Jump to content


Photo

Air Support Drop In and some questions ;)


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Marcin Zgiernicki

Marcin Zgiernicki

    Private

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 29 October 2005 - 11:44 PM

Yesterday we had our first battle test with those mysterious "heavier than air flying machines" B). Generally it was a great fun however a number of questions appeared and we'll apreciate if you can provide a little help: Aircraft movement1) Evasive movement - the rules are written so that the plane could evade fire only in it's own activation so it applies to AA overwatch only. "Normal" direct AA fire could not be evaded at all. Is that correct?2) Plane movement - can some movement be "carried over" or "borrowed" from one turn to another? - on one occasion my opponent's FW190 found itself 1" from the table edge (after moving 8"), facing it at about 30° with only 7 pips left. Sticking to the rules it had to go out of the table bacause it's MR was "8". However we decided that it can "borrow" 1 pip on account of it's next activation and make the necessary turn. It just felt right B) AA Fire1) AA Overwatch and TQ check - the rules state that when you fire a non-dedicated AA weapon you need to pass TQ check first. When on AA overwatch however no check is needed (page 16.9). Is that true? No TQ check to resolve opportunity fire form AA overwatch?? (BTW in the next column you can read about the AA overwatch that taking opportunity fire is handled normally)And does the same apply to dedicated AA weapons???2) Do the planes flying over stands trigger RA's? (i suppose they should - during the war there were some occasions when the low flying planes were shot down by a "lucky rifle shot")3) AA overwatch - the rules assume that the AA overwatch has the same 30° sector as the "groud level" one. Taking into account the plane's maneuvrability and speed that makes it pretty useless unless you involve MANY stands to cover entire 360°. I suggest that AA overwatch should cover some 180° - it's a bit easier to spot an incoming airplane on the sky and the AA weapons were built so that they could be turned FAST to face the target.Air to Air Combat1) Is the plane's FOV modified by the distance? (I mean the "AP modifiers table")2) "Rear Gunners" (sorry, don't know if it's correct term in english) - the rules mention "onboard MG's" but only in case of the the level bombers (what about e.g. Me110, Defiant and others?). They are allowed to fire at enemy planes only as a standard fire action so in order to use them, a bomber must actively "hunt" the opponent and that's a bit odd, don't you think?. I'll suggest that there should rather be a rule that allows to put the onboard gunners (if the plane has any) on overwatch (with at least 90° arc) regardless of the plane's actions. Fending off enemy aircraft was their primary purpose after all.I don't feel right about fighters approaching from the rear, firing and moving away without any chance of retaliation as long as they keep out of the 2" zone. Marcin

#2 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 30 October 2005 - 08:34 AM

Aircraft Movement -1) - You are correct2) - Normally you can not "borrow" movement pips from one turn to the next. However, the situation you encountered is rather unusual and rare, so what you did was fine. I would not make it a rule however. Sometime a situation pops up that there is no rule for, or the rule as written just doesn't seem to work. That when the GM (or players) make a decision, which is what you guys did.AA Fire -1) - Not totally sure what you are asking. I'll review the rules as they've been written and get back to you on this one.2) - While not in the rules (it will be) RA's can be triggered by aircraft flying at NOE altitude. I will discuss with the playtesters their thoughts on LOW flying planes. MED or HIGH would not trigger an RA.3) - AA overwatch covers a full 360. It is assumed the men manning the gun are each looking in different directions. As you said, dedicated AA could rotate fast so they could cover attack from any direction.Air to Air -1) All direct fire modifiers apply.2) An interesting idea. While MP is not intended to be an air combat game, we cover the basic simply because the situation "could" present itself over the battlefield. Not sure how far we'll take this in the rules, but feel free to write your own house rule!

#3 Marcin Zgiernicki

Marcin Zgiernicki

    Private

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 02:04 PM

jcoulter wrote:

AA Fire -1) - Not totally sure what you are asking. I'll review the rules as they've been written and get back to you on this one.

Page 16.9, left column, under "Non-Dedicated AA Fire":"If a non-dedicated AA weapon is fired upon an aircraft, it must first make a TQcheck to see if it is able to react quicklyenough to get off a shot at the plane. [...] Non-dedicated AA may go on the AAOverwatch if desired. While on AA Over-watch, no TQ check is required."Page 16.9, middle column, under "Direct AA Fire and Overwatch""All Direct-Fire-capable AA guns automatically start the game on Overwatch, and taking opportunity fire is handled normally."I assume that "normally" = "overwatch activation TQ check"

Air to Air -2) An interesting idea. While MP is not intended to be an air combat game, we cover the basic simply because the situation "could" present itself over the battlefield. Not sure how far we'll take this in the rules, but feel free to write your own house rule!

I don't want to go overhead with aircraft rules too. However allowing the aft gunners to actually do something (i.e. defend their planes) seems to be a rational soltution.Marcin

#4 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 30 October 2005 - 09:10 PM

Ok ... NON-DEDICATED AA Fire can, as part of its Standard Action, shoot at Aircraft, but only if a TQ check is passed. This is because the gunner of such a weapon is assumed to be looking for ground targets. The sudden appearance of an aircraft requires the gunner to change his focus and react quick enough to get a reliable shot off at the plane. Thus the TQ check.However, if a non-dedicated AA weapon decides to go onto AA Overwatch, he is actively seaching for airborne targets and thus does not require the TQ check.----

All Direct-Fire-capable AA guns automatically start the game on Overwatch, and taking opportunity fire is handled normally.

Change this to read:

All Dedicated Direct-Fire-capable AA guns automatically start the game on Overwatch, and taking opportunity fire is handled normally.

Non-dedicated AA weapons can NOT start the game on AA Overwatch.Did I cover the question?

#5 Marcin Zgiernicki

Marcin Zgiernicki

    Private

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 10:21 PM

jcoulter wrote:

Did I cover the question?

Yep, thanks a lot :)Now I just have to survive the "burst-of-enthusiasm-about-airplanes" syndrome amongst the people of my gaming group... Marcin

#6 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 692 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:31 PM

My turn...Counter Measures (CM) and Evasive Modifier (EM). How and when are these to be used?The Missile Reaction (MR) Table on the Advance Reference Card (ARC) only refers to EM. The Air Support Chapter states the CM is to be applied to the MR and the EM states "By using evasive maneuvers, the attacking missile’s chance to-hit is modified by this value.". Is this also refering to the MR table? If so then is this not a double modifier for the same thing?Both paragraphs in the Air Support Drop-In imply these modifers be utilized in missile attacks only.I submit that an Aircraft can also employ an evasive maneuver against direct fire AA (not flak) like ZSU-23-4 and Stg. Yorks and Gepards.My suggestion would be to correct the MR Table on the ARC to state CM not EM. Modify the Air Support Drop-In EM paragraph requiring a player to make a TQ check. If successful the player can choose to take the EM or not. If failed then the attack occurs w/o the modifer and if survived the Aircraft must move 2xD6 away from the attacker. If the player chooses to apply the EM modifer against an direct fire (non-flak) AA attack (player's "To Hit" roll) and if survived the aircraft must move 2xD6 away from the attacker.If the player chooses not to apply the EM modifier then the attack proceeds w/o the modifer and if the Aircraft survives it can continue it's mission.My reasoning is that a pilot has the tendancy to automatically fly away from attacks. However, if the pilot is brave enough, mission critical enough and or has faith in his planes survivability then the player has a little decision making ability to continue through the attack or not.

#7 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 02 November 2005 - 05:16 PM

Evasive Movement is defined on page 16.2 and applies to SAMs, AAMs, and direct fire AA. It is an optional maneuver on the part of the pilot. Doing so causes erratic movement that is likely to cause the plane to no long be lined up for its own attack, but it increases its chances of survival.Counter Measures is an ADDITIONAL modifier which is automatically applied to missile attacks. They can be launched with or with a Evasive Movement.

#8 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 692 posts

Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:58 PM

jcoulter wrote:

Evasive Movement is defined on page 16.2 and applies to SAMs, AAMs, and direct fire AA. It is an optional maneuver on the part of the pilot. Doing so causes erratic movement that is likely to cause the plane to no long be lined up for its own attack, but it increases its chances of survival.

Yes but the paragraph does not explain how to implement Evasive Movment. How does the player do this and can a player can use it at his own discretion? Example?

Counter Measures is an ADDITIONAL modifier which is automatically applied to missile attacks. They can be launched with or with a Evasive Movement.

Ok...

Post edited by: knoe, at: 2005/11/02 20:00

#9 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 692 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:11 PM

Fergit the example request... I re-read page 16.2 and found it... I was thnking of page 16.3 when the request was made. Doh!'nother question, is the range to initiate an Reaction action the same (2") for Aircraft as for Vehicles??Tanks

#10 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 03 November 2005 - 03:50 PM

Yup, 2".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users