Air on tabletop?

[Achtung Minen!]

I made my own "air on map" rules and I am quite happy with them. They are very simple, but you have to understand that I designed them with a hex map in mind (I play Alpha Strike with the old Battletech hex maps for the most part) and they are not true aerospace rules... that is, they are meant to represent close air support in a Battlemech game, not a complete air combat system with dogfighting, barrel rolls etc.

Basically, every turn, a player can place an aerospace fighter anywhere on the battle map instead of moving a 'Mech. The aerospace fighter attacks from that position, determining range and line of sight just like it was a normal unit. Once it is on the table, it can be targeted just like a normal unit as well, so it is important to choose an attack vector that will limit return fire from the ground (I give aerospace a +2 target type modifier, since they don't have a TMM). Once the turn is over, all aerospace fighters are removed from the table and may be placed again next turn.

The only exception to this rule is if one aerospace fighter wants to intercept another. If that happens, the interceptor is placed directly behind the target fighter and can make an attack at short range (if the interceptor has twice or more MV), medium range (if interceptor has equal or more MV), long range (if interceptor has less MV) or extreme range (if interceptor has half or less MV).

[Scotty]

That's... literally exactly how it works in Alpha Strike, except rather than being placed on a single hex, fighters draw a line across the board for their flight path.  Including the +2 modifier for aerospace units.  The mechanism for fighter on fighter combat is different, but that's about it.

[Achtung Minen!]

Well, Alpha Strike rules for airstrikes don't leave the model on the table (so there is no point in having a model at all), and they use a dumb aerospace map with concentric circles which means your aerospace fighter can only show up every three or four turns (what an awful rule!). I wanted to take the rules and modify them as little as possible, but change it so that you could actually put your nicely painted model on the battle map and actually use it more than once or twice a game (in fact, you can use it every single turn, regardless of MV, just like a 'Mech or any other unit).

[Scotty]

Neither of those things you said is true.  My group places the fighter's model where it enters the field, and either a second model where it exits or some way to mark it (like a d6 or something).  The abstract aerospace map is set up in such a way that sufficiently fast fighters (Thrust 10+) can make a pass over the map every single turn.  Slower fighters (Thrust 9 or less) make passes every other turn.  Certainly not every third or fourth turn!  In fact, there is way at all (short of hovering in place with an aerodyne dropship, small craft, or airship, or being engaged by another fighter [which would reasonably interfere with that anyway]) that a fighter will take more than every other turn to get back to the field.

My group also has a 3' x 3' abstract aero map, admittedly, so our nicely painted models are in use every turn.

[nckestrel]

The main issue with aerospace doing actual movement on the tabletop is that one of AS's design goals is not measuring angles for turns.  Aerospace moving on the ground map without them amounts to either straight lines (which is what it does now), or just place the aerospace behind it's target.

If you want to measure angles, then go for it.  Perhaps three moves for aero on the ground map, once before all other units (and when possilby any abstract map units would move), then once along with other units, and then finally a move after all other units have moved.  Each move must go in a straight line from it's starting facing, with a minimum of it's thrust and a maximum of three times it's thrust?  At the end of the move, a single turn with a maximum of 90 degrees (chosen purely because it's a fairly simple check)?
And maybe have aeros declare (possibly even resolve) their combat during their third move. So a strafe has to be along that third move, bombing run along it, etc.

(Just brainstorming, I haven't tried this at all).  Feel free to try it and tell me how I missed something obviously wrong ;).

[Scotty]

My untested/theoretical way to model aerospace maneuvering over the ground map is by letting them turn up to 180 degrees around a pie plate (round template) that is their thrust rating in inches across.  So something like an Eagle would have a 6" turning radius.  Fast fighters wouldn't be able to turn around as fast, and have more difficulty avoiding entering ground fire envelopes.

Primary issues are that 180 degrees is a big turn, but limiting it more than that requires a lot of "yeah that looks right".  Otherwise I'd go for 60, 90, or maybe even 120.

[truetanker]

If I used aero on AS, could I use bombs and would it lose MP doing so?

TT

[nckestrel]

If I used aero on AS, could I use bombs and would it lose MP doing so?

TT

Yes and yes.

[Descronan]

My untested/theoretical way to model aerospace maneuvering over the ground map is by letting them turn up to 180 degrees around a pie plate (round template) that is their thrust rating in inches across.  So something like an Eagle would have a 6" turning radius.  Fast fighters wouldn't be able to turn around as fast, and have more difficulty avoiding entering ground fire envelopes.

Primary issues are that 180 degrees is a big turn, but limiting it more than that requires a lot of "yeah that looks right".  Otherwise I'd go for 60, 90, or maybe even 120.

Consider that most modern aircraft have a stall speed of about 100 MPH or 160 KPH. That means they would "have" to move a minimum of 32" in Alpha Strike measurements.

Also, the speed of the craft doesn't really impact its turning rate assuming it has a similar stall speed. And if your turn is 90 degrees, you should be able to do that easily with the hex bases as your guide. That worked pretty well with Robotech RPG Tactics.

[Scotty]

Consider that we're not dealing with modern aircraft, and then further consider that "reduce speed to just above stall" is not generally how aircraft avoid anti-air fire while banking.  Faster fighters are not going to slow down to a lowest common stall speed just so that turn radii can be identical across fighters.  Show me a fighter that can take the same distance tight radius turn at Mach 3 as 200 KPH and I will show you a dead pilot.  Additionally, smaller and faster fighters are already arguably better for their points than heavy fighters and this felt like a reasonable way to give heavy fighters an on-the-table advantage that light fighters lack.

Most of the fighters I own are not on hex bases, but that point of yours is a good one.

[Descronan]

Consider that we're not dealing with modern aircraft, and then further consider that "reduce speed to just above stall" is not generally how aircraft avoid anti-air fire while banking.  Faster fighters are not going to slow down to a lowest common stall speed just so that turn radii can be identical across fighters.  Show me a fighter that can take the same distance tight radius turn at Mach 3 as 200 KPH and I will show you a dead pilot.  Additionally, smaller and faster fighters are already arguably better for their points than heavy fighters and this felt like a reasonable way to give heavy fighters an on-the-table advantage that light fighters lack.

Most of the fighters I own are not on hex bases, but that point of yours is a good one.

Fast attacks are the reason why a straight flight line makes more sense than allowing turns with Aero. Its also one of the reasons why I think Aero needs a higher mod when targeted by ground units.

If the stall speed of most aircraft (non-VSTOL) is 32", then the modifier to hit them should be at minimum equal to a 32" movement. After all, aero don't get the benefit of cover. Assuming 32" movement rate, that's +4 TMM and another +1 for being airborne. Of course its "crazy" to be consistent with movement rules... right?  :D

Also, keep in mind that Aero with VSTOL should be able to enter the battlefield and "land" while still hovering over the map. The following round, they can "take off" from their hovering position. That allows them to be onboard for 2 rounds in a row. I'm not sure if that's an official use of VSTOL, but it makes sense to me.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I don't agree with the premise that 32" of movement by a ground unit is equivalent to 32" of movement by an aerospace unit.  Speed in of itself isn't the issue that makes you hard to hit.  The calculations necessary to properly lead a target at a given speed and range have been perfected over 1000 years ago as of the time most Alpha Strike games are set.  What makes "fast movers" on the ground hard to hit is their ability to juke and bob and weave.  Suddenly stop.  Suddenly start.  Hairpin turn.  Sidestep.  Etc.   The aerospace units rocketing overhead are moving very very fast, but also very very predictably.  They can't "juke" the way ground units can.  Just lead the target, and the Aero unit can't help but fly right into the shot you send up into the sky.

Now I *do* agree that something in the air-vs-ground dynamic should change in the aero units' favor, but higher TMM just because they're "faster" isn't something I agree is the right path.  (tangent alert: I kind of like the idea of letting Aero units fire at targets outside their striking/strafing template.  Or making ALL air to ground attacks ignore terrain & maybe TMM -- not just bombs)

[Descronan]

I don't agree with the premise that 32" of movement by a ground unit is equivalent to 32" of movement by an aerospace unit.  Speed in of itself isn't the issue that makes you hard to hit.  The calculations necessary to properly lead a target at a given speed and range have been perfected over 1000 years ago as of the time most Alpha Strike games are set.  What makes "fast movers" on the ground hard to hit is their ability to juke and bob and weave.  Suddenly stop.  Suddenly start.  Hairpin turn.  Sidestep.  Etc.   The aerospace units rocketing overhead are moving very very fast, but also very very predictably.  They can't "juke" the way ground units can.  Just lead the target, and the Aero unit can't help but fly right into the shot you send up into the sky.

That's just it, 32" of movement is the MINIMUM movement needed to stay aloft for modern aircraft. Ground attacks are typically done at much higher speeds - 150 to 200 MPH, or about 46+ inches. And while I agree that movement alone isn't the only factor on targeting, the AS rules don't support any "juking" unless you use Evade. Besides that, advanced aircraft would have countermeasures, flairs, radar jamming equipment, chaff, etc. And the lack of cover is a big deal.

I keep coming back that aircraft need to have declared elevations. So if I want to be at medium range, I come in at an elevation of 12" or whatever. It's easy to do. Just place a d20 as your elevation marker.

And I don't really agree with the basic modifiers to hit for things like striking with a +4... Just let me use my TMM, Cover, and skill like normal. That makes aero much more effective (perhaps too effective), but that should be reflected in the PV.

I'd be happy with a default 4 TMM for Aero, losing the "airborne" mod for taking a straight path. Then add range mods like normal. So if you want to come in at 6" elevation, ground units need 8 to hit you from short range.

Lastly, range should be measured from the flightpath to the ground unit or elevation, whichever is higher. I know that's not precise, but its "close enough" for tabletop gaming. So if I'm 6" from your flight path and you're 6" elevation, I'm shooting you from 6" (actual Pythagorean distance would be 8.48").

Anyway, these are ideas I'm putting into my house rules doc. I'll have to come up with an easy modifier for the aerospace PV I think.

[CDAT]

That's just it, 32" of movement is the MINIMUM movement needed to stay aloft for modern aircraft. Ground attacks are typically done at much higher speeds - 150 to 200 MPH, or about 46+ inches. And while I agree that movement alone isn't the only factor on targeting, the AS rules don't support any "juking" unless you use Evade. Besides that, advanced aircraft would have countermeasures, flairs, radar jamming equipment, chaff, etc. And the lack of cover is a big deal.

That is the minimum movement needed to stay aloft because of how they are made (for speed, not ground attack/slow speed and stability). Same goes for why ground attack is done at much higher speeds as that is what the aircraft is made for, not what is best for the mission. And why are they made for speed? I see two main reason, one - this is how they keep from getting hit as we do not have magic armor like they do in battletech. If we did you could take things like the A-10 or the A-1 Skyraider and make them super ground attack/support aircraft. Two - the powers that be do not want to do close air support, they only want fast movers or as a second class big bombers/cargo planes. This is the reason that the USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 from the day it was accepted into service.
 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

That is the minimum movement needed to stay aloft because of how they are made (for speed, not ground attack/slow speed and stability). Same goes for why ground attack is done at much higher speeds as that is what the aircraft is made for, not what is best for the mission. And why are they made for speed? I see two main reason, one - this is how they keep from getting hit as we do not have magic armor like they do in battletech. If we did you could take things like the A-10 or the A-1 Skyraider and make them super ground attack/support aircraft. Two - the powers that be do not want to do close air support, they only want fast movers or as a second class big bombers/cargo planes. This is the reason that the USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 from the day it was accepted into service.

The reason the real world Powers That Be want fast moving CAS aircraft isn't so much that they're harder to hit but that fast movers can get *to* the battlefield faster to perform their CAS mission faster than a slower one could.

And the USAF hasn't been trying to kill off the A-10 ever since about 1991.  They were actually about to transfer them all over to the Army, up until they changed their mind in the aftermath of Desert Storm.  These days, there's actually a good bit of kicking and screaming to hold ON to the A-10s.

Now the latter is just a tangent to the thread, but the former is kind of relevant.  If you're using, say, subsonic aircraft for your CAS you're lucky to even get them to show up before the ground battle resolves itself without the air support.  They will have had to have been based very close by, or been dispatched long before the ground battle even began.  Either is a fairly plausible scenario, but it's not so plausible to presume you'll always have at least one of those two factors in your favor.   And that impracticality factors in to the fasanomics/in-universe logistics:  do you want to acquire the CAS aircraft that you can only use some of the time, or the CAS aircraft that you can use most of the time?  (that's also the question that will ultimately doom the A-10)

[CDAT]

The reason the real world Powers That Be want fast moving CAS aircraft isn't so much that they're harder to hit but that fast movers can get *to* the battlefield faster to perform their CAS mission faster than a slower one could.

OK, yes they may be able to get to the battle faster, but they do a much worse job once there. Some of the best ordnance that we have is very difficult for them to use as you have to be going speeds that are to slow for some of them, to do easily.

And the USAF hasn't been trying to kill off the A-10 ever since about 1991.  They were actually about to transfer them all over to the Army, up until they changed their mind in the aftermath of Desert Storm.  These days, there's actually a good bit of kicking and screaming to hold ON to the A-10s.

And yet they are trying to kill it right now, they were trying to kill it before Desert Storm, did not want them to go to Desert Storm. Tried to kill it after Desert Storm, also they were never looking to transfer them to the Army (as that would be against the USAF/USA Military Charter). They only made them to keep the Army out of the close air support aircraft business.

Now the latter is just a tangent to the thread, but the former is kind of relevant.  If you're using, say, subsonic aircraft for your CAS you're lucky to even get them to show up before the ground battle resolves itself without the air support.  They will have had to have been based very close by, or been dispatched long before the ground battle even began.  Either is a fairly plausible scenario, but it's not so plausible to presume you'll always have at least one of those two factors in your favor.   And that impracticality factors in to the fasanomics/in-universe logistics:  do you want to acquire the CAS aircraft that you can only use some of the time, or the CAS aircraft that you can use most of the time?  (that's also the question that will ultimately doom the A-10)

And yet real world what is the most used CAS? The AH-64 Apache, yes it is the slowest of all but by proper planing it is either with the ground troops before the fight starts or around where the fight may start. You need something that can loiter, and this is one more thing that the fast movers can not do, the A-10 is not bad, but something like the Sky Raider was even better (I have read reports of them being on station for up to about eight hours on a single fuel load).

[Descronan]

I'll just post a couple links for consideration. I know table top and reality don't HAVE to match up, but it's nice when it does.

A-10 Warthog
Stall speed = 220 kph (about 44" AS movement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Specifications_.28A-10A.29

Cessna 340 propellar
Stall speed = 153 kph (about 30" AS movement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_340#Specifications_.28340A.29

P-51 Mustang
Stall speed = 160 kph (about 32" AS movement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang#Specifications_.28P-51D_Mustang.29

[Scotty]

Combat aircraft don't drop to stall speed when conducting attack runs.  It's a special kind of suicidal to reduce speed enough that the physical impact of being shot can cause you to slow down enough to stall and crash.

[Descronan]

Combat aircraft don't drop to stall speed when conducting attack runs.  It's a special kind of suicidal to reduce speed enough that the physical impact of being shot can cause you to slow down enough to stall and crash.

Exactly! That's been my point from the beginning. That's why it doesn't make sense to allow aerospace fighters to "turn" while doing an attack run.  O0