Wings At War Desert Spitfires

Something that I have been thinking about, as a way to learn the Wings At War rules system, is to start with a mini-project rather than diving straight in with MiG Alley. There is a free version of the rules which is based on the 1948 War of Independence between Israel and the Arab States, so I thought I might start out with that. 

The rules are called Desert Spitfires and feature a three way split between the Israelis, Egyptians and RAF, the latter very much stuck in the middle. The good thing about this is that there are a lot of unusual and interesting aircraft but all in small numbers, so only a few packs of Tumbling Dice models are required, especially as I already have some suitable bits and bobs. 

I'll have to give this some serious thought as it would be a quick, cheap and enjoyable way to get my head around the Wings At War rules:

http://www.wingsatwar.com/pageBonusGame.htm

Target Locked On Mission Two Debrief

I played another Patrol meeting engagement scenario this afternoon, this time with an experienced Soviet MiG-21 Fishbed pilot against a similarly experienced USAF F-104 Starfighter pilot, the former aircraft flown by the sprog with muggins flying the latter. We began by rolling for altitude, with the F-104 hedge hopping at Level 1 and the MiG-21 at Level 3, both flying at Speed 30. I was hoping that some gunnery would be involved in order to test run the +1 modifiers that I have added to the To Hit roll.

In Turn 1 the Starfighter pulled up to Altitude 2 and then moved forward 26cm, rolling successfully for a Partial Lock On to the MiG. The MiG dropped down to Level 2, picking up speed then moved forward 34cm, but failing his Lock On roll.

In Turn 2 the Starfighter won the initiative again, barrel rolled then moved forward 22cm. An attempt at a Full Lock On was unsuccessful. The MiG-21 pilot also barrel rolled to try to break the partial Lock On but failed his roll. He then attempted a Lock On to the F-104 but failed this too. Not discouraged by this he then moved forward 30cm, as required by the failed barrel roll manoeuvre.

In Turn 3, the MiG pilot won the initiative, pulled off a hard turn for his free manoeuvre but failed to throw off the Starfighter's missile lock. However, he followed this with a successful Partial Lock On. To finish his activation, he attempted to fire his cannons just outside close range, passing the Pilot Skill check but failing his D6 'To Hit' roll (4-1 = 3 needing a 5+), none of the +1 modifiers coming into play.

Now in front of the F-104, the MiG pilot attempted to barrel roll out of the way but failed (again) leading to a forward move of 28cm and a potential head on collision!

The F-104 Starfighter pilot rolled a successful Pilot Skill check to avoid a smash up, which was just as well as the MiG-21 pilot failed his, followed by a tight left turn in an attempt to get behind the MiG. This dropped the F-104's speed down to within one point of a stall, so the pilot attempted to accelerate to gain some energy but failed his Skill Check and flew straight ahead 16cm instead.

In Turn 4 the MiG-21 pilot won the initiative again, pulled off a nifty Immelmann then failed to follow up with a tight left turn, resulting in a forward move of 22cm. The Immelmann also failed to break the  Partial Lock On, although this wasn't too significant as the F-104 was heading the wrong way to fire anyway.

The F-104 pilot accelerated for his free manoeuvre but then failed his Pilot Skill check for a three point left turn, which then forced him to fly off the edge of the table! There were only a couple of turns of fuel left in his tanks anyway, after the various climbs and turns he managed to pull off, so it was not a surprise that he scarpered before Bingo!

An easy one point victory for the MiG-21!

''Da Da Da! Check out the funky moves, Comrades''

Feedback

This was another good game and the sprog really enjoyed beating his dad (again). He's sharp at maths so quickly spotted the difficult gunnery numbers, although he only failed to hit by a couple of pips. He suggested, off his own bat, that there should be a +1 modifier for attacking a slow moving target, which I thought was a good idea. I suggested that anything flying at less than 15cm would be about right, only to realise that this was about stall speed for bog standard fighters anyway!

I thought that the high number of failed Pilot Skill checks killed the action in some turns and prevented the game from progressing in a realistic way, given that both pilots were experienced and should have been able to manage better. I suggested that the Pilot Skill rolls could be adjusted by one pip, which would still give even experienced pilots a challenge, once -1 modifiers for successive manoeuvring are taken into account.

As it stands, an experienced (4+) pilot has a 50% chance of not screwing things up, which in most cases is dropped to 33% due to a manoeuvre of some sort. For a Rookie or Conscript (5+) this means a base chance of 33% dropping down to 20% if they manoeuvre more than the one 'free' attempt, let alone when they try to shoot something. This seems a bit tight even for inexperienced pilots and would make it very frustrating for the players concerned.

So, here are a couple of suggested, tentative rules tweak that I will try out in the re-match against the sprog tomorrow;

1. +1 for gun attacks against slower targets (less than or equal to half maximum speed)

2. Adjusted Pilot Skill: Conscript / Rookie (4+), Experienced (3+), Ace (2+)

I don't think this will unbalance things too much and may well make the game flow a bit better?

Red Vectors 15mm Afghan / African Market

There are some really nice Red Vectors 15mm Afghan (Arabian) / African laser cut mdf buildings now available via Minibits. I have ordered the set of two market square type buildings and a pack of the market stalls, to use alongside the 15mm Blotz North African houses that I already have, although I did think about getting the Red Vectors pack of four houses as well. I've been thinking about using all of these to do some terrain tiles and scenery features for post-war / modern skirmish games, as I need a break from painting tiny aircraft. A bit of 'slap it on' scenery modelling might be just the ticket!

Il-28 Beagle for Target Locked On

As promised, here are the numbers for the Il-28 Beagle medium bomber, which also work for the Chinese knock off version the Harbin H-5, which is still in use with the North Korean Air Force. I worked out these ratings using the revised formula for the Size Factor which has been given the green light by the rules designer:

MAN (11904 / 18400 = 0.64) x 5 = 3.2 = 3

SIZE FACTOR (SF)  (17.65 + 21.45 + 6.70) / 100 = 0.45 = 0.4

HITS (0.4 x 10) + 1 = 5

TARGET 0.4 = 4+

FUEL = 20

RADAR = -1

ECM = 3+

SPEED 902 km/h = MAX 34 / MIN 9

ARMAMENT  4 x NR-23 (2 nose / 2 tail)

                        8 x FAB-250 or 4 x FAB-500

POINTS = 100

There are no points values for tactical bombers, so I have decided to replace the 'Fighter Bomber' aircraft points rating with Tactical Bomber @ 100 points per aircraft. This would apply to similar medium bomber aircraft including the B57 / Canberra or the Vautour (for actual 'Fighter Bombers' I will just use the bog standard points values for fighter jets).

VARIANTS

1. Photo Reconnaissance (no bombs, one front gun, + 8 fuel, camera @ 115 points)

2. ECM (no bombs, 2 x ECM pods = ECM 5+ @ 120 points)

Gunnery in Target Locked On

I've been thinking of how to fix the impossible gunnery problem in Target Locked On, where the modifiers to hit are all negative (-1) with the targets mostly requiring a base chance of 4+ or 5+ to hit, making it a pointless exercise if only two modifiers are applied. As one of these is the attacking aircraft having performed a manoeuvre and another is having a target at 30+ speed, you really have very little chance, if any, of even scoring a hit.

While this is fair enough in high speed modern dogfighting and explains why guns are rarely used, it doesn't make for a very rewarding gaming experience. To even the chances a little bit, I will be trying out a couple of positive modifiers which I think are realistic and justifiable both in game terms and in real life. These include:

+1 for being at close range (equal or less then 10cm)

+1 for being 'on the tail' (determined using the Forward / Rear fire template, placed on the back end of the targeted aircraft, with a line traced back to the attacking aircraft)

I am also wondering about leaving out the -1 for being at a different altitude, as I would have thought gun attacks would have to be made at the same relative height, unlike missile attacks? I'll try these adjustments out tomorrow, when I'm hoping to run at least a couple of games using my newly acquired Cold War card aircraft counters.

Incidentally, I've worked out the stats for the Il-28 Beagle, which has highlighted a problem with the points values in the Aircraft Builder system, as there are no points listed for medium 'tactical' bombers. The points values also seem a bit wonky for fighter bombers (whatever they represent?) and don't match up with those included for some of the aircraft in the lists, which is a real headache and slightly weird.

Target Locked On Tweaks

I didn't get round to playing any further Target Locked On! games today, as the weather was really good for a change and we went out rather than being stuck indoors. However, I did find some much better card counters to use for the next few scenarios, a printed out sheet of which I had stashed in the back of the rules folder bundled up with some other stuff.

I can't remember where or when I originally downloaded them but they were definitely a freebie from some website or other, featuring Korean War and Cold War aircraft including Starfighters, Lightnings, Hunters, a Canberra, MiG 17's, 19's and 21's. These are some of my favourite fighter aircraft and the counters are much more attractive than the utilitarian Paper Forge ones that I have been using over the holidays.

I'm going to use these for some Cold War era scenarios, which should be helpful in gaining some more experience with the gunnery rules and with less capable but still formidable aircraft. After a helpful email from Rory Crabb, in which he was really positive about many of my suggestions, I will be using the failed attack variation that I thought up i.e. allowing further manoeuvres but no further attacks. This should fix the flying in a straight line issue that I came across in the last two games.

Magasin de Presse

It's the habitual haul today, with a copy of Vae Victis and a copy of Air Fan, a magazine that I don't usually grab but which has a couple of interesting and very well illustrated articles. The one that stood out for me is all about the Su-22 Fitters that the Polish Air Force have retained for ground attack and close support, alongside their MiG-29's and F-16's. There's also a really good article on the Belgian F-16's that have recently been deployed on the Baltic Air Policing mission. The photos in this section are particularly stunning.

Target Locked On Mission Debrief

 

I played a couple of games of Target Locked On yesterday, each with a single F-16 armed with four AIM-9 Sidewinders against a single MiG-29 with two AA-9's and two AA-11's, so that I could try out the missile rules for IR and R weapon systems. In both games, I set up the basic Patrol scenario from the rules, the objective being to shoot down the opposing fighter or to force it from the airspace. I don't have any miniatures with me at the moment as I'm away on holiday, so I used cardboard counters from Paper Forge which did the job effectively. I also pinched some of my daughters little ceramic craft tiles to track the speed and fuel.

In the first game I made the mistake of starting the aircraft at half speed, which meant that they struggled to gain enough energy to make manoeuvres without falling into a stall. They also burned up tank loads of fuel in acceleration moves and in tight turns to get on each others tails. The F-16, call sign Canine Two, was rated as an Ace so had the edge in reaction and skill checks, managing to get within gun range on a couple of occasions, but with impossible odds for a shot due to the negative modifiers. In the end the MiG-29 pilot, rated as experienced, ran out of fuel and was forced off the table without having fired a shot.

In the second game the Soviet MiG-29 pilot, call sign Alpha One, managed to shoot down the F-16 after a twisting dogfight using a single AA-9 at near to minimum range. I started this scenario with both aircraft at higher speeds so that there was more energy to manoeuvre and also less change of burning up too much fuel. The F-16 did get a partial target lock on the MiG-29 but yet again failed a skill check to fire any AIM-9's, subsequently overshooting the MiG to offer up an easy target. The MiG converted a partial lock to a full lock and fired, achieving a hit and three damage dice including a critical, so the F-16 didn't stand a chance despite some last minute evasive actions. The pilot also failed his eject roll so his day didn't end very well.

Feedback

The rules worked well and the games were really good fun but there are a couple of things that stood out as problems. I really liked the fuel management system and the speed tracker on the aircraft record sheets. I also thought the initiative system was very effective, giving a clear and logical result. The templates for movement also worked well and made tracking speed loss and fuel usage very straightforward. However....

1. Guns are useless against anything with a more than average TARGET rating. This is fair enough as I'm sure it's very difficult to hit a MiG-29 in a turning dogfight at high speed.

2. To make an Attack you need  pilot skill check but, if you fail that, then the activation is over straight away, leaving you to complete any remaining movement points in a straight line.

This means that you can attack at the start of an activation, fail, and then have to fly in a straight line right into your enemy's gun sights.

3. You get a free first move each turn, which doesn't need a skill check, but every manoeuvre afterwards gets a -1 dice modifier. However, it is not clear if the free move includes attack rolls?

4. Is a straight and level forward move (Level Flight)  a manoeuvre?. It's not listed as such in the Manoeuvre Types table, so does it count as a manoeuvre for the free manoeuvre rule or not?

The biggest issue I have is with the failed attack roll and subsequent straight and level flight.

I think I will EITHER remove the requirement for a Pilot Skill check for attacks OR more likely, remove the 'activation ends' rule, replacing it with 'attack ends' so that no more attacks can be made that turn but manoeuvres can still continue to be made up to the current speed rate.

This would fix the flying in a straight line thing, which reminds me of the Sprog failed manoeuvre rule in Bag the Hun, but which only applies to manoeuvres in those rules and not firing. I will run a few more games to see if this modification fixes things or just makes the rules too wonky. I don't like fiddling with rules mechanisms but this one really stands out as not making sense, given the skill levels and training of the pilots and the illogical outcome of straight, level flight after a failed missile launch or gun run. It's the last thing I'd do if I screwed up in a high speed dogfight.

War of the Pacific 1879

I've just downloaded two new Long Face Games publications that have recently arrived at Wargame Vault, both of which fit in very nicely with my naval wargaming plans for the Summer. The first is a set of fast play ACW ironclad rules, Dahlgren and Columbiad, which are a more detailed version of David Manley's existing rules, Broadside and Ram.

I'm not that interested in the ACW theme, at least not in scales below 1/600th, but I am very intrigued by the companion campaign rules for the Pacific War of 1879, which is right up my street.

Although I am already tied up with the 1864 Schleswig War project in 1/2400th scale, once that's finished I could easily branch out in this direction as Tumbling Dice have most of the ships available in 1/2400th scale including Huascar, Almirante Cochrane, Blanco Encalada and Independencia.

Excelente!

Target Locked On Number Crunching

I tried to use the system in the Target Locked On aircraft building section to create stats for the JAS-39 Gripen yesterday, but ran into a problem. The MAN rating is easy to work out, based on the Thrust to Weight ratio x 5, which for the Gripen works out at 0.97 x 5 = 4.85, rounded up to 5. However, when calculating HITS the formula doesn't work, giving a Size Factor number that is way off the mark.

HITS are based on the Size Factor (SF) of the aircraft, which is worked out using this formula:

Length (M) + Wingspan (M) + Height (M) / 3

The HITS value is then worked out using the following calculation:

Size Factor x 10 + 1 (the end result should be a number between 0 and 1)

So, for the JAS-39C Gripen, based on the aircraft's dimensions, the numbers crunch like this:

Size Factor: 14.1 + 8.4 + 4.5 = 27 / 3 = 9

HITS: 9 x 10 + 1 = 91

This is obviously not the right answer and, therefore, screws up the other aircraft stats which are also based on the Size Factor including TARGET and FUEL. So, I played around with the formula to see if I could make it work and fit with the existing aircraft stats provided in the rules. The obvious thing to do is this:

Size Factor =  Length (M) + Wingspan (M) + Height (M) / 100 (not 3)

This gives the Gripen the following SF and HITS values:

14.1 + 8.4 + 4.5 = 27 / 100 = 0.27 (rounded down to) 0.2

HITS = 0.2 x 10 + 1 = 3

The TARGET and FUEL factors then work out as 5+ and 18 respectively, using the tables in the rules to calculate the numbers based on the Size Factor (SF). If I rounded the SF up to 0.3 the Gripen ends up the same size as an F-15 or F-4, which are larger and more powerful aircraft by far.

This gives the Gripen the same HITS, TARGET and almost the same FUEL factors as an F-16, which is the closest equivalent multi-role fighter aircraft. If the FUEL factor is fudged to a round 20, in line with all of the other aircraft in the lists, then it's spot on in comparison.

To double check, I used the same method to calculate the various stats for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which also worked out spot on apart from the FUEL rating of 18 not 20. Again, as all fighter aircraft in the listings have a FUEL rating of 20, this is easily sorted out by just rounding it up in line with all the other planes.

I will drop an email to Rory Crabb to see what he thinks about this and to check that I'm not barking up the wrong tree!