Airpower in ASL

KhandidGamera

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
479
Reaction score
234
Location
Greencastle, PA
Country
llUnited States
I've done some work on individualized types of aircraft for ASL. The MG values are pretty simple to calculate (MG's 1 FP each, .50 cal's 2 FP each, etc). I also discovered that the square root of the bomb load in pounds can be used for the IFT (or IIFT) column that the bomb attack is on (a 500 lb bomb attacks on the 22 or 20 column, a Ju 87D with a average load attacks on the 43 or 36+ column).

The trouble I ran into was trying to determine the defnsive modifier the plane gets when fired on. I just haven't got the right combination of speed, armor/toughness and size to come up with a good formula. When I do though, I will post it on my website.

If anyone wants the MG and bomb load values for the 150 or so planes I've done so far, just let me know and I'll send you a pdf.

Never mind, here is a link: http://www.cavalcadeofwhimsy.com/wargaming/asl/ASL_aircraft.pdf
Nice work.

Sure shows how some planes are a whole lot nastier than others in terms of strafing power.

Some of the higher than 36 bomb ratings with (1) as range: wouldn't some of these lay down bombs more like a linear FFE, over say 2 hexes.

Assume that's what's meant where there's a (2) then?

Wouldn't some of these by doctrine only be allowed to make one bomb run and then leave.

Even if we just had generic counters and a generic card display, for generic markers and draw from your stats as SSR on what markers to lay down on the card, be a lot more than what we have now.

Noticed there wasn't any twin engine bomber types for US, like B25, B26, A20, or better yet the A26, any plans to do them? Some of these much less likely of course being seen in ASL terms.

Also wouldn't the TBM/TBF and the Dauntless be appropriate for some cases in Pacfic?

My airpower story:
Playing, "In The Bag" as Germans, and losing several Panthers just to MG fire, before any bombs dropped, even when "protected" by Wirblewinds . . . I conceded shortly thereafter having had my game ELR go to -1 :OHNO:
 

Cthulhu

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
6
Location
Santa Ana, CA
Country
llUnited States
Nice work.

Sure shows how some planes are a whole lot nastier than others in terms of strafing power.

Some of the higher than 36 bomb ratings with (1) as range: wouldn't some of these lay down bombs more like a linear FFE, over say 2 hexes.

Assume that's what's meant where there's a (2) then?
Thank you! Yes, those were planes that had a large number of bombs that would probably saturate more than one hex. Some of the bombs are just huge however (the 36+ (1) types), and if they did attack adjacent hexes it would be more like a Goliath.

Wouldn't some of these by doctrine only be allowed to make one bomb run and then leave.
That would almost certainly be the case with the light and medium bombers.

Even if we just had generic counters and a generic card display, for generic markers and draw from your stats as SSR on what markers to lay down on the card, be a lot more than what we have now.

Noticed there wasn't any twin engine bomber types for US, like B25, B26, A20, or better yet the A26, any plans to do them? Some of these much less likely of course being seen in ASL terms.

Also wouldn't the TBM/TBF and the Dauntless be appropriate for some cases in Pacfic?

My airpower story:
Playing, "In The Bag" as Germans, and losing several Panthers just to MG fire, before any bombs dropped, even when "protected" by Wirblewinds . . . I conceded shortly thereafter having had my game ELR go to -1 :OHNO:
I am going to start back on this project soon. My initial sampling was primarily fighters as that is what I have the best data for in my library. I'll start researching DB's and some of the larger "light" US bombers.

I cobbled up a sample aircraft counter just for fun to see how it looked.
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
Oh for cryin' out loud! I'm not even going to give credit to the "tuscon Murderer" anymore.

I have no desire whatsoever to change the Air Support rules in ASL. My only desire is to change the people who want to change the Air Support rules in ASL. And I believe the best way to change people is to bash their faces in! :freak:
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Mark,
there are plenty of squad leader enthusiasts who said we ruined a perfectly good infantry game by having more than one type of generic tank. But we all love the myriad different types of vehicles and ASL would be much poorer without them. It is important that a Sherman doesn't penetrate the frontal armour of a King Tiger. Because otherwise an important element of the games fun - the suspension of disbelief - is lost. .
You manage to completely miss the point...the King Tiger was hardly a common tank type; the original Squad Leader had PzKpfw IV, T-34 and Sherman types, since they were the most common medium tanks found in run of the mill armoured formations. So in your example, the King Tiger wouldn't be included at all. In actuality, it was consigned to special heavy tank battalions (schwere panzerabteilungen) whereas the PzKpfw IV and Sherman were roughly equal in terms of performance in SL/ASL terms. Say what you will about the "necessity" of including every tank type under the sun in the game, your example of a King Tiger vs. Sherman matchup really doesn't hold water as a far more apt example would be the PzKpfw IV.

Squad Leader was not the only game to use such "generic" tank types; Ambush!, Sniper!, Move Out!, Patton's Best all also used only a handful of medium tank types (their scale was also man-to-man/individual tanks) - there may have been others that aren't immediately coming to mind.
 

Whizbang1963

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
2,582
Reaction score
107
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Airpower is fine as itisin ASL..it does not come into play often enough to make a big enough impact to warrant a tweaking of the rules. Now if we were seeing a while lot more actions with Airpower inherent...then maybe a revisit would be justified..
 

KhandidGamera

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
479
Reaction score
234
Location
Greencastle, PA
Country
llUnited States
Oh for cryin' out loud! I'm not even going to give credit to the "tuscon Murderer" anymore.

I have no desire whatsoever to change the Air Support rules in ASL. My only desire is to change the people who want to change the Air Support rules in ASL. And I believe the best way to change people is to bash their faces in! :freak:
Why has everything on this forum got be like Protestants and Catholics in the middle ages, running around looking for bundles of fascine to burn everyone who doesn't have the same taste as one self?

Who said anything about any of the above having to become ASL orthodoxy?

All of the above could be optional - just like I choose to buy ESG products because I like them.

The same could be said of the IIFT, or a better take on artillery rules.
This kind of thinking is a mirror of why the USA is going to hell in a handbasket - we spend all of our time trying to bludgeon each other into the same point of view. Part of also why we look stupid many times to the rest of the world.:stop::nada:
 

CraigBenn

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
685
Reaction score
123
Location
Liverpool
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You manage to completely miss the point...the King Tiger was hardly a common tank type; the original Squad Leader had PzKpfw IV, T-34 and Sherman types, since they were the most common medium tanks found in run of the mill armoured formations. So in your example, the King Tiger wouldn't be included at all. In actuality, it was consigned to special heavy tank battalions (schwere panzerabteilungen) whereas the PzKpfw IV and Sherman were roughly equal in terms of performance in SL/ASL terms. Say what you will about the "necessity" of including every tank type under the sun in the game, your example of a King Tiger vs. Sherman matchup really doesn't hold water as a far more apt example would be the PzKpfw IV.

Squad Leader was not the only game to use such "generic" tank types; Ambush!, Sniper!, Move Out!, Patton's Best all also used only a handful of medium tank types (their scale was also man-to-man/individual tanks) - there may have been others that aren't immediately coming to mind.
Michael,
you manage to completely miss my point. Virtually all ASL scenarios are about specific historic actions - if I know that King Tigers were involved in a specific action, and you give me a generic tank counter with armour that a sherman can kill through the front - my disbelief isn't suspended and the scenario will be less fun for me. Taking that point forward, if I know the planes in a particular action could'nt do what the generic fighter counter can do it will be less fun for me. (Not a huge issue though - not like I'm going to stop playing the game). The fact a match up between more equal types was more common is irrelevant for that scenario.

Incidentally I do think there are a disproportionate number of scenarios with King Tigers, and a certain type of player who obssess unhealthily about heavy metal...but I'm not one - I enjoy the challenge of playing crap tanks.

The Pz IV was indeed the workhorse of the panzer battalions, with Tigers and King Tigers held as corps level assets. However in the Bulge fighting, of some 1800 tanks, the Germans had 250 Tigers and the rest was split 50/50 between Panthers and MkIV's. So more than half of the German tanks couldn't be penetrated frontally by Shermans...

Stugs don't coun't allright?
 

KhandidGamera

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
479
Reaction score
234
Location
Greencastle, PA
Country
llUnited States
Michael,
you manage to completely miss my point. Virtually all ASL scenarios are about specific historic actions - if I know that King Tigers were involved in a specific action, and you give me a generic tank counter with armour that a sherman can kill through the front - my disbelief isn't suspended and the scenario will be less fun for me. Taking that point forward, if I know the planes in a particular action could'nt do what the generic fighter counter can do it will be less fun for me. (Not a huge issue though - not like I'm going to stop playing the game). The fact a match up between more equal types was more common is irrelevant for that scenario.

Incidentally I do think there are a disproportionate number of scenarios with King Tigers, and a certain type of player who obssess unhealthily about heavy metal...but I'm not one - I enjoy the challenge of playing crap tanks.

The Pz IV was indeed the workhorse of the panzer battalions, with Tigers and King Tigers held as corps level assets. However in the Bulge fighting, of some 1800 tanks, the Germans had 250 Tigers and the rest was split 50/50 between Panthers and MkIV's. So more than half of the German tanks couldn't be penetrated frontally by Shermans...

Stugs don't coun't allright?
Completely agree.

Some of the games Mike mentions are probably part of the reason the original SPI is not around - - because not only did the generic nature of them suck the fun out, but probably made them less believable as simulations.

Never forget getting Mech War 2 with the then XM1 on the cover, and then finding out it wasn't in the game. Then reading through the rules and realizing that SPI just waved its hands and basically stripped most of any difference out of how different tanks performed. Imagine veterans of Desert Storm would have some comment on how "the same" their M1's performed against T72's.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,027
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
dont remember whjere I got this from
Of the items I used to keep on my web site, this one was one of my favorites. There are a number of typos, but overall, I had a fun time preparing it. I thought the changes were subtle yet added nice flavor.
 
Last edited:

Cthulhu

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
6
Location
Santa Ana, CA
Country
llUnited States
At the risk of receiving a hammer-smashed face I have updated my ASL Aircraft pdf.
I finally came up with a workable way to get the TK DRM's. Some of them, like for the bombers, are rather high (like +16). In these cases (which will be rare) I was thinking of granting the aircraft Damage Points (ala landing craft). Give the plane 1 DP for every +4 TK DRM over the initial +4.
I have included a number of minor countries since sometimes it is tougher to find info on their airforces.
I also deleted some planes from the first list, since on further investigation I found that either they were either experimental or used as night fighters or something else that made them inappropriate.

Here it is: http://www.cavalcadeofwhimsy.com/wargaming/asl/ASL_aircraft2.pdf
 
Last edited:

Cthulhu

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
6
Location
Santa Ana, CA
Country
llUnited States
Of the items I used to keep on my web site, this one was one of my favorites. There are a number of typos, but overall, I had a fun time preparing it. I thought the changes were subtle yet added nice flavor.
Oh wow... that looks nice.
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
Earth to Gamera...

This kind of thinking is a mirror of why the USA is going to hell in a handbasket - we spend all of our time trying to bludgeon each other into the same point of view. Part of also why we look stupid many times to the rest of the world.:stop::nada:
I was exaggerating in a silly way. I don't intend to bash in anybody's face. Maybe the rest of the world thinks we're stupid because people like you inflate a goofy post into a reflection on the state of America. :rolleyes:
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
Mutual exchange of silliness I guess. Volume knob turned down at this end.
I'll try to provide a more mature objection.

I'm a big lover of Air Support in ASL. I design a lot of scenarios, and although I provide for AS in about 1/10th of them, I would like to use it even more often. However the Air Support rules are one of those rules groups that many players avoid. I feel that complicating these rules further would turn off even more players, and perhaps relegate Air Support to the same no-play zone as Beach Landings.
:)
 

KhandidGamera

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
479
Reaction score
234
Location
Greencastle, PA
Country
llUnited States
. . . and I'll appologize for letting slip how much am always thinking about certain stuff - even when its out of context . . .

Hold no candle to your contributions in scenario design, appreciate the wrinkles you guys put in them, and that they are a real spectrum of length. Certainly would welcome more of them with airpower, especially if they had a practical twist to them: like your one with the broken 88's - hats off again to ESG for that one.

Your next big operational one, "Concerto of Concussion" or "Bonfire of Valkryies" (thinking that's been used somewhere, if so then "Inferno of Eagles"):

Bridge retreat at heavily AA'd crossing, frontal holding force, convoy/rearguard to get across bridge, Engineers have to blow bridge after frontal covering force, convoy/rearguard across. convoy is a mix of horse drawn, light/heavy trucks, vehicles, some dismounted.

reinforcing ground force behind river crossing.

Might be secondary, partially destroyed bridge with temp/low capacity middle span, engineer with demo.

Defensive Air Fighter/Bomber support variable arrival - trying to kill the attacks on convoy or bridge, delay attacking hoard.

Random mix of attacking aircraft: Fighter/FB/Twin Engine Bomber (handle like 2-3 hex special single phase FFE attack, heavy flak only gets to shoot at), 2-3 waves, variable arrival - trying to kill the convoy before the xing, but if not that the bridge, and if not that just anything in sight.

2-3 waves of attacking hoard, variable arrival.

Don't want it too, but smells like East Front, probably never a historical example of the above combination - something associated with the Dnieper River 1944 comes to mind on where it might have happened.

Fair point on complicating the air support rules.

To guard against would agree anything more should probably be additional and optional.

Specifically what I liked with Cthulu's charts was how in someways its just an extension of what HOB did in Orsha to other nationalities, not so much changing the existing rules. Granted there's some more complexity w/ armaments.

Could see a scenario pack being done, with his counters as the main adder.
Something on the level of HOB's special forces pack. Probably, to start narrow down the focus to where there's the most to cover and make distinctions, where there's a gap now. Pacific? (because supsect vomiting if I said NW Europe) Have to check my history on whether most of the ground support was just fighters, or if Dauntless' and TBM's got involved too with CAS. In terms of coverage seems like Russians have enough now. Packaging the gaps in order US/Japanese, then British/German/Italian.

A lot of this is academic on the personal side, kind of like permanent book deficit: already so much stuff out there, and will be out there that I'll buy/have bought and never/have never got a chance to play.

One I want to play because it has airpower on both sides (and its Steppe) is No Crying in Crimea.

Sidebar:
Dissapointing to see such a prejudice against beach landings - one of my favorites to play, even though I lost twice, was Come Hell or High Water as Americans. Guess its a difference in perspective, but if you've played a long time, and spent more of it losing, then you'd better just enjoy playing, and the feeling of desperation.
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
It's pathetic to hear scenario designers are limiting their creative vision due to the whims of lazy, whiny players who won't touch portions of Chapter E or G. :upset:

If you design it, there will be someone who will play it. Especially with VASL and PBEM options these days.
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,288
Reaction score
942
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
"Dissapointing to see such a prejudice against beach landings - one of my favorites to play, even though I lost twice, was Come Hell or High Water as Americans. Guess its a difference in perspective, but if you've played a long time, and spent more of it losing, then you'd better just enjoy playing, and the feeling of desperation."

Hi!

To each their own of course, but I just do not think the Beach landings are worth the effort..... Mark said it best earlier, its too bad that the person who wrote the Beach Landing rules did not learn from the one who wrote the Air Support Rules:smoke::clown:

Does Air Support truly reflect fighter bombers, nope, but it works for ASL. While I am not a big fan of it, but will not shy away from it either..... as a matter of fact, I'd almost rather play Air Support than OBA:nuts:

Peace

Roger
 

Portal

The Eminem of ASL
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,348
Reaction score
56
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Guys, if someone wrote a nice little Play Aid for Beach Landings like we see on Desperation Morale for PTO Terrain etc. for the most common landing conditions (Slight Slope Beach, light surf), Seaborne Assaults would be no problem. They're actually not that complicated to play.

The problem with Chapter G is that they outlined every possible set of conditions for Surf, Beach Slope, etc. which most likely could have been introduced by HASL rules / SSR etc.
 

KhandidGamera

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
479
Reaction score
234
Location
Greencastle, PA
Country
llUnited States
Well not to get too off track, but agree with Portal, Beach is not that bad really. Heavy surf is a little more wrinkly, but even that's not that bad.

The help card/flow chart for both air and beach might really help.
 
Top