Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Aircraft rules
Ginger
 Post subject: Aircraft rules
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I'm with Neal here that CAPing an intercept should be no different from CAPing a Ground Attack.

Regarding the complexities, I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find the original discussions on this, so forgive me if I rehash old stuff. Normally CAPing CAP a/c (or intercepts) works fine where each formation has only got a single target thus where Red and Blue both have two formations and you get something like :-

B2 ?----> ?R2 ?-----> B1 ?-----> R1 ---> Ground Target

Here the combats are resolved in reverse order with R2 defensive fire (if any) on B2, then B2 kills some of R2 before their attack on B1, which is resolved before B1 attacks R1 and finally R1 attacks the ground target.

However, complexity occurs where formations are placed to bring more than one enemy formation into the arc of fire eg :-

? ? B1 -----> R1 -----> Ground Target
B2 -----> <------ R2

(Assume R1 is an Orc Landa, and R2 are Fightas). Here, B2 could possibly fire on both R1 and R2 (assuming arc and range etc) and equally R2 can fire on both B2 and B1 - which tends to muck up the usual sequence for both combats.

What I think was suggested was to artificially impose the Last-in-First-out rule and only allow each formation to attack a single enemy target, even if there are other eligible targets.

Is that what others recollect / play??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Aircraft rules
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:39 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Ginger @ Jan. 08 2008,01:11)
QUOTE
What I think was suggested was to artificially impose the Last-in-First-out rule and only allow each formation to attack a single enemy target, even if there are other eligible targets.

Is that what others recollect / play??

Yes to both.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Aircraft rules
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Perhaps we could add this note to the handbook? (ie each air formation only attacks one enemy formation)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Aircraft rules
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Umm Hena,

We seem to be talking about two related topics here. With respect to Intercept, it seems that everyone agrees that if you permit people to CAP vs CAP, then you should also allow CAP vs intercept. Here, what we are effectively saying is that you may put aircraft on CAP to react to enemy aircraft activity.

Regarding the sequence of steps in air combat, the presence of this lengthy discussion (and long notes) should alert people to the "complexities" and pitfalls ?involved.  :p

In past discussions, I thought it had been agreed that the simplest way to resolve a multi-formation air combat is to split it up into a number of separate and discreet combats between two (and only two) opposing formations working backwards from the last formation to enter the battle field through to the first one. In this way, the bombers are only attacked by one formation, and only defend themselves against that formation (before they carry out their attack on the ground target of course).

The alternative (and much more complicated) way of looking at this is to consider each combat as a single attack onto multiple defending formations (in arc and range), again working backwards from last to first. IMO this approach has major drawbacks not least because each formation may be attacked more than once, and because formations may well end up being attacked out of sequence, both of which make it much harder to remember the actual sequence of the combats, and also very much more bloody.

In your example Hena, you seem to be going through all the defensive fire first and then through all the attacking fire, which I must admit is a new take on this that I have not come across before. Is that what your group does, and if so, how does the results compare with those outlined above?




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Aircraft rules
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Warning - long and complex post

Still cannot find the original posts (possibly an issue with the recent restructuring??)

Simple combat sequence example
To summarise the sequence that was presented in those threads: Given the aircraft arrive as follows, and each is restricted to a single target formation:-

? ? ? ? ?B2 ---> R2 ---> B1 ---> R1 ---> Ground target

There are three air combats, and finally the air-ground combat as follows
B2 Vs R2
? a) Red Ground AA and R2 defensive fire Vs B2
? b) B2 attacks R2
R2 Vs B1
? a) Blue Ground AA and B1 defensive fire Vs R2
? b) R2 attacks B1
B1 Vs R1
? a) Red Ground AA and R1 defensive fire Vs B1
? b) B1 attacks R1
R1 Vs ground target
? a) Blue Ground AA defensive fire Vs R1
? b) R1 attacks ground target

The point of limiting each formation to attacking a single target formation is to remove complexities which arise when there is more than one formation in arc and range (this is especially true where the A/c weapons range is 30cms). As a consequence, it is much easier to follow.

Complex combat sequence and issues
The main issues in multi-air combat is that formations can end up being attacked more than once, and potentially out of sequence, both of which can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the combat.
Consider the alternative placing here :-

? ? ? ? ? ? B1 ----> R1 ----> Ground target
? ? ? ?B2 ---><---- R2

Here, if we follow the sequence again, we could allow each Blue formation to attack both Red formations, in which case it would seem only fair that both Red formations can defend themselves. The combats would then look like this:-

B2 Vs Red
? a) Red Ground AA and R2, R1 defensive fire Vs B2
? b) B2 attacks R2, R1
R2 Vs Blue
? a) Blue Ground AA and B2, B1 defensive fire Vs R2
? b) R2 attacks B1, B2
B1 Vs Red
? a) Red Ground AA and R1, R2 defensive fire Vs B1
? b) B1 attacks R1, R2
R1 Vs ground target
? a) Blue Ground AA defensive fire Vs R1
? b) R1 attacks ground target

The result is that defensive fire is significantly increased (all CAP formations get 2x defensive fire), potentially reducing the CAP attacks while the attacking fire is diluted across both enemy formations (and you also have issues as to where the hits are assigned etc). Needless to say, it is also much more brutal. Finally, it raises a question whether R2 should be allowed both defensive fire and attacking fire against the Blue formations!! (Ok so I put it in to illustrate a point :p )

Alternative Sequence issue
In either case Hena, I think your sequence of doing all the defensive fire first followed by all the attacking fire may also unbalance things (though I have not been able to fully think this through) . Here the formation size (and hence the defensive capability) of the CAP formations would be reduced artificially by the defensive capability of their targets (and especially so if each was permitted to shoot at multiple attackers). Eg B1 formation size is reduced by R1 defensive fire before it can defend against R2, which in turn is reduced before it can defend against B2. Does that make sense??

Last thoughts
In any event, the above ramble illustrates some of the issues with multiple air combats - (and why they have not been formally adopted), though some groups use them without complaint.

If you do want to house-rule it:-
  • be sure to clarify the sequence of events and the target priorities beforehand,
  • consider using markers as an aide-memoire,
  • go through each step carefully before moving on to the next
  • realise that it is going to be time-consuming to some extent even when you are familiar with the process
If you have read up to this point, you deserve a medal :D

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net