I’m looking at adding the new flight plan into my collection. I love adding new layers to the game, and have deliberately left this until last. Im unsure if the rules were the same in the air pack, but the planes blocking line of sight really doesnt sit well with me.
In the excellent thread about artillery hits we discussed rational reasons for and against changing the rules and what would be fairer in either circumstance.
In the case of planes blocking line of sight, surely it would be easy to just ignore this rule.
The argument was to make rules simple by the having the same line of sight restrictions as other units. But they behave diffently to regular units, can move over occupied hex etc.
Im interested how other players feel anout this, especially players who use the planes often.
I ignore this rule but apply the priority of shooting to a plane in close combat on a further ground unit
Yes, it’s kind of weird.
I have played only once with the New Flight Plan because I don’t play M44 that often sadly so I have to keep it simple for the people who arent used to it. So I can’t really say how it affects gameplay, if it breaks balance or not, but it’s weird at least, and counter intuitive too I think.
I would like to know your experiences playing it ignoring the rule. Also @JP_Pacelli way of doing it seems like a good way to do it.
I can maybe understand if a player is attacking ground units and there is an enemy plane flying overhead… I don’t think I would stick my head out or try to attack so I can sort of understand why they have the blocked line of site rule. However if my ground troops are going to attack and our own plane is overhead then my line of site should not be blocked as I am working in cooperation with the air units.
Maybe ground to air communication or vice versa was not a thing back then… LOL.
Regardless I would say a plane does not block line of site other than it takes up a hex and because it does take up a hex hence line of site is blocked. I can take it or leave it.
Actually, according to the new rules, if your plane is blocking LOS, you can simply move your units underneath and past your airplane to get a better shot during the movement phase. So they can run and drive under it.
Insofar as ground to air communication; on the battlefield, as in, whatwe wouldcall “air support” today, that communication was nonexistent. Even the air to ground (command) commo was spotty.
My son and I play quite a bit, and we play that they do not block line of sight, and you need not target them if they are adjacent.
It doesn’t seem too far out of realism; your shooting 80 yards over there at some guys in the woods…or the same pot-shot into the air at something moving pretty quickly…
My first comment here. Brand new fan and just got the NFP to go with my Core Pack. This was the rule that really stood out along with movement underneath friendly planes that I have also been trying to conceptualize it. Because despite knowing that the rules should be simple, there must be some realism established at the same time.
Here is my two cents. I mostly agree with Rodrigo with some variation.
If it is a friendly plane overhead (e.g. one hex) in front of you and your enemy is straight ahead (e.g. two Hexes), if this were real life, I think you as the infantry are thinking twice about running towards your enemy underneath your own planes. You are not thinking oh I need to support my planes, but you are looking up at the skies hoping that plane takes care of the enemy and you don’t get caught in friendly fire. I haven’t seen a friendly fire rule yet. I guess of course this depends on the scenario. If you are trying to get out of the water or off a beach, you have little choice. Armor maybe a different case because they are less likely to see what is going on over their heads. But if your General-God plays a Probe card and tells you to move your asses under your planes, you follow orders because you don’t have to worry about friendly fire. I think that is where this rule stumbles in the realism department. But maybe someone has come up with a dice mechanic for that. The blocking the line of sight is questionable here and I could conceptualize that if you are focused on the direction of the plane, you would be waiting to see what the plane is going to do which “blocks your sight” in that direction. Imagine aiming a rifle across the field of battle while the thunder of your planes are flying over your head towards the very enemy you are looking at as Rodrigo mentioned. In most cases, infantry are hitting the dirt. Again for armor, I would say the line of sight makes less sense than for infantry. That is the question here. Over-simplification or adding a touch of realism?
Perhaps I am thinking too hard about it 
But I like to see that people have different views and are adapting the rules to establish their own realism and enjoyment. For now, I will stick by the rules and see how it goes.
But here are some ideas that I am thinking of for the future:
- LOS applies to infantry (psychological effect)
- LOS does not apply to armor (has less awareness of the skies)
- LOS artillery, n/a I have to check out the rules Reefa mentioned because I would think you would not want to shoot artillery while your planes are too close to the trajectory path. So there must be some modification for that. Otherwise there must be some rules of chance that your plane gets hit with flak from the artillery if it is within a certain range.
- Movement under planes by infantry/armor - if those planes attack anywhere on the board that same round regardless of the order of attack, you need a saving throw for each unit that has moved under the plane, e.g. You first roll four dice. If 3/4 or 4/4 dice roll infantry/armor (depending on the unit), you have to roll one more time. If you get at least one star, you are ok. If you do not get a star, you lose one infantry/armor, something like that.