Forgotten War first impressions, or Where is the searchlight scenario?

[pswede26]

If something like that were justified, an SSR with waves of planes each turn for a set amount of turns is the way to go, and has been done before in scenarios. We could have saved us a new rule and gotten a better tool for designers to design balanced scenarios just by adding the suggestion to the footnotes. Think of the unbalanced scenarios when your Skyraider goes on a ROF tear and you are dropping bombs the entire scenario.

Brian,

If something like that were justified, an SSR with waves of planes each turn for a set amount of turns is the way to go, and has been done before in scenarios. We could have saved us a new rule and gotten a better tool for designers to design balanced scenarios just by adding the suggestion to the footnotes. Think of the unbalanced scenarios when your Skyraider goes on a ROF tear and you are dropping bombs the entire scenario.

Brian,

I understand your points. From a WWII ASL perspective, I can see where your example could prove problematic. However, the Skyraider was a post WWII aircraft and it was designed specifically for use in Korean War ASL. The aircraft primary flew in support of the Marine Corps (and some Army) with devastating effects. It carried up to four times the bomb load of any WWII Fighter Bomber and had a very long loiter time. We considered this and several other factors in designing it. You also need to consider when, where, and how they were employed versus the Chinese and North Koreans before passing too much judgment on the design. A scenario design consideration if one is concerned about the "Skyraider effect" is to limit the time on board. Consider a scenario with overwhelming Chinese infantry spread out on the attack for example. One Skyraider will probably not overly effect the balance...especially if limited by turns. Now, it you put several stacks consisting of three squads with a leader and LMGs in one hex, in the open...they deserved to be crushed by air support.

For those not familiar the Skyraider rules:

8.12 AD SKYRAIDER: Contrary to E7.42, an AD Skyraider is not automatically flipped over to its reverse side after making a bomb attack. If, during a bomb attack, it retains
ROF (C2.24; an AD Skyraider has a bomb ROF of “3” as indicated by the black “3” encased in a black square), it is not flipped over to the reverse side; however, it may not attack with bombs again in the current phase.

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Any ROF 3 weapon can go on a tear which has dramatic efects on a scenario, and I'm sure that every experienced ASL player has been on both the giving and receiving end of that series of attacks. But the "expected value" (to put it in mathematical terms) of the number of attacks that a ROF 3 weapon makes is two, which is certainly a reasonable representation of the capabilities of the AD Skyraider.

Just to give you a sense of perspective about the outstanding capabilities of the Douglas Skyraider, it was designed at the end of World War II and just missed that war. It would have replaced the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver if the war had continued into 1946. Not surprisingly, it was still first-line equipment in 1950. What is surprising is that later versions were used in the Vietnam War (by which time the design was 20+ years old), and the USAF adopted it in that war because its supersonic jets were no good for escorting rescue helicopters.

There were other ways of representing the capabilities of the AD Skyraider that we considered, but they involved introducing a new mechanic into the game system whereas the ROF mechanic already exists in it. Conceding your point that an ROF tear can get out of hand, we decided that accepting the occasional ROF tear was better than introducing a new mechanic.

If something like that were justified, an SSR with waves of planes each turn for a set amount of turns is the way to go, and has been done before in scenarios. We could have saved us a new rule and gotten a better tool for designers to design balanced scenarios just by adding the suggestion to the footnotes. Think of the unbalanced scenarios when your Skyraider goes on a ROF tear and you are dropping bombs the entire scenario.

 

[Brian W]

Conceding your point that an ROF tear can get out of hand, we decided that accepting the occasional ROF tear was better than introducing a new mechanic.

I am unconcerned about new mechanics if necessary, what I think is they are unnecessary. I do not see anything in what you or the Colonel wrote that justifies giving this one plane rate of fire with ordnance attacks. The tools to represent the a/c are in the system already.

Air support in ASL are not necessarily individual planes. Giving them ROF is not a reflection of a more capable plane; giving them more a/c counters each turn can represent longer range (although what if they are operating at the end of their range already?); higher bomb load by greater Bomb HE equivalency; better gunsights by increasing the MG FP factors.

It carried up to four times the bomb load of any WWII Fighter Bomber

I think the P-38 and the Ju-87D could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs. I don't think the Skyraider could carry 16,000 lbs of bombs. But that's nitpicking and really doesn't make a difference in any case. However, even at a load of 8,000 lbs (the figure I am seeing on line) I think the better answer is to add more planes. What is the effective Bomb HE equivalency of the Skyraider? At 8,000 lbs it must be significantly more than the 200mm of the Stuka--an option would be to give them 200x2, allowing them to drop entire load or a half load, although that again falls into the fallacy that each counter represents one plane.

 

[pswede26]

Brian,

All your points are taken and I appreciate your viewpoint...all I can say is don't design or play a scenario with the Skyraider if you don't think it belongs. As with Searchlights and other new Korean War rules/toys that some don't like, there are designers and ASLers that will like them and use/play them. That's the beauty of ASL...you have options

Pete

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

A Skyraider was a vastly superior aircraft to a Stuka in every way.

I am unconcerned about new mechanics if necessary, what I think is they are unnecessary. I do not see anything in what I think the P-38 and the Ju-87D could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs. I don't think the Skyraider could carry 16,000 lbs of bombs. But that's nitpicking and really doesn't make a difference in any case. However, even at a load of 8,000 lbs (the figure I am seeing on line) I think the better answer is to add more planes. What is the effective Bomb HE equivalency of the Skyraider? At 8,000 lbs it must be significantly more than the 200mm of the Stuka--an option would be to give them 200x2, allowing them to drop entire load or a half load, although that again falls into the fallacy that each counter represents one plane.

 

[Brian W]

A Skyraider was a vastly superior aircraft to a Stuka in every way.

Edited out snarky reply. I shouldn't have overreacted to what was an innocent remark.

 

[jrv]

More than one Skyraider shot down a MiG. No Stuka ever did that. I'm sure one such scenario will be in the next Korean pack.

JR

 

[Brian W]

More than one Skyraider shot down a MiG. No Stuka ever did that. I'm sure one such scenario will be in the next Korean pack.

I'm relatively sure that Stukas shot down more MiGs than Skyraiders did.
EDITED out question of loads.

 

[Mr Incredible]

Maybe they could drop multiple loads and not a single load?

 

[Brian W]

Maybe they could drop multiple loads and not a single load?

I don't think we should fall into the trap in believing that each plane counter represents one plane. In any case, that decision is made and I'm sure it wont' make much difference, I just wish that MMP would wage war on creeping complexity.

 

[jrv]

I'm relatively sure that Stukas shot down more MiGs than Skyraiders did.
EDITED out question of loads.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The Skyraiders shot down MiG *jet* aircraft.

JR

 

[Mr Incredible]

I don't think we should fall into the trap in believing that each plane counter represents one plane. In any case, that decision is made and I'm sure it wont' make much difference, I just wish that MMP would wage war on creeping complexity.

You were just comparing 4,000lb single plane laods to 8,000lb single plane loads.

OK, so your single 4,000lb Stuka has a quarter the load of two Skyraiders.

There's 4x.

Problem solved.

 

[Brian W]

You were just comparing 4,000lb single plane laods to 8,000lb single plane loads.

OK, so your single 4,000lb Stuka has a quarter the load of two Skyraiders.

There's 4x.

Problem solved.

No, the solution was ROF of 3, I think. I don't have the actual game yet.

 

[Joelist]

I dunno - the highest practical bomb load number I have seen for Stukas is 2000 lbs, and when doing that the sites said it was a single bomb. The 4000 lb number only came up some 15+ years after the war - before that it was 2200 lbs approximately. Skyraiders routinely carried 8000 lbs of bombs on multiple racks plus the 20mm cannons. In other words, the number of bombs the Skyraider carried was high not just the weight. So I can see using ROF as a way to represent this and the high loiter time.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I dunno - the highest practical bomb load number I have seen for Stukas is 2000 lbs, and when doing that the sites said it was a single bomb. The 4000 lb number only came up some 15+ years after the war - before that it was 2200 lbs approximately. Skyraiders routinely carried 8000 lbs of bombs on multiple racks plus the 20mm cannons. In other words, the number of bombs the Skyraider carried was high not just the weight. So I can see using ROF as a way to represent this and the high loiter time.

You're correct.

According to Lt.Col. A.J. Barker, Ju-87D-1 carried a single 3968lb bomb for single delivery, or a 2200lb bomb (or two 1100lb bombs) in the main rack plus 440lb worth of bombs in the wing racks. (Stuka Ju-87, Chartwell Books 1980, ISBN 0-89009-323-7)

I think a better question to ask would be if the Stuka could toggle the bombs individually (either by mechanical design or by doctrine). Off the top of my head I think the Skyraider was designed with this in mind.

Again, from Barker:

"Depending on the target there were three basic forms of attack: a near vertical nose dive...from a height of 2-5000m...an oblique or shallow dive from...700-1500m...and a low-level attack - when the approach was made at low altitude, never more than 300m. After a shallow dive approach bombs were usually released in a 3-600m long 'carpet' and the Stuka's machine guns used to strafe the target area. For a low-level bombing attack delayed action fuses were fitted to the bombs. In all three forms of attack the bombs were dropped singly or in pairs when possible."

 

[Mr Incredible]

I think a better question to ask would be if the Stuka could toggle the bombs individually (either by mechanical design or by doctrine). Off the top of my head I think the Skyraider was designed with this in mind.

That was my question.

Couple that with the high loiter time (no risk of attack by enemy aircraft), high bomb load and ability to drop separate loads, you can see why there's a ROF.

The quintessential Stuka attack as seen on TV is fly to the objective, the single point attack and then they bugger off.

Two quite different attacks and probably modelled the correct way in FW.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

That was my question.

Couple that with the high loiter time (no risk of attack by enemy aircraft), high bomb load and ability to drop separate loads, you can see why there's a ROF.

The quintessential Stuka attack as seen on TV is fly to the objective, the single point attack and then they bugger off.

Two quite different attacks and probably modelled the correct way in FW.

Yes. Stuka use evolved during the war, obviously, but German air power in general was for interdiction in the 1939-40 offensive campaigns. As the war went on it became more common to fly against point targets in a tactical sense. The Luftwaffe considered both types of missions as part of the same function of ground support. Even as German planes became used more often in attacks on tactical targets (i.e. near or in the front lines), they became less effective due to loss of aerial superiority, loss of skilled aircrew, and the failure to develop sophisticated ground-attack aircraft (such as the Allied Typhoon or Sturmovik). Add in fuel shortages and the withdrawal of aircraft to defend the homeland against the Bomber Offensive.

Air Field Manual No. 16 said:

"Strong Luftwaffe forces can be committed to cooperate in critically important land actions. The methods of cooperation with army forces will vary in accordance with the current situation, the time factor, the nature of the mission, the objectives in mind, factors of terrain, and the strength and nature of the forces available. No fixed pattern exists. The prime requirement is that the mission must produce results of decisive importance for the army."

Having said this, it was recognized that "as a rule (air attack) is unlikely to produce results commensurate with the effort expended, although such action might be required in special circumstances." And later "Air action within the range of friendly artillery fire is only justifiable in such cases where artillery is unable fully to accomplish its mission."

The Russians, on the other hand, integrated their tac air and artillery.

Above is from Christopher Chant, "Ground Attack", Altmark Publishing, 1976, ISBN 85524-249-3

If FORGOTTEN WAR gives advantages to UN airpower that the Germans don't have in World War II, there are compelling reasons why. Allied tac air controllers were almost as powerful as their artillery observers even by 1944-45. This is reflected in FORGOTTEN WAR by the FAC and CAS rules. It would be a good idea for those who dislike the rules to actually read them first.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

 

[Ganjulama]

View attachment 4042

And here I though space was at a premium in Hong Kong.....

 

[hongkongwargamer]

And here I though space was at a premium in Hong Kong.....

.. and that's why you don't see anything else.