WaW air assets

[pelarel]

a thought on air assets:

it seems that a player can use a crippled aircraft as a reasonably accurate artillery shell by slowing down to loiter speed and ponting it at some enemy troops - if you shoot it down then it's most likely going to crash into your troops with devastating consequences, if you don't shoot it it's going to strafe your force. The general feeling of our group was that the direction and distance to the crash point should be a bit more random.

does any one have a house rule on this?

cheers

 

[DM]

Did that rule make it in??? I thought Agis was going to chop it because it was too "Hollywood" (hmm, must check my copy)

 

[Agis]

Did that rule make it in??? I thought Agis was going to chop it because it was too "Hollywood" (hmm, must check my copy)

It is still in! And yes we talked about it.

But please remember that there is still a "higher authority" after me for all official Mongoose rules ...
:wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[DM]

How true - in which my house rule would be to delete the whole crashing thing completely as it belongs in the realm of Hollywood rather than having any semblance, no matter how fleeting, to reality

 

[Hiromoon]

Never mind that the Japanese used this 'Hollywood' tactic to great effect...

 

[Agis]

Never mind that the Japanese used this 'Hollywood' tactic to great effect...

LOL!

 

[DM]

Never mind that the Japanese used this 'Hollywood' tactic to great effect...

LOL, works fine in VAS - don't recall seeing WW2 USMC unit histories recalling kamikaze aircraft piling into bits of jungle on a regular basis though (the army did just fine with its own kamikaze units)

 

[AmanAgain]

sure, throw a scatter dice for direction, then a D6xD10 for distance. If it does off the board, then I guess the rear echelon gets some Hollywood.

I do agree that the plane should crash, SOMEWHERE. I don't think that's hollywood, I'd just call it gravity.

 

[pelarel]

Never mind that the Japanese used this 'Hollywood' tactic to great effect...

actually, most of the time the Kamikaze missed - maybe 2 or 3 planes out an attack wave would get through and do some damage - and that's aiming at a target the size of an aircraft carrier or battleship not an individual tank or infantry squad! there was more of a psychological effect than anything else. yes, a few ships were badly dameaged and one or two sunk but the overall effect on the outcome was negligible - AFAIK no US naval attack was called off because of kamikaze attack alone (though I may well be wrong and stand to be corrected :lol: )

one thing I did thing of is rather than a scatter dice, roll a D6 - 1-2 turn 45degrees left, 3-4 straight ahead, 5-6 45 deg right then 2D10 plus the max speed of the speed range that the plane was last flying at this makes Loiter 24" + 2D10" - if you're lucky it'll hit some thing on the board but it should only be very rarely.

cheers

 

[DM]

The numbers of ships damaged and sunk by Kamikazes is a matter for some debate (some whips wwere sunk by multiple efefcts, others abandoned, so some authors count them, others don't). The numbers range from 34-57 ships sunk and over 360 damaged.

 

[Hiromoon]

sure, throw a scatter dice for direction, then a D6xD10 for distance. If it does off the board, then I guess the rear echelon gets some Hollywood.

I do agree that the plane should crash, SOMEWHERE. I don't think that's hollywood, I'd just call it gravity.

Well, if the plane IS shot down I'd go with that.. if it's merely limping on one action a turn, it's a permissible to 'park' one's plane on the enemy. Seriously, while you can argue the fairness of a rule like that, I've rammed Warrior IFVs with my crappy PLA IFVs just because it really was the only option open to me. If my plane's in bad shape and I have the option of taking out a tank or massed infantry via 'improper landing proceedures', I'll probably park that sucker with gusto.

And if the plane is destroyed via 'kill' I'd say there's veeery little of the plane left to hit anything.

The numbers of ships damaged and sunk by Kamikazes is a matter for some debate (some whips wwere sunk by multiple efefcts, others abandoned, so some authors count them, others don't). The numbers range from 34-57 ships sunk and over 360 damaged.

With destroyers taking the brunt of the attacks... and three escort carriers getting sunk... While one could argue the overall effectiveness of 'hollywood', you really can't argue with the results if it eliminates one floating airbase.

Waste of men and materials though...

 

[DM]

With destroyers taking the brunt of the attacks... and three escort carriers getting sunk... While one could argue the overall effectiveness of 'hollywood', you really can't argue with the results if it eliminates one floating airbase.

unless I'm being dense I think you've missed my point - there's nowt "Hollywood" about using kamikazes in a 1944+ Pacific War scenario (I recall my old Dad telling me about when his ship was hit by one). However, in a battlefield set of rules like BE its pure fiction.

 

[Alexb83]

Indeed - if anything, a pilot still alive in a damaged plane would be steering it away from the enemy, being as he wouldn't want to be captured.

Pilots and planes are also far more expensive and less numerous than tanks, if you want to look at it that way. They wouldn't be throwing them away. They have the PBI for that.

 

[Hiromoon]

Nope, you're not dense, but you certainly missed the intent of what I saying.


Now, while we're playing a game based on historical things, there's nothing wrong with having rules allowing you to angle in and daring someone to shoot you down while threatening to 'park' on him. Effectively, there could be historical cases of a unit getting creamed by the airplane they just shot down.... there could be historical cases of a plane, with nothing left in its guns, the engine's sputtering, and the pilot's barely there enough to guide his crate in onto of something that looks important. The possibility of such is a strong argument for allowing kamikazi attacks in BF... especially the Gauntlet scenario.

But I think we're straying from the origional question of how does one handle the shooting down of aircraft as opposed to someone 'illegally parking' on purpose....

To wit, I do like the pelarel's roll a D6 - 1-2 turn 45degrees left, 3-4 straight ahead, 5-6 45 deg right then 2D10 plus the max speed of the speed range that the plane was last flying at this makes Loiter 24" + 2D10"....

 

[DM]

The possibility of such is a strong argument for allowing kamikazi attacks in BF

I eagerly await the S&P article on inadvertent meteor strikes on units in BF, what with that being theoretically possible and it might have actually happened

 

[Hiromoon]

Sure, we'll put that under 'Just to Tweak DM Off' rules.

From now on, DM's units must roll a check to see if the guy lugging the AT weapon around accidentally sets it off amongst the center of thet squad.

 

[DM]

Whilst Hiromoon's have to roll to see whether any of his troops keel over and die of a spontaneous heart attack

(under the "hey, it could have happened, honestly" section of the optional rules)

 

[Hiromoon]

And now that we're waaaay off topic...

 

[DM]

sounds about right for an MGP discussion, or indeed most discussions involving more than one wargamer

 

[Wargoat]

The air unit crash rule is one thing but i'm also concerned with the air unit hit points. I think it's ridiculous to have air units with more than 4 hits. Let's face it, a german 8,8cm Flak gun having a Kill result on an air unit should desintegrate it's target in the sky. Airplanes are not armoured tanks, so why do they get all these hit points? I understand that planes with 2 engines do have better suvivability, but don't give them 6 Hits :!: . Even in BF: Modern combat, you need to fire 5 antiaircraft missiles with a Kill result on each hit to stand a chance of destroying an air unit. I think that modern AA missiles are a little bit more effective than the way they work in this game...