is probably in ANH which was, in turn, a carbon copy of several scenes in WW2 movies. It's based, in a major way, on WW2 style stuff. That's why WW2 often resonates so well with its style.

Hey, its your game once you buy it. So its yours to do what you want with it and if modern fighters is what your interested in running then do it. There are a number of people posting info on creating your own dials and pilot cards so that shouldn't be a problem. Trying to convert the stats for a fantasy sci-fi space fighter to real world atmospheric fighters is going to be tough. I have a feeling your not going to find a huge difference in fighter capability. You will also have to find a simple way to include altitude rules.

Morrissey said:

Calm down. I'm not reading a whole lot into your suggestion (although you seem to be reading a lot into my replies). I'm just saying that, while the system meshes quite well with the feel a viewer gets from watching the Star Wars films, there would need to be tweaks (IMHO) to the system to make it suitable to modern fighter combat. Even when I step back from the position of knowing entirely too much about fighter avionics systems and the realities of atmospheric maneuver to accept a straight translation, some things would seem out of place, such as weapons ranges and maintaining fire control lock when the target gets outside of the field of view of the various targeting sensors, both factors of the current X-Wing rule set.

So, in conclusion, chill. I'm not dissing the idea that it could be adapted, and if you want to play that way, I wouldn't come frothing over to the table you were playing at and berate you. For ME, though, the system would need a bit of tweaking, though not to the extent of excessive detail, to be fun.

shade_1313 said:

Which isn't incompatible with anything I've said.

Again, I'm not saying you would take the game, as is, and suddenly have Tomcats spinning 180 degrees on a 3 movement, or similar, but with tweaks, it would be a very entertaining ruleset and beer and peanuts wargaming.

Already done, though Tomcats aren't in the official rules, which run up through the early 1970's, from post-WWII.

The air combat rules are called Clash of Sabres, and have stats for many aircraft from the 1950's to the 1970's.

Thinking like you, I've come up with some unofficial stats for the F-14, amongst others, including the Sea Harrier, and Mig-23, so you can play the Falklands, and Iran-Iraq Wars as well.

I use them with both 1/300th and 1/600th scale aircraft minis.

They actually developed the curved turning templates way before X-Wing ever thought of them, and the nice thing is that you can select the distance moved along the turn templates, so you aren't locked in to predictable movement patterns on the tabletop.

They also have good rules for initiative, spotting, radar and heat-seeking missiles, altitude (yes 3-D movement, which permits you to tighten your turn in the horizontal, by using vertical maneuvering, as in real life), scenario generation, a squadron mini-campaign, etc., so are quite comprehensive.

They're best for small unit dogfights, but you can play larger games, if you have the time.

E-mail me at:

calidreamer3 AT hotmail )dot) com

if you want more info.

There's also a WWII set called Duel of Eagles, which is very similar.

Regards,

Rob

Sounds fascinating Rob, I will Google it! Cheers