No fear of airplanes

[frimmel]

@dinosaur:

Bump … because editing previous post to add info doesn’t show up as new post with info.

You have already gone above and beyond with this.  8-)

[dinosaur]

Thanks Frimmel.  I’m not done yet, but because the permutations are becoming extensive, I am having to slow down.  It takes me five to six sheets of paper to run the numbers on a single example right now.  For example, my next installment will include the case where one bomber with four fighters goes up against one destroyer and two transports.  My first three pages just list the permutations of the six dice.  My fourth page accumulates the number of dice rolls qualify for a specific result.  My fifth sheet summarizes the numbers from the fourth sheet.  The sixth sheet determines the ‘worth’ of a specific result depending on the cargo loadout of the convoy.  These numbers go into a spreadsheet with about sixty lines, to add up the final score.  One of the beauties is that often I can check the results by comparing to other values already computed.

About the results …

As I said before it seems a good rule of thumb is to have one bomber for each target you hope to hit, plus 3/4 the fighters equal to the number of AA dice the enemy is going to throw.  This does provide a small chance you might lose a bomber, but very small (~1.25%).  On the plus side, you can expect to hit more than 0.60 x # bombers you bring to the fight.  If you don’t bring at least twice as many bombers as screening ships, you can only expect to hit screening ships with an occasional hit on a transport.  (Please understand, after the 3/4 fighter screen, every extra 2 fighters count for 1 bomber on the target)

The original observation that planes are not very reliable against main fleets appears to be completely justifiable.  A typical main fleet is going to have at least five ships with one AA die each, and a fighter screen of at least two fighters.  This means nine or more AA dice.  Just to get started against a fleet with transports and an escort like this, you would need seven fighters and five bombers.  But a fleet with only 5-AA dice and two fighter CAP is a modest fleet indeed in game terms.  But an air only attack of this size would certainly be classified as a main effort.

So it appears unless you need to make a big gamble, aircraft should best be used to attack small supply convoys, deter air attacks against your airfields, fly CAP over your fleet or join a main effort fleet engagement against the enemy.  Going after a main body with only aircraft appears to be a big gamble at best.

I may run some odds that include one or two fighters in CAP over these small fleets later.

[Guest]

The problem that I have with all of this calculation is that is has no correlation with what actually occurred.  The Japanese very rarely would have ships anywhere in the vicinity of Guadalcanal during daylight once Henderson Field was in operation, for fear of air attack.  The US was able to operate during daylight without major problems because of fighter cover from Henderson Field, but even then we lost ships due to air attack while delivering men and supplies to Guadalcanal.  During the attacks on Tanaka’s reinforcement convoy from November 13 to 15th, the Japanese lost 6 transports sunk and 1 heavily damaged to airstrikes from both Guadalcanal and the Enterprise, with minimal losses, even with the presence of some escorting Zeros, and a number of escorting destroyers.  In February, 1943, 3 Fletcher-class destroyers were attacked by 5 Vals, which scored 3 hits on one ship, including one in a magazine that sunk the DD in 2 minutes.  I will need to set up a couple of historical scenarios and see how the game results compare to what actually happened, but my guess is that I will be changing the rules for air attack, antiair fire, and damage to ships.

I posted the following thread on the Harris Game website, of a study that I did for a couple of game companies on air attack and antiair effectiveness in WW2 in the Pacific.  One striking thing was the ineffectiveness of Japanese naval antiaircraft fire. As stated, it was “somewhere between horrible and nonexistent for most of the war”.  That would most definitely apply to the Solomons campaign.  Also, making destroyers as hard to sink as a battleship, i.e. two hits, is really stretching it, even allowing for the fact that a destroyer represents more than one ship.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1475

My ideas for a couple of quick and dirty home rules to make planes a bit more deadly would be:  1) no wraparound for Japanese AA fire from ships.  2) Destroyers on both sides are sunk with one hit.  If nothing else, this should make the Japanese player a bit more leery of running small number of ships to Guadalcanal.

[legion3]

So it appears unless you need to make a big gamble, aircraft should best be used to attack small supply convoys, deter air attacks against your airfields, fly CAP over your fleet or join a main effort fleet engagement against the enemy.  Going after a main body with only aircraft appears to be a big gamble at best.

Which is the point I made at the outset…now backed by math and science. Booyah!!!  :wink:

A game cannot be too historically accurate or it would not be fun to play. Weaken the IJN’s defenses and the game would be unbalanced. World War 1 Games which are to accurate often become grinding slugfests and quickly become boring and plodding to play.

[Krieghund]

A while back I mentioned that I’ve been working on some fairly simple house rules to make air attacks a little more effective.  I wanted to wait until I had them thoroughly playtested before posting them, but my time is very limited right now.  So, rather than wait a while longer for more testing, I’m going to throw them out here now, and see what you guys think.  I have two different ideas - one very simple and one a little more complex.

Method 1:

The current Attack Air Units step is divided into two steps: Air-to-Air Combat and Anti-Aircraft Fire:

Air-to-Air Combat - This step works in the same way as the Attack Air Units step in the Operations Manual, except that only air units may fire.

Anti-Aircraft Fire - This step works in the same way as the Attack Air Units step in the Operations Manual, with two exceptions.  First, only AA guns and sea units may fire.  Second, casualties are resolved in the normal fashion, but they are not removed immediately.  Each air unit that is hit is turned upside down on the board to mark it as a casualty.  These units will remain on the board and attack in the Attack Sea Units or Attack Land Units and/or Airfields steps, after which they will be removed along with those casualties.

Method 2:

The Combat Sequence in the Operations Manual is replaced with the following:
1. Air-to-Air Combat
2. Air-to-Surface Combat
3. Naval Combat
4. Transport and Destroyer Unloading
5. Land Combat and Naval Bombardment

For each of the steps, combat functions in the same way as it does under the official rules, with a few notable exceptions outlined below.

1. Air-to-Air Combat - This step works in the same way as the Attack Air Units step in the Operations Manual, except that only air units may fire.

2. Air-to-Surface Combat - The first player attacks the opposing air units in the zone of his or her choice using only his or her land or sea units in that zone and/or attacks the opposing land or sea units in the zone of his or her choice using only his or her air units in that zone.  Then the other player does the same in that zone.  In island zones, air units may choose to attack either land units or airfields.  Casualties are resolved in the normal fashion, with one exception: if an air unit hits a land or sea unit type that isn’t in the battle, the casualty is chosen by reading across the chart starting at the next column, rather than from the first column.  If the columns are exhausted, wrap back around to the beginning.

After both players have rolled their attacks, then remove the destroyed units from the board.  If single hits are scored on airfields, turn them sideways to record their semi-damaged state.  Two hits must be applied to one airfield before applying any to a second airfield.  Repeat this process for each zone in which both air units of one side and land or sea units of the other side exist.

3. Naval Combat - This step works in the same way as the Attack Sea Units step in the Operations Manual, except that only sea units and artillery attacking sea units may fire.

4. Transport and Destroyer Unloading - This step works in exactly the same way as the Unload Transports and Destroyers step in the Operations Manual.

5. Land Combat and Naval Bombardment - This step works in the same way as the Attack Land Units and/or Airfields step in the Operations Manual, except that air units may not fire.  Any airfield that was turned sideways in the Air-to-Surface Combat step can be damaged by a single hit from a sea unit.  Any such airfields not damaged in this step are returned to their normal orientation.

Method 1 simply allows air units to attack surface units even if they are hit by AA fire, giving them a little more punch.  It also make bombers slightly harder to hit when escorted by fighters.

Method 2 restructures the combat system to give air units even more power by giving them the ability to potentially strike more directly at units deeper in the casualty chart, in addition to the advantages given in Method 1.  It also makes air attacks more deadly in fleet battles, since the hit ships won’t be able to fire in the Naval Combat step.

Both methods make air units a bit more of a threat to land and sea units.  Any feedback would be appreciated.

[dinosaur]

One concern for me is that your second method doesn’t allow destroyers and cruisers to protect the higher value ships.  For example, in my calculations that only deal with destroyers and supply ships, in the game destroyers absorb all but the direct shot against the supply ship.  Except for the direct shot, only one in six, you have to eliminate the destroyers to hit the supply ships.  This isn’t ideal, but it does allow destroyers to fulfill their primary duty as fleet/convoy escorts.  I do agree that having a destroyer take two damage points to kill, the same as a cruiser, is a bit of an oversite.  I could go with destroyers getting killed on a 1 or 2.  This helps cruisers gain their proper place too.  A destroyer gets only one hit, a cruiser might get two, and a battleship might get three hits to destroy.  A destroyer always gets one, a cruiser might get only one, and a battleship always gets two.  Sounds like a good balance.  Maybe we could let supply ships get killed on a 1, 2 or 3.  But you still have to peel away the escort ships.

Your idea about ship AA fire makes me think of kamikaze attacks.

[Krieghund]

@dinosaur:

One concern for me is that your second method doesn’t allow destroyers and cruisers to protect the higher value ships.  For example, in my calculations that only deal with destroyers and supply ships, in the game destroyers absorb all but the direct shot against the supply ship.  Except for the direct shot, only one in six, you have to eliminate the destroyers to hit the supply ships.  This isn’t ideal, but it does allow destroyers to fulfill their primary duty as fleet/convoy escorts.

It only keeps destroyers and cruisers from protecting other ships against air attack.  Naval attacks still use the official system.  This makes air attacks more devastating, and makes defensive air cover more important.  Of course, if this makes air units too powerful, it can easily be removed.

@dinosaur:

Your idea about ship AA fire makes me think of kamikaze attacks.

That’s not what it’s intended to represent.  It simply makes fire between air and sea/ground units simultaneous, just as fire between units of the same “class” is.  Think of it as a torpedo bomber being hit by AA fire just after it releases its torpedo.

[Make_It_Round]

Hi Krieghund,

I like where you’re going. By way of response, I have what I think is a refinement on your idea for making aircraft tougher, which doesn’t require adding an extra step to an already complicated combat sequence. It is as follows…

Aircraft that are hit with '1’s [or 2 x '2’s] during the Attack Air Units phase are removed as per usual.

Aircraft that are hit with single '2’s during the Attack Air Units phase are flipped over and get to stick around and fire during the Attack Sea Units and Attack Land Units phases before they are removed at the end of combat [this gives aircraft an ersatz ‘Resilience’ ability, but without the possibility of repair/retrieval].

What do you think?

Best,

Make_R

[Krieghund]

This is an interesting idea, but it makes air units even more powerful by allowing some them take two hits to destroy.  This protects another air unit from taking the second hit.  It also doesn’t differentiate between air attacks and ground attacks on air units, reducing the value of defensive air cover versus my methods.

[Make_It_Round]

Krieghund,

Let me see if I’m getting this right: you’re saying that giving planes resilience [making them 1.5 times tougher] reduces the value of defensive air cover?

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense at all. My idea makes air cover 1.5 times more powerful!

Since the topic of this thread is ‘No fear of airplanes’, I thought that we were trying to find ways to make air units more effective…

Best,

M_I_R

[Krieghund]

Yes, it reduces the relative value of defensive air cover compared to my methods.  In my methods, hits by air units register against other air units immediately, whereas hits by land or sea units against air units are delayed in their effect.  That makes air unit hits versus air units more powerful than land or sea unit hits versus air units, decreasing the relative strength of AA versus air cover and making air cover more important than in the box rules.

Your approach is to make air units stronger, while mine is to make AA fire weaker.  Both make air units more powerful with regard to attacking surface units, but yours also makes them more powerful with regard to other air units.  The effect is that in your approach the balance of effectiveness of AA fire versus air cover is the same as in the box rules, while in mine air cover becomes more effective versus AA fire.

[legion3]

It does seem like you have the two options, make aircraft tougher or make AA fire less potent.

It has always seeemed to me that the AA fire is to fierce in this game. As I stated before, aircraft have to run to great of a gauntlet, all at once. I do think a step where air combat and air  (raid)attacks are seperate is needed.

I like the idea of an airplane only battle phase, would simulate the attacking wave meeting the CAP (which at this time was not super strong) away from the fleet. Planes shot down then would be shot down, no questions asked. Planes damaged then could do one of two things;

1. continue on to the fleet and make an attack but then be lost (removed/destroyed - IE Torpedo plane shot down after it launches) because of the damage, loss of fuel…whatever,

or

2. the player could decide to return the plane to base (abort/turn back due to battle damage) where it could live for another day. And if not enough surviving non damaged planes were left the entire mission could be scrubbed - which happened a lot.

Then have the air attack phase where the surviving planes, bust through the cap and now face the ships AA.

At this point in the war neither the USN or the IJN could repel a determined air attack. Either by the use of CAP or AA fire, ask the Carriers at Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons.

In 1944 US Air defenses were much stronger in 42-43.

[dinosaur]

I like M_I_Rs idea.  Aircraft don’t get real resiliance as a ship because if they are hit by a 2 they are still removed (killed).  They are just getting one final shot before they are done.  In this way, they could launch their weapon before getting shot on the way out.  That is perfectly reasonable to me.  I could consider having the “first AA roll” be fighters only, with 1 or 2 being an immediate kill and the “second AA roll” being ship/land based AA fire, with 2s allowed to make their attack.  This allows fighter CAP to be highly effective.  I think there are some interesting tweaks for air combat rules on the table here.

[Krieghund]

@dinosaur:

I like M_I_Rs idea.  Aircraft don’t get real resiliance as a ship because if they are hit by a 2 they are still removed (killed).  They are just getting one final shot before they are done.  In this way, they could launch their weapon before getting shot on the way out.  That is perfectly reasonable to me.

My biggest concern here is that increasing aircraft survival rates and increasing their effectiveness too much may have an impact on game balance.  Their survival rate is inceased simply because “pseudo-resilience” as proposed by Make_It_Round gives one plane the ability to absorb two hits, if the first one is a 2.  As I’ve already pointed out, pseudo-resilience increases effectiveness by nerfing air-to-air fire as well as surface-to-air fire, leaving even more planes to attack surface targets.

@dinosaur:

I could consider having the “first AA roll” be fighters only, with 1 or 2 being an immediate kill and the “second AA roll” being ship/land based AA fire, with 2s allowed to make their attack.  This allows fighter CAP to be highly effective.

This is the same as my Method 1, except that AA hits on a 1 are immediate kills.  It still nerfs AA only, but not as much as my idea does.

@dinosaur:

I think there are some interesting tweaks for air combat rules on the table here.

Yes, there are.

[Guest]

I keep looking at the aircraft rules, and keep thinking that I might simply plug in my WW2 operational effectiveness data on aircraft accuracy, AA fire effectiveness, and effectiveness of aerial weapons on naval targets.  Basically, the takes the US bomber out of the antiship business, so I will need to plug in US Navy attack planes instead. I will need to dig out my US carrier models for the Dauntless dive-bombers.  The Bettys were good torpedo bombers, but did take heavy losses. May have to paint some Dauntless brown to give the Japanese some single-engine attack planes, and use the fighters strictly as fighters.  Other option would be to use some 1/350 scale planes for the attack planes, as that is pretty close to the scale of the Hellcat and Zero.  For fighter verses fighter combat, I am thinking of using a D6 for the Zero and a D8 for the US fighter, as the Wildcats that were actually in use had the advantage of early warning to get position at Guadalcanal.  If not covering Guadalcanal or a carrier, a D6 for each, winner shots down looser, tie, both go home damaged to the base island box, and can return the next turn.

[dinosaur]

I bought some Hell Cats and some Corsairs from a 1:350 set produced in either Japan or China.  They even have tiny Navy insignia to decal the wings.  I only wish I could find the bombers used in the Dolittle raid.  I’d just love to see the game with two of them sitting on the Solomon Islands.

On another note, my home computer is down.  I can still access my e-mail and thse boards using my wife’s notebook, but I don’t have acess to my spreadsheet.  If I ever get things sorted out, I hope to finish one or two more air attack comparisons.

[Guest]

You might want to check the Tamiya and Hasegawa websites.  Tamiya is still listing a 1/700 scale Mitchell that would fit in perfectly, and Hasegawa is still listing early and late war 1/700 Japanese Navy planes, and US Navy planes.  The Mitchell is about perfect for the A&A games in general, as the bombers scale out at at between 1/600 to 1/720 scale.  I also have some 1/700 scale B-29 bombers and Japanese Emily that a got quite a while ago.  I have been thinking about adding the B-25 into the games in some way, either as a cheaper heavy bomber with the same range as a fighter to using them as an attack plane in A&A Pacific with an attack of 3 or 4, and dropping the fighter ground attack to 2.

Trumpeter of China also makes a clear plastic B-25 in 1/700 scale along with 1/350 and 1/700 scale US Navy planes.

[Krieghund]

@Krieghund:

Method 1:

The current Attack Air Units step is divided into two steps: Air-to-Air Combat and Anti-Aircraft Fire:

Air-to-Air Combat - This step works in the same way as the Attack Air Units step in the Operations Manual, except that only air units may fire.

Anti-Aircraft Fire - This step works in the same way as the Attack Air Units step in the Operations Manual, with two exceptions.  First, only AA guns and sea units may fire.  Second, casualties are resolved in the normal fashion, but they are not removed immediately.  Each air unit that is hit is turned upside down on the board to mark it as a casualty.  These units will remain on the board and attack in the Attack Sea Units or Attack Land Units and/or Airfields steps, after which they will be removed along with those casualties.

I played a game the other day using this method, and I liked the results.  This method is simpler than the other one I proposed, and it preserves the property of the combat system that allows attacks to penetrate deeper into the casualty chart with more attack dice when attacking land and sea units.  This retains the sort of “combined arms” effect inherent in the system, as attacking with land or sea units together with air units works better than attacking with one type alone.

This method gives air units more punch without disrupting the existing combat system overly much by diluting that same effect when attacking air units.  It also allows fighters to better protect bombers, since the dice attacking air units are split into two separate attacks.  This has the effect of having more of the air-to-air casualties being fighters, while the bombers survive at least long enough to attack land or sea units.

[Guest]

The problem with this whole discussion of combining air and sea units into a single attack is that it NEVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN.  It only happened once in the entire Pacific War, and that was the action by the escort carriers and Little Boys at Leyte Gulf.  If you need to use sea units in combination with air units to attack enemy surface units, the game is badly broken and needs fixing.  That is why I am pretty much discarding the whole system and using my own.  If the Japanese get clobbered by air, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.  If US AA fire chews up half of the Japanese planes, that is what happened.

As far as victory conditions go, I am leaning on using whoever controls New Georgia at the end of the game wins, and forget the victory points.  Then I do not have to deal with airfields on islands where no airfields could be built.  I have been there and hopefully will be going back.

[legion3]

If you make the game to historically accurate;

1. It would not be A&A.

and

2. It would not be fun to play as the Axis.

And in the current game the AA fire chews up everybodies planes. One of the beauties of A&A is the ability to tweak the game, however, if you came up with a set of rules that made the Japanese player face a huge disadvantage, unequal results, I wouldn’t play with you…unless I could be the Americans  :wink: . I would tell you to take your toys and go home.

Its a game not a historical recreation.

Heck if you want reality, limit the US to only 4 Aircraft carriers (I suppose you could add the Ranger but that would not be historically accurate  :-o) as that is all they had at anyone time during the campaign. Limit the number of BB’s and CA’s to the number both sides had operational in the solomons.

Our favorite way to play is to scrap the VP’s and play until one side controls all 6 islands…takes a while but makes for some great battles.