Balancing Aircraft: Part Two

[Conjurer]

Flak Suppression.

A reply from Outlaw from got me thinking about this, and this thread will address that subject.

Good analysis, but I would like to see two more considerations:

1. Fighters did not strafe ships if there were enemy planes to attack. So I would like to see: Fighters may not strafe if any enemy aircraft are in the sector.

2. The primary doctrine for fighters strafing larger ships was to suppress AA for other attacking aircraft. This would indicate two more considerations. a. Fighters would not typically strafe larger ships if no other attack aircraft were in the sector. b. Against larger ships, strafing fighters would do a -1 to ship's AA on a successful attack, with a -2 on a roll of 6 and the effect would stack for extra fighters attacking. The problem with this approach is that there is no strafing phase before or during the AA phase in the game. So this would be reduced to: Fighters may not strafe ships larger than DD's if there are no friendly attack aircraft in the sector.

Just my thoughts...:)

Or...

AA Suppressor: Once per turn, at the beginning of your Air Mission phase, you may designate this unit for Anti-Aircraft Suppression against one enemy Ship of your choice. The designated Ship receives -1 on each Anti-Aircraft die during the enemy player's Air Defense step. If another friendly Fighter unit is making use of this ability on the same Enemy ship during the same turn, the enemy Ship receives an additional -1 to each Anti-Aircraft die during the player's Air Defense step. ( Hits only on 6's, but a 6 still counts as two hits. )

My terminology is probably slightly faulty, but you get the idea... the ship's AA dice only hit on 5's and 6's, including both rolls for Atlanta. You would be able to stack two fighters for this ability; I think that's a reasonable limit as they could make passes at an angle to each other within a few seconds.

Use of this SA would negate all other SAs the fighter possesses ( Escort, etc. ) during the turn in which it is suppressing flak. The fighter also couldn't be used for dogfighting, or for strafing - it would be a dedicated flak suppressor on a single ship, and would have no other function during that turn.

Comments are welcome. :cool:

[Torps]

I think you might be onto something here, Conjuror. Using fighters or even bombers who have expended their payload to distract AA fire was certainly a valid often used tactic. Perhaps limit the rule to only 1 AA suppressing stand per ship?
By the same token the air rules in WaS are about the best I've ever seen for naval warfare so you'll need to develope something really solid before getting my vote.

[Conjurer]

Thanks Torps. :cool:

I think the rules are ok... it's the actual values for the air units that need some tweaking in a couple of cases.

I have playtested all of the air units fairly extensively, and have reached a few conclusions:

1) Both dive- and torpedo-bombers are too easily aborted, especially by the heavier ships. This could be rectified by either raising their Armor values, or by reducing AA capabilities across the board. Since there are only a few units involved in the former option, I should think that is the preferred solution.

Obviously, the Flack Suppressor SA mentioned above also addresses this point, if only indirectly.

2) Both dive- and torpedo-bombers are too difficult to destroy. Narrowing the gap between the values for Armor and for Vital Armor, respectively, is probably the simplest way to go here.

As I see it, the attacking bomber aborts because it is hit by AA fire. More serious or more numerous hits would naturally lead to the loss of the aircraft, and there shouldn't be a large difference in the number of hits.

Heading off to bed now, I'll respond to any replies in several hours. Have a good Moinday, fellow Admirals. ;)

[AKI]

I don't see aborts as implying hits at all, rather that the attacker is driven off. Remember even a solo model represents several in real life, and morale is a bigger factor in an 'abort' result than physical destruction of the formation. The 'Press the Attack' SA reflects what happens when a force is prepared to carry on regardless into a flak perimeter.

[Greyh Seer]

perhaps an easier way to do this is to adapt the current escort roll to include ships AA as well as enemy fighters...

[swarbs]

It also would seem like a fighter should get the same penalties (-2 to armor and vital armor) as when strafing. The fighters flying low over enemy ships should be more vulnerable to AA than when they are up high fulfilling their escort role.

[AKI]

Again, I disagree. The function of escort fighteer is to protect the approach of bombers to target, not necessarily the attack itself. Escort fighters draw off the enemy interceptors at some distance from the target, not in it's immediate surrondings, if interceptors left it until the last moment to attack bombers (and therfore need countering by escorts) they would be in as much danger from AA fire as their notional targets.

In short escort fighters do not need -2 armour, that is simply wrong.

[swarbs]

Again, I disagree. The function of escort fighteer is to protect the approach of bombers to target, not necessarily the attack itself. Escort fighters draw off the enemy interceptors at some distance from the target, not in it's immediate surrondings, if interceptors left it until the last moment to attack bombers (and therfore need countering by escorts) they would be in as much danger from AA fire as their notional targets.

In short escort fighters do not need -2 armour, that is simply wrong.

Sorry, I was trying to say that fighters engaged in flak suppression, should suffer similar penalties to strafing fighters, I was probably ambiguous.