5 replies to this topic

[Jim O'Neil]

The Japanese, early war British, and several other nations (the USAAC among them) started out flying in Vics of three planes, later they adjusted to the finger four... Not sure the Japanese ever did doctrinally.The big difference is flexbility... a three plane vic allows a 12 plane squadron to put out 4 tactical groups... a 12 plane squadron flyig pairs/divisions can put out 6! that offers a 50% increase in ofensive capability.I *think* the intent is to use these divisions/chutai/vics as the flights you roill for, but it isn't clear... My take is that you roll one D12 for each flight/division/vic or whatever the lowest sized element is... this provides the benefit of the more advanced formation.Single survivors must leave a battle (it is possible for elements to rejoin and form adhoc formations.. but it's not worth the effort). This gives the 3 plane vic/chutai more staying power, as it can absorb more damage...anyway, my 2¢

[Dave Franklin]

The big difference with air formations is "fleability"!? I thought you were supposed to be aggressive in air-to-air combat!Sorry, couldn't resist. I make typos too...

[gregoryk]

Bravo6 wrote:

I *think* the intent is to use these divisions/chutai/vics as the flights you roill for, but it isn't clear... My take is that you roll one D12 for each flight/division/vic or whatever the lowest sized element is... this provides the benefit of the more advanced formation.Single survivors must leave a battle (it is possible for elements to rejoin and form adhoc formations.. but it's not worth the effort). This gives the 3 plane vic/chutai more staying power, as it can absorb more damage...

I am unsure about this, as well. How exactly are the "finger-four" elements handled?Gregory

[Jim O'Neil]

Fleability is very aggressive... jump on them and bite like ... no huh?Ok Yeah... I miss-typed it ... :blush: The Finger Four attacks with two elements (each of two aircraft)The Chutai/Vc attacks with one element of three...So 2-D12 to One, but the vic/Chutai can take an extra hit before being forced to withdraw ... again... my thinking .. and I'm not sure it's thought all the way through...

[Lonnie Gill]

Good discussion on formation characteristics. Let me add a few clarifications. In Part 2, in the interest of simplicity, each flight operates as an entity, represented by one miniature. British, German and US fighter flights represent four planes while the fighter flight for other nationalities represents the three plane V. Roll a D12 for each flight when resolving fighter vs. fighter combat. In the Part 5 Optional Rules, page 5-4, this flight definition is amended to change a "finger four" flight to two 'elements' (each a real fighter and wingman). Each element is represented by a miniature. The finger four flight normally operates together, but as correctly noted on the discussion, a D12 is rolled for each element in aerial combat. Further, elements can separate and operate independently. This simulates the tactical superiority and flexibility of the finger four flight compared to the three plane V flight noted in the discussion.Aerial combat losses, however, apply to the whole flight, not just one plane in the flight. Thus, when a flight is Destroyed, the flight is removed from the tactical area and a Damaged flight is returned to base. See Section 2.8.1 and 2.8.2. A hit on a finger four flight, using the amended definition on page 5-4, results in the destruction or damage of one of the two elements. Thus, the finger four flight also has greater tactical staying power.Note that Section 4.5.7, page 4-7, provides for reactivation of half the flights/elements destroyed when simulating an extended campaign. This reflects that when a flight or element is is "Destroyed", one or more of it's planes is shot down destroying/disrupting it's tactical integrity for the mission being flown. Reactivation represents reassembling the surviving planes that return to base from the "Destroyed" flights/elements into new flights/elements for new missions the next morning.

[Jim O'Neil]

Lonnie,That makes good sense to me...