Re: [DS2] Air superiority revisited

At 16:10 12/22/98 +1300, you wrote:
>Tony Christney <acc@questercorp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>Air Superiority in Dirtside II
>>==============================
>>
>>Dirtside II has no rules for air-to-air combat. This implies that
>>at the time of the battle, one side has already obtained air
superiority.
>    Actually, I would say that both sides are disputing air
superiority.
>After all, both sides can have aerospace vehicles! If one side has
aerospace
>vehicles and the other side doesn't, the first side has air
superiority.
>If both sides have aerospace vehicles, and one side doesn't want to use
them
>for fear of losing them, then the second side has air superiority.

Technically, this is true, however, it is highly unlikely that opposing 
aerospace vehicles will ignore each other and only conduct ground 
attack missions. This is the current situation in DSII.

[snip]
>>Several factors will affect the effectiveness of air-to-air combat.
>>In Dirtside terms, we will simplify all of these factors into four.
>>These are: pilot quality/training, electronics suite quality,
>    Or the quality/leadership marker, the ECM suite (GMS defence),

ECM doen't really reflect what I'm thinking of here. The electronics 
suite is things like airborne radar, IR detection, optical enhancements,

etc. ECM is purely defensive, whereas most aerospace electronics are
not.
In the rules, you will note that the quality/leadership marker is used 
extensively, but in the DSII rulebook they are referred to as 
quality/training for aerospace operations.

>>aircraft maneouvrability, and weapons quality.
>    Vehicle size class and signature, and weapon Fire control.

However, I want to be able to reflect the difference between, say, and 
A-10 and an F-16. Size/signature doesn't really accomplish this.
Weapon firecon is actually what I am using as a measure of weapon 
quality ;).

>>In order to execute air superiority missions, the player must
>>specifically task one or more of his/her aerospace fighters with
>>an air superiority mission. The player does this when activating the
>>craft.
>    What's an air superiority mission? Do you mean attempting to
destroy
>an enemy aerospace vehicle before the enemy aerospace vehicle
activates?
>In other words, an off-board enemy aerospace vehicle?

Exactly. One side is trying to wipe out the others aerospace, and 
vice versa. 

>    The rules I posted and that are available on my web site
>cover on table interception quite well. They are also simple and easy
to
>use.

I don't have web access. Perhaps you could email them to me?

[snip spotting rules]
>    Actually, in reality and the several books I've got, modern
aircraft
>pilots
>usually know where their opponent/target/victim is already from ground
or
>airborne radar.

Agreed. However, the pilot will still have to locate and identify the 
enemy himself before he can conduct combat against them. Spotting is 
not necessarily visual identification, but is also locating low-flying 
enemy craft among the ground clutter, etc.

>>The aerospace unit being
>>spotted rolls its signature die. If either of the spotter's dice
>>beats the unit being spotted's die, then that unit has been spotted.
>>The spotting player may then choose to "lock-on" to _one_ of
>>the spotted units. Units locked onto the previous turn do not
>>need to be spotted again, and the player may choose to ignore the
>>spotting stage if he has a unit locked-on from the previous turn.
>    Can't my off-board aerospace vehicle land or go behind a mountain
range
>or hill? :-)

Sure. But landing is not a good option, as it takes the vehicle away 
from the theatre of action. Going behind a hill, etc. is reflected as 
a disengagement. 

>>Once a unit has been locked-on, the spotter may attempt to
>>intercept the unit that it has locked-on. At this point, the target
>>may attempt to disengage. An opposed die roll is made, with the
>>attacker rolling his quality die, shifted up or down for pilot quality
>>as above. The defender wishing to disengage has a primary die
>>figured exactly as for the attacker, as well as a secondary die
>>based on his aerospace vehicle's maneouvrability rating. If the
>>defender's roll is higher, then he has successfully disengaged, and
>>both aerospace fighters are considered activated for the turn.
>>Otherwise, the defender is considered to have been successfully
>>intercepted.
>    Wouldn't the enemy off board aerospace vehicles be flying in such
>a way as to assist each other? AWACs and fuel tankers flying race
tracks,
>escort fighters for defence, other fighters and bombers in- and out-
bound?
>All of them in the right place to counter attack an intruding enemy
fighter
>which
>has to move from its own side, over the battle field, and into the
opposing
>rear?

I guess it really depends on several things: how many aerospace vehicles

do you want to include in your battles, and how detailed do you wnat
their 
interaction to be? For a first draft, I chose to mostly go for one on
one 
battles between opposing aerospace units. Multiple interceptions, 
counter interceptions, etc. will come in due time...

[snip]

>    Couldn't the other enemy friendlies that are close by help the
target
>out
>by counter firing their missiles at the attacker? If you've attacked
with a
>pair
>of aerospace fighters at a formation comprising the whole of the
opponent's
>aerospace fleet, wouldn't this be suicidal? Surely, any unactivated
fighters
>would
>be moved to intercept the approaching fighters? After all, the defender
have
>lots
>more time to react than the attacker!

See above. All of this will come in time. Right now I mainly want to
find 
out if the basic mechanisms are sound.

[snip]
>    This sounds like WWII where you had to see your target to shoot it
down.
>In the modern and future battlefield, this is unlikely to occur. But,
using
>pilot quality to help defend against GMS and direct fire weapons sounds
>romantic/good/cool
>to me.

And quite realistic. Normally, a pilot that chooses to engage his target

at close ranges is either a) very confident of his _and_ his opponents 
abilities; b) out of missles; c) very brave. He may also have missles 
that are really only effective from the rear aspects, so he has to
maneouvre
into position. Maneouvre is probably the single most important factor 
as far as missle defence goes. Even a B-52 will try to get out of the 
way of incoming missles. Probably an effort in futility, but try telling

that to the pilot! Even ECM like decoys, flares and chaff rely on the
pilot 
maneouvring to get out of the missle's way.

>    How about this system? For direct fire weapons, as well as rolling
the
>fire
>control die, roll the pilot's leadership number expressed as a die:
>(0: D12, 1: D10, 2: D8, 3: D6, 4: D4). The defender rolls the vehicle's
>signature
>die as normal along with a die corresponding to the defender's quality:
>(Red/Elite: D12, Orange/Veteran: D10, Blue/Regular: D8, Green/Green:
D6,
>Yellow/unskilled: D4)
>In summary, use the leadership rating to attack with, the quality
rating to
>defend with.
>    If both sides all roll "1" on all their dice, both vehicles collide
and
>are destroyed.
>    If the defender's highest die rolls higher than the attacker, the
tables
>are turned,
>now the defender is the attacker, and the former attacker is now
defending.
>Roll again.
>    If the attacker's highest die rolls higher than the defender, draw
chits
>on
>the defender and apply damage. Make morale checks as appropriate for
the
>defender.
>The attacker can make another attack immediately or depart back to
base.
>    Equal rolls mean roll again.
>    Those pilots using the Force, can roll a D20 instead of their fire
>control or signature.
>    (Luke, use the Force! - Obi Wan Kenobi)(The Force is strong in this
>one. - Vader)

You see, I wanted something simple and deadly. I figured that in a 15
minute 
dogfight, somebody is going to get a good shot off! This is analogous to

the way ground vehicles fight in urban areas, except that aerospace 
vehicles need to maneouvre into position to get their shots off, and 
if one pilot is shooting, then the other is not.

>    Using GMS, the attacker rolls the GMS guidance die, the defender
rolls
>their ECM die and their quality dice as above. Those pilots using the
the
>Force can roll D20 instead of their aerospace vehicle's ECM die.
>    These rules will also work with my on-table aerospace vehicle
>interception rules on my site.
>
>>Weapon/Systems Costs
>>====================
>>
>>Maneouvrability
>>---------------
>>Maneouvrability is simply another gradation of mobility type.
>>BASIC maneouvrability costs 1000% of the BVP; ENH maneouvrability
>>costs 1500% of the BVP; SUP maneouvrability cost 2000% of the BVP.
>    I think using Vehicle Size Class (VSC) and stealth might be more
>appropriate.

See above. An A-10 and an F-16 would be modern equivalents to what we 
might see on a DSII battlefield. Both are roughly equivalent in size, 
have almost no stealth, but which is by far the more effective fighter?
The F-16 wins hands down, mostly because of its far greater
maneouvrability 
and speed.

>>Electronics Suite
>>-----------------
>>A BASIC electronics suite costs 30 points; an ENH suite costs 60
points;
>>a SUP suite cost 90 points.
>    I don't think this is necessary,
>    as battlefield reconaissance is near god-like already.

As mentioned above, the electronics suite is the radar, etc. organic to
the 
aerospace vehicle. Since currently its only role is to spot enemy 
aerospace vehicles, I made it relatively cheap. I am still debating
about 
whether or not to use it elsewhere in the rules. It would have to fit 
naturally, of course.

>>Air-to-air Missiles
>>-------------------
>>Air-to-air missiles are identical in cost to their air-to-ground
>>and ground-to-ground counterparts, except that they cannot be used
>>against ground targets. Similarly, air-to-ground and ground-to-ground
>>missiles cannot be used against aerospace vehicles.
>    I would nearly agree with this. Optionally, give a fire control die
type
>reduction.

And probably also a significant damage reduction. More likely the
air-to-air
would suffer a damage reduction against ground vehicles with maybe a
minor 
firecon reduction. Ground target GMS would suffer a severe firecon
reduction, 
but almost no damage reduction. To keep it simple, I just used the above
rule. 
It would be very, very rare for a modern pilot to fire his ARAAMs at a
tank. 
Similarly, a TOW is not much use against an F-22...

>Andrew Martin

Thanks for the comments, I will be digesting them more thoroughly over
the 
holidays!

Tony Christney		     | "Perserverance - a lowly
tchristney@questercorp.com   |	virtue whereby mediocrity
Junior Scientist,	     |	achieves an inglorious
Quester Tangent Corp.	     |	success"
http://www.questercorp.com/  |	     - Ambrose Bierce.