DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Wing Leader General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 17, 2020, 1:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the problem with making proof changes - it can introduce
new typos. Thanks for that catch.
#Post#: 5492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: Vincent Lefavrais Date: May 18, 2020, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=David Demko (Okmed) link=topic=157.msg5456#msg5456
date=1589691624]
I spotted an erratum in S12 The Return of the Guards in
Sup_scenarios_16May20.pdf.
2. Only Ju 87s can attack surface units. Ju 87Ds
can only attack the Troops units, and Ju 87Ds the
Tanks unit.
The scenario as published has "Ju 87G-1s can only attack Tanks."
[/quote]
Was loging in just to mention that. ;)
#Post#: 5591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 24, 2020, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, in the Supremacy 2e folder on dropbox I have just updated
the Supremacy scenario book to a file dated 24May20. The main
changes here:
(1) Fixed the Ju 87G/D issue in S12 Return of the Guards.
(2) As Rick was so polite I changed Greycap to feature the
Canadians by name instead of ‘Allies’.
#Post#: 5592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: pilotofficerprune Date: May 24, 2020, 3:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I really need to add a Ju 87G sqn counter to the
manifest for this game, for the benefit of scenario S12.
Possibly an additional flight, too.
#Post#: 5626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: Rick McKown Date: May 25, 2020, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re Greycap, thank you!
Rick
#Post#: 6069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: Okmed Date: June 22, 2020, 10:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am reviewing the rules and errata as requested for the living
rules release. This isn't my commentary on recently revised
rules, but merely a couple ordinary errata.
In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the errata
document, WL_2e_Errata_20Jun20.pdf, under "Entering a Lufbery
While Circling" on p. 5 "reach" should be "reached".
In the rules, Sup_Rulebook_2-2-1_20Jun20.pdf, the caption on p.
2 mentions a Bf 109E, but the Supremacy-fied illustration shows
a Bf 109G.
#Post#: 6074--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 23, 2020, 2:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good catches. There was actually another Bf 109G/E issue on p3,
as well.
#Post#: 6078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: Okmed Date: June 23, 2020, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are my thoughts from reviewing the June 20th versions of
the rule book and errata document, with focus on the recently
changed sections.
(1) We could add 9.2.4.1 to the list of circling
cross-references in 8.3.1.
(2) Consider a forward reference from 9.2.2, third paragraph, to
15.2.2 for escort altitude change.
(3) In 3.2.1 the definition of fighter-bombers has
Fighter-class units with a bombing mission carry
a Bomb Load marker. While carrying bombs they are termed
‘fighter-
bombers’ . . .
Should this read "bombing or strafing mission"? Should "Bomb
Load" and "bombs" be "Weapon Load" and "weapon loads" to be
consistent with 15.1 and 15.2.4? I'm trying to tease out weird
exceptions. We already have the sidebar to 15.2.4 which makes Bf
109s and Fw 190s with Gun Pods fighters instead of
fighter-bombers, so we're in good shape there. A Pod is not a
Weapon Load, although it does use up a squadron's load-carrying
capacity according to 13.5.1.
(4) 15.2.4: Gun Pods and AARs may not be jettisoned but since
they are not "Weapon Loads," they don't prevent the squadrons
equipped with them from acting as fighters (e.g. interceptors
with AARs). So I think we're fine with this definition of
fighter-bombers.
(5) 13.5.1 closes the loophole for trying to hang multiple
stores on a squadron. The sidebar to 15.2.1.1 (p. 47) is
consistent with this idea. Question: Are there oddball aircraft
variants out in the scenarios or ADCs that make exceptions?
Maybe some mad-scientist Ju 87s that can carry bombs and gun/AT
pods simultaneously? I may search through the ADCs and scenario
books for such cases, but I can't think of any.
(6) In 15.1 the "must make [weapon type] attacks" phrasing,
taken literally, implies these squadrons have to carry out
attacks on ground targets. It's true that some types of load
can't be jettisoned, but squadrons could fly away without
attacking. I know: Who's going to think that? Well, someone
might. Consider changing "must make" to "may make" or "make
only," both of which phrases will fit in the available space.
#Post#: 6079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: pilotofficerprune Date: June 23, 2020, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Dave! Good stuff there. Some quick responses:
(3) 3.2.1 I hear you, but I'd rather not have to list every
variant mission, such as strafing, in this rule. The sidebar
explicitly mentions the variant missions so that I don't need to
gum up the rule with listing them all. Similarly, I think I'll
deal with the difference between Bomb Load markers and weapon
loads in the sidebar.
(5) In real life aircraft could carry mixed loads but I
purposely prohibit this with 13.5.1 for simplicity's sake.
(6) Without the 'must make' in the rule I think there's a bigger
danger of some bright spark asking if he can steep angle attack
with Torpedoes than of someone thinking he's forced to attack.
The 'must' is a must, I'm afraid.
#Post#: 6080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Supremacy second edition
By: Okmed Date: June 23, 2020, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood
link=topic=157.msg6079#msg6079 date=1592917518]
(6) Without the 'must make' in the rule I think there's a bigger
danger of some bright spark asking if he can steep angle attack
with Torpedoes than of someone thinking he's forced to attack.
The 'must' is a must, I'm afraid.
[/quote]
Oh-ho. I see your point. I need to be more evil in my thinking
about loopholes . . .
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page