Anyone play Wings (WWI or WWII)? I was thinking of giving it a try, but X-Wing is just too much fun.. I also saw the Axis and Allies dogfight game too and looks fun as well (I think it was called Axis and Allies). Any thoughts or experiences?

Played Wings of War I and II when Nexus/FFG was distributing the game. Not sure if Ares made changes to the game when they took over and named it Wings of Glory. In any event, Wings of War I was fun. They both has pros and cons. WoW I you had to determine 3 manuevers in advance. So, you really couldn't properly react to some flying situations. WoW II the planes manuevers were pretty much the same for every aircraft and the damage was unbalanced. I perferred WoW I over WoW II because of the more balanced damage (longer and funner games, sucks when your plane could be shot down in 2-3 shots like WoW II) and the planes had a more variety of manuevers.

Personally I wouldn't get into the WoTC airplane game. The company doesn't support their product for this line of business, quality doesn't look great and their may not be any future product releases of the game.

hey_yu said:

Sorry, I meant Wings of Glory

wings of glory is essentially wings of war. they r the same game more or less. some minor rules changes are introduced and u have more options but its the same game really. i have 26 wins of war ww1 models and 4 ww2 models. its a gr8 game however there r lots of different interpretations for the rules i find with many players playing variabke house rules. i have organised 2 wings of war tournaments in the past and have run two different ww1 campaigns where u can develop individual pilots. this was based on some Knights of the Air campaign rules which are avilable online.

since playing x-wing i havent looked back. imo x-wing is a superior game in that it has greater replayability and customisability. wings of war and wings of glory are really designed for you to fly a single aircraft. the advantage of this is that you can have large dogfights. i have played battles with up to 15 pilots! x-wing is more designed for 2 player battles with 2 vs 2 or 2 vs 1 battles being possible without too much effort.

in summary: x-wing > wings of war/wings of glory.

Have played all these systems and this is how I rank them (High to Low)

Playability

• 
  
• 
  X-Wing
  
• 
  Axis and Allies: Angels 20
  
• 
  Axis and Allies: Bandits High
  
• 
  Wings of War WW1/FFG version
  
• 
  Wings of War WW2/FFG version
  
• 
  Wings of War WW1/Ares version
  
• 
  Wings of War WW2/Ares version
  

Currently Available

• 
  
• 
  X-Wing
  
• 
  Axis and Allies: Bandits High
  
• 
  Wings of War WW1/Ares version
  
• 
  Wings of War WW11/Ares version
  

Axis and Allies

In two sets there is a large variety of 1/100 scale fighters and a few bombers. Planes are modeled OK and paint jobs are good. They hold up well to game play and are quite durable. Standard game is 100 points with 2-4 planes per side, 1 hour time limit. Game complexity is about average but can be enhanced with the advanced rules. The only down side is that Bandits High may be the last set for this game.

Wings of War WW1 & 2/Ares version

Finally detailed 1/144 and 1/200 scale planes from both wars. Rules system works well and is similar to X-wing but is difficult to fly more than one aircraft at a time. No standard game size or time limit but lends itself to large multiplayer games. Plane quality is high as well as beautifully painted but are very fragile like X-wing miniatures. Ares seem to be supporting the system but I don't know how strong

BigDogg said:

yes agrre it is difficult to fly multiple airctaft. two is doable imo. this system seems tailor made for targe scale dogfights. i just wish they had fleshed out the game a bit more with pilots and pilot skills like x-wing. even some additional upgrade cards would have been cool.

Just to add and maybe paraphrase these comments … I find Wings of War a superior multi-player game, where 4-6 of us can quickly throw out a scenario and play it. But X-Wing works better as a 2-player skirmish wargame. Guess the point I'm making is that even though there may be some similar concepts and mechanics the 2 games have very different vibes.

funnily enough, my usual X-Wing opponent and I were discussing this the other day. We both like both games, but expressed a preference for WoG, but play more X-wing simply because it's the better 2-player experience.

I greatly prefer the X-Wing mechanics over WIngs of War.

If Wings had movement templates instead of cards, it'd be a difficult call for me. The way maneuvers are chosen 3 at a time can make for some very tense dogfights. The damage is a bit too "simulation" in Wings, whereas X-wing feels more "arcade" and is more fun to me. However, if you're a fan of planes of the two eras, the models are pretty gorgeous. I like X-wing better, but I think the games could be summed up like this: Play Wings of War with your dad, X-wing with everyone else.

I've been a long time player of Wings of War (now Wings of Glory WWI) and Dawn of War (now Wings of Glory WWII).

They are both excellent games, and the card-maneuver-template mechanic allows for some interesting options. In the WWI version, you do need to plan your maneuvers several "turns" in advance, just as biplane pilots often had to do in real life. The WWII version works the same way, but has more fluid planning.

The damage system is essentially random, and can yield some drastic results. A hit might result in no significant damage, or might be crippling. This reflects pilot accounts more accurately than a "countdown" system like X-Wing, so I've never had any issues with it.

X-Wing is a little more simple - though certainly not simplistic - and balances better, as the random elements tend to smooth out.

I like both games for different reasons, and I see no reason why you couldn't enjoy both. They both have beautiful miniatures, have excellent graphic quality, and are well supported by their manufacturers (though I suspect that FFG will have a slightly more regular release schedule than Ares).

I play Wings of Glory (WW1) on a regular basis, as well as X-Wing.

There are similarities between the games, but there's quite a bit that's different, too. Such as planning your moves in groups of three maneuvres, and there being no dice in the game at all.

The best part, IMHO, is that it doesn't come down to having pilots with "magical" abilities, but lies more in your skill in moving around the board, and then luck with what you pull out of the damage deck.

It's also not a game for min/maxers, like X-Wing is turning into.

I actually really, really like it. That said, I love WW1 fighters.

If you love WW1 fighters as much as ships from the Star Wars universe, it's a no brainer to play.

I prefer Wings of War/Wings of Glory (WWI) to X-Wing. Just my opinion though, and I love them both.

I like the movement planning aspect of Wings. I like the Squad building aspect of X-Wing.

And I don't see much if any difference between the Nexus/FFG version of Wings and the Ares version.

You guys have given me a lot of perspective on Wow/WoG, but what about the Axis and Allies Dogfight one? I saw it on shelves for the "core game" and the other packs came with (I think) 3 random planes to play with..

Sprolly G said:

I think you're referring to Axis & Allies: Angels Twenty and Axis & Allies: Bandits High.

The games look impressive from the POV that the planes are a LOT bigger than Wings of Glory… but… the game itself is pure cack and died a death at retail. A total and utter flop.

You will find few people playing it, and less and less people playing it over time.

Oh, and did I mention you have to collect the planes "blind" as those booster packs have three random planes in them, so it's totally different to either X-Wing or WoG, where you simply buy what you want.

You are far better off playing the WW2 version of WoG if you want WW2. Trust me.

RedWilde said:

Same here. I think if you went from X-wing to WoW, you will be disappointed.

DoubleNot7 said:

Unless you have a thing for historic aviation.

bsmith13 said:

I do have a thing for historic aviation, that's a big part of my dissatisfaction with WOW. The maneuver and altitude rules contradict reality so much that it makes my brain hurt a little bit.

But since X-Wing is real life as seen in the movies, it doesn't bother me at all that real spacecraft wouldn't fly like this ^,^

And I find the template system a much smoother mechanic than the cards.

DoubleNot7 said:

Not in my case. I went from X-Wing to WoG and thought it was heaps better.

Morrissey said:

I don't suppose you could try to "sell me on it"?

Sprolly G said:

With the greatest respect, it's not my job to sell anyone on anything… I'm just saying what happened in my case

You either like WW1 fighters and think a system that's 50% positioning and 50% pure luck is fun… or you like Star Wars fighters and think min/maxing in X-Wing is fun instead. Or you might like both. Who knows!

Morrissey said:

Lol. I just have to try both WWI & WWII versions…Problem is that I only know X-Wing players.

RedWilde said:

i didnt mind the movement cards in wow, it was the altitude rules that seemed too clunky to use. for me the strength of the game lay in its ability to play missions/scenarios where u are observing or bombing targets which added to the campaign feel and made you want to try failed missions again to see if u could do better. i agree the cards were quite random but we had a house rule that limited the explosion card so that it only exploded u if u were smoking or burning at the time u drew it

i mean imagine a damage card in x-wing that aoutomatically destroyed your ship when u drew it regardless of how many shields/hull u had left.

Does WoG play identical to WoW? For me I did not like the mini maneuver cards in WoW.

DoubleNot7 said:

No, it is not identical.

Main differences:

X-Wing uses movement templates which allow a greater difference speed of the maneuvers. In X-Wing, you plan a move, then move. This is further differentiated by having inexperienced pilots move first. A large part of X-Wing is planning your squads. Finally, the combat aspect of X-Wing has a lot of modifiers, from target locks to special abilities etc, and the damage is resolvedby rolling dice.

WoW/WG uses a similar movement mechanic, but it is slightly different than X-Wing's. All the maneuvers are arrows printed on cards. You line up the card with the front part of your mini (or card, if you are playing the card version), and then move your mini to it's end point by lining up the marks. (Hopefully, this will make sense if you have played X-Wing). I can see why you might not like the small size of the maneuver cards, but the designers have gone to pretty great pains to make it so that the cards represent how far an aircraft would actually move in a given turn (more or less). The main difference is the planning. In the WWI version, you plan three maneuvers. Then every one executes the first move simultaneously, then combat, then the second move, then combat, etc. In the WWII version, you initially plan two moves, but after you move and combat, you plan one more move, making it more dynamic, but still requiring you to think ahead. In both versions, damage is resolved by drawing damage cards with numbers representing the damage taken and special damage (if any). One of the things that really appeals to my gaming group is that everyone can fly one airplane, rather than having just two players. There are rules for bombers, AAA, balloons, etc, and the fans have contributed a lot to the game. wingsofwar.org has all sorts of rules for campaigns and other types of rules that haven't been developed by the designers yet.

I prefer the WWI version. While I love WWII airplanes, I don't think the WoW/WG system works very well with the types of tactics that were actually used in WWII.

I will restate that I love both X-Wing and WoW/WG, just for different reasons.

The_Brown_Bomber said:

Which is why a large percentage of WoW and WoG gamers don't play with the altitude rules ever, and an even larger number only play with them occasionally.

Most play the standard game rules, which don't include altitude.