DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Airbattle Games
HTML https://airbattle.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: IGNORE: Wing Leader Playtest Archive
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1114--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 22, 2019, 11:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good report!
B) A veteran's answer would be, with the bombing rules, the
bombers are allowed to change altitude.
#Post#: 1116--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 23, 2019, 1:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mustafa, great AAR, but can you please clear up some confusion
on my part? It seems as if one of the bombers was broken before
hitting the airfield, but you chose to turn all the bombers away
and end the scenario, is that correct? So is the scenario
missing 6 bombing hits for the three unbroken He 111 squadrons
that would have scored had they continued onward?
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1113#msg1113
date=1548220147]A) Is it just me or is there a Heinkel squadron
missing? (I had three, letters S, T, and U. I substituted a
Do217 as the fourth. I am thinking that I may have lost the
fourth He-111).[/quote]
That's a good catch. You're right that we are short a Heinkel
squadron, and I must add it to my asset list, along with two
more Bf 110C flights.
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1113#msg1113
date=1548220147]B) I am unclear why we are using the bombing
rules. There is no flak, and we don't roll for hits, and any
distinction between disruption / broken does not seem to matter.
Would the scenario be any different if we awarded VP for any
undisrupted Heinkel that makes it to the airfield? This may
matter for newer players who may have a hard time understanding
what parts of the advanced bombing rules apply, especially since
it turns out that the answer is "very little."[/quote]
It's more to govern the bombers' behaviour. But you're right
that we could simulate a similar effect without the advanced
bombing rules.
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1113#msg1113
date=1548220147]C) It seems a little weird to have the Poles
have Veteran status, and even weirder to give them an Experte,
given that this is the first day of the war. Perhaps this
reflects my ignorance of history but where would the Polish
pilots have gained combat experience (let alone the kills to
qualify for Experte status)?[/quote]
Veterancy is not just combat experience. It's largely training.
Pretty much all the air forces had cadres of well-trained pilots
at the start of the war, some of whom had been flying for a long
time. Indeed, the smaller air forces may in many ways be better,
because they were not undergoing the strains and stresses of
expansion, such as the RAF was suffering. Including a Veteran
marker is fine for the Poles. I'd have more of a problem if
you'd insisted that there weren't enough of them.
#Post#: 1117--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 23, 2019, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mustafa, two reminders, in case you missed them:
(a) Make sure you are using the ADCs for the second edition of
Victories (available on the dropbox); the Me 110Cs are tougher
in the second edition.
(b) It's fine to attack the Heinkels using the P.11s turn
rating, but don't forget that this increases the Heinkels
defence rating by 2.
#Post#: 1121--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 23, 2019, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote](b) It's fine to attack the Heinkels using the P.11s turn
rating, but don't forget that this increases the Heinkels
defence rating by 2.[/quote]
And this is also true for dogfighting the Bf110.
#Post#: 1130--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: guest30 Date: January 23, 2019, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1116#msg1116
date=1548227329]
Mustafa, great AAR, but can you please clear up some confusion
on my part? It seems as if one of the bombers was broken before
hitting the airfield, but you chose to turn all the bombers away
and end the scenario, is that correct? So is the scenario
missing 6 bombing hits for the three unbroken He 111 squadrons
that would have scored had they continued onward?
[/quote]
The two lead bombers broke before bombing. One was broken before
it reached the airfield, and the other broke over it (but since
bombing happens after air combat, it did not manage to bomb).
Note that the cohesion rolls were low. Nevertheless, the result
would have been a disruption, but for the scenario special rule
which says a disrupted bomber is broken.
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1116#msg1116
date=1548227329]
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1113#msg1113
date=1548220147]B) I am unclear why we are using the bombing
rules. There is no flak, and we don't roll for hits, and any
distinction between disruption / broken does not seem to matter.
Would the scenario be any different if we awarded VP for any
undisrupted Heinkel that makes it to the airfield? This may
matter for newer players who may have a hard time understanding
what parts of the advanced bombing rules apply, especially since
it turns out that the answer is "very little."[/quote]
It's more to govern the bombers' behaviour. But you're right
that we could simulate a similar effect without the advanced
bombing rules.
[/quote]
We should look into this -- I get Elias's point that the
advanced rules allow bombers to change altitude but the scenario
actually prevents that, too. I would simply revise to state that
an unbroken Heinkel over the airfield at the end of a turn earns
the Germans X VP.
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1116#msg1116
date=1548227329]
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1113#msg1113
date=1548220147]C) It seems a little weird to have the Poles
have Veteran status, and even weirder to give them an Experte,
given that this is the first day of the war. Perhaps this
reflects my ignorance of history but where would the Polish
pilots have gained combat experience (let alone the kills to
qualify for Experte status)?[/quote]
Veterancy is not just combat experience. It's largely training.
Pretty much all the air forces had cadres of well-trained pilots
at the start of the war, some of whom had been flying for a long
time. Indeed, the smaller air forces may in many ways be better,
because they were not undergoing the strains and stresses of
expansion, such as the RAF was suffering. Including a Veteran
marker is fine for the Poles. I'd have more of a problem if
you'd insisted that there weren't enough of them.
[/quote]
Thanks for that explanation. I guess the Experte is also
explained this way (in other words, it does not necessarily mean
a pilot with combat experience and kills)?
#Post#: 1131--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: guest30 Date: January 23, 2019, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1117#msg1117
date=1548232789]
Mustafa, two reminders, in case you missed them:
(a) Make sure you are using the ADCs for the second edition of
Victories (available on the dropbox); the Me 110Cs are tougher
in the second edition.
(b) It's fine to attack the Heinkels using the P.11s turn
rating, but don't forget that this increases the Heinkels
defence rating by 2.
[/quote]
I noted the ADC versions in the report! ;) I think they are
the correct ones.
I get it that the defence rating goes up in a turning fight
(also against the Me110s), but it was a battle involving escorts
and the primary was a Me-110, which meant that the P.11s would
be starting off at a -2 (3 vs 5) if I picked speed. If I picked
a turning fight, I would at least start off at a +1 advantage (5
vs 4). I decided that the chance of extra casualties from the
increased defence was worth the chance that I would get more
hits off. And it seemed to work -- at least this time.
#Post#: 1133--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: guest30 Date: January 23, 2019, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Elias Nordling link=topic=65.msg1114#msg1114
date=1548221753]
Good report!
B) A veteran's answer would be, with the bombing rules, the
bombers are allowed to change altitude.
[/quote]
That veteran would be well advised to read scenario rule 2
(stating that the bombers cannot change altitude). ;)
#Post#: 1135--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 23, 2019, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1130#msg1130
date=1548252560]The two lead bombers broke before bombing. One
was broken before it reached the airfield, and the other broke
over it (but since bombing happens after air combat, it did not
manage to bomb). Note that the cohesion rolls were low.
Nevertheless, the result would have been a disruption, but for
the scenario special rule which says a disrupted bomber is
broken.[/quote]
So two bomber squadrons were turned back, correct? If they'd
continued then four hits would have been scored for 5 VP?
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1116#msg1116
date=1548227329]I get Elias's point that the advanced rules
allow bombers to change altitude but the scenario actually
prevents that, too. I would simply revise to state that an
unbroken Heinkel over the airfield at the end of a turn earns
the Germans X VP.[/quote]
Actually a comment you made above, about a bomber breaking over
the airfield, strengthens the need for the bombing rules, as
they handle the phasing issues where air combat comes before
bombing.
[quote author=Lee Brimmicombe-Wood link=topic=65.msg1116#msg1116
date=1548227329]I guess the Experte is also explained this way
(in other words, it does not necessarily mean a pilot with
combat experience and kills)?[/quote]
It wouldn't be the first time that I've assigned an Experte
marker to a force that had one guy who had a really good fight
that day.
#Post#: 1136--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: pilotofficerprune Date: January 23, 2019, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mustafa link=topic=65.msg1131#msg1131
date=1548252754]I noted the ADC versions in the report! ;) I
think they are the correct ones.[/quote]
Ah, sorry, I missed that. (Duh!) Yes, it's the correct one.
Yeah, I can understand the desire to bring your manoeuvrability
to bear, even at the risk of being pinged by the rear gunners,
it was clearly the best call.
#Post#: 1138--------------------------------------------------
Re: O02 Operation Wasserkante
By: Elias Nordling Date: January 23, 2019, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I get it that the defence rating goes up in a turning
fight (also against the Me110s), but it was a battle involving
escorts and the primary was a Me-110, which meant that the P.11s
would be starting off at a -2 (3 vs 5) if I picked speed. If I
picked a turning fight, I would at least start off at a +1
advantage (5 vs 4). I decided that the chance of extra
casualties from the increased defence was worth the chance that
I would get more hits off. And it seemed to work -- at least
this time.[/quote]
Agreed, a +3 shift in combat column is probably worth giving
your enemy +2 on the die roll most of the time. Especially if
the shift is into the negative where the number of multiple hit
results drop off noticeably.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page