Home › Forums › News, Rumours & General Discussion › Sitrep Podcast: Historical Gaming (and Register for Upcoming Gaming Event)! › Reply To: Sitrep Podcast: Historical Gaming (and Register for Upcoming Gaming Event)!
It has been 25 years since I played Air Sup and 30 since I played Air War. So I do not remember all the differences but once AS came out we dropped AW and never went back. We did use the 19080(?) update to AW. Air Superiority just handled everything more accurately and cleaner in a “that makes sense” kind of way. Most air combat is a matter of energy management. Changing from potential energy (height) to kinetic energy (speed). As long as you can get your head around that mechanic everything else is icing. How engine power can be used to either increase speed, altitude or both is up to you. Turning harder creates more drag. Planes are not often limited in their turn ability as a specific radius but can turn at different radii but dependent on speed the harder and faster at which they turn they generate more drag. At high speeds you cannot turn as tight since the design limits of the airframe cannot handle the generated forces and often the wings will stall being forced into generating lift in such a way the wing would be in a stall (high speed stall). At low speeds you cannot turn as tight since you are not generating enough lift. Sometimes the two combine to produce a very narrow range of flight characteristics, for example the U2 at altitude could only turn at less than 1G at speed because it was barely above the stall in level flight and the increase in wing load of turning meant it would enter a high speed stall if it turned any harder.
That and many more examples were why JDs game was more accurate but frankly simpler than Air War. If you had a handle on real world flight mechanics his solutions were much more accurate and worked simpler. Nowadays you would start with the Speed of Heat which was the distillation of his game mechanics.
As for ASL the big turn offs were all the charts and the fact lots had to be accessed. Paring down what you needed to what can be accommodated on a counter and eliminating charts (a design feature of the period) is where i feel Conflict of Heroes gets it right. I have not played with vehicles or armour yet so those may not have the “right” feel. The IGOYOUGO sequence felt old school compared to CoH’s alternating system (which would be very hard to sustain in company size battles I admit). I am also a big fan of the “friction” systems being put forth nowadays, like Chain of Command where you don’t have unlimited control over all your forces. In CoC only some troops will be available each phase. But it is up to the player to determine WHICH ones he can control. I like both the realistic “feel” of limited control but when it happens it is YOUR choice who to spend your control on.
Basically to me ASL, and original squad leader are excellent games of the 1970s. But time and game design has marched on. The scale, time, distance and especially unit of SL/ASL is what I love the most. I have also relegated a few other systems (Tractics anyone) to the venerated area of used to be great and now stepping stones of gaming. I have played both a few times lately, still appreciate the leap forward they were but see so many systems which are another leap forward I can’t see going back. Just my opinion and take on things.
