Martin Smith
New Zealand
Wellington
--------------
-
As there were very few articles on BGG for Milton Bradley’s ‘Dogfight’, I thought I should contribute a short review. The game is very well-known, as MB’s ‘World War I air battle game’, and one of the American Heritage games in the ‘Command Decision’ series. A large number were produced, including some manufactured by companies in other countries under licence. But complete copies in very good condition still sell for more than a few dollars on the Internet auction sites. So, is it worth getting, and playing?
As my standard upfront confession, I’ve moved on from – or maybe it’s more like moving back from - very long, serious and complicated board wargames and miniatures games, to games that are simpler to learn, fun to play, but still also have elements of strategy, something to learn, and are absorbing to play. This is, therefore, the bias in this review (and any others I do), and it also means that games at the level of ‘Dogfight’ are certainly ‘in with a chance’ with me.
The ‘Dogfight’ game was brought out in the 1960s, and, over in the nostalgia corner, there are still probably quite a few BGGers alive who remember manoeuvring the little plastic biplanes around on their stands when it was new.
In the large format box there are 6 green planes – SPAD XIIIs flown by the American 94th and 95th squadrons – and 6 red planes – Fokker DVIIs flown by Jagdstaffel 10 and Jagdstaffel 11. So the game lends itself to play by 2, 3 or 4 players. I think there was also originally a little booklet about the air forces in World War I included, but alas it’s not in my copy of the game.
The game board is a nice-looking aerial rendition of a WWI battlefield, with a grid of squares superimposed on it. There are craters and tanks and trucks and AA guns etc., although I must say that I found some of them slightly offputting. To me, the tanks look more like late-1930s than 1918, the trucks are quite modern, and some of the AA guns would not seem out of place fighting the Empire on Hoth or in the midst of Steve Jackson’s ‘Ogre’ game. But I digress – the board is quite cool looking. And, of course, the little planes are neat.
The object of the game is simple: to shoot down all the enemy’s planes. Combat is nicely divided into head-on attacks, side attacks, and attacks from the rear, with the first being quite risky, the second needing a barrel-roll by the target pilot to escape, and the third requiring a loop to avoid destruction. This makes relative positioning crucial and (you would think) requires the players to plan their moves, as WWI aces presumably had to do. But movement distances are generated by rolling a D6 for each plane in flight, and so the randomness of the dice in letting you move can very frequently render any such planning fruitless.
Further, the pilots’ ability to shoot, roll or loop is entirely dependent on the identity of 4 squadron cards that each can draw from a deck on takeoff - which makes it an exciting game for youngsters but effectively means that avoiding attacks depends not at all on tactics, plane capability, or pilot/player skill.
‘Aces’ – planes that shoot down enemy planes – get to draw 6 and 8 cards (instead of the 4) when they next take off, making them pretty much impossible to kill for a while.
You can also attempt to strafe the enemy’s planes on the ground, which sounds like a plan, but there are 4 AA batteries protecting each airfield (counters, not miniatures, this time). In this respect, ‘Dogfight’ shares one element with its stablemate ‘Broadside’, in that half of these AA batteries hit all the time and the other half never do, and the intending attacker can’t tell which is which without running the gauntlet. [But after that its just a matter of memory].
It is noteworthy that the squadron cards have different numbers of gunfire bursts on them (from 1 to 5), but these are just used to generate the competition (and risk) in head-on encounters, rather than to dictate damage to the planes attacked. There is no damage element to the game – one hit and it’s goodnight Irene.
So, ‘Dogfight’ is cute looking and quite fun, particularly for or with younger players (it says ages 9 to adult). But it will be apparent by now, from some of the elements that I have highlighted, that I think there are too many random and ‘game’ attributes for it to be satisfying for someone looking for a little underlying strategy too. [It speaks volumes that among the ‘strategy’ tips suggested are keeping track of which cards have been played, and placing your plane at the edge of the board so you can’t be attacked from behind. (!) ]
But, while to me ‘Dogfight’ lacks the charm and underlying challenge of ‘Broadside’, it still probably succeeds as a neat little WWI aviation-themed board/card game to play with young aspiring wargamers. So base your acquisition decision on your intended use.
-
Steve Herron
United States
Johnson City
Tennessee
-
It was the only one of the series I kept from my childhood.
-
Barry Kendall
United States
Lebanon
Pennsylvania
-
A fair assessment. I always liked Dogfight as a child and still would play it if opportunity presented itself.
One thing the review neglected to mention is the dynamic of the "Loop" card. I don't have the rules at hand, but we always played that whichever plane ended up behind the other could play a "burst" card and shoot down the plane in front of it, even if that plane had originally been the attacker until positions were reversed through a "Loop" maneuver.
There is a measure of strategy in the game imposed by the card situation. A given plane flys a "patrol" with the cards drawn, but if the particular draw is not very good--low bursts, few defensive cards--the player can choose to cross No-Man's-Land, turn back and land without engaging. At that time, cards are discarded and a new hand drawn for the next patrol.
Alternatively, we played that a player could keep one card from the previous issue and fill the hand to the maximum allowed (depending on whether a plane has attained "Ace" status).
The trade-off is that if one friendly plane (from one of the squadrons) has good cards and the other squadron's plane does not, the player must choose whether to patrol aggressively with the well-equipped plane and be cautious with the weaker plane, or whether to use both planes in a concerted effort (as in a "lead" plane and a "wingman" plane).
A two-plane force can be much more potent, especially against a single adversary, though it tends to leave one's airfields vulnerable to a penetrating attacker (which is another good use for a plane with inferior cards: if it survives airfield AA, it can strafe the daylights out of the field and come back with "Ace" status. Even if it doesn't survive, it has weakened the enemy's force, sometimes even taking out two grounded aircraft on a single mission.
Although a light game, "Dogfight" for me retains its appeal even 43 years later.
-
Martin Smith
New Zealand
Wellington
--------------
-
Thanks for your comments Barry, and some good points. I hadn't gone into the fact that a Loop leads to a further combat opportunity straight away. In one way, this seemed a slightly odd rule as the other combat scenarios do not continue after the initial confrontation, but the unique position outcome of the Loop does make that a justifiable approach, and as you point out, it adds to the options (and excitement).
You also mention strategy options based on the cards, and I would have to acknowledge that, but to my mind these are often more like taking into account rules boundaries and quirks (like flying far enough so you can go back and land to get better cards) - not any kind of 'military' or real-world strategy or tactics. But there's nothing wrong with that - I do realise it's a game! LOL :-)
Thanks for adding your points and views to my review - it's definitely the better for it.
-
|
|
