Just ordered....

[Lord_Ninja]

2x Mirage III, 2x Mirage V, 2x Harriers, 2x A-4 Skyhawks, 2x F-8 Crusaders, 2x MiG-17s, 2x F-86, and 2x Hawker Hunters in 1/285 scale to add to my 2x F-4s and 2x MiG-21s.

So here are some scenarios I will try out.
Vietnam- MiG-17s vs. F-8s, MiG-17s vs. F-4s, a whatif CAC Sabre vs. MiG-17s, CAC Sabre vs. MiG-21 (Australia ran point defense for American air bases in Thailand, what if the North Vietnamese attacked?) MiG-21s vs F-8s, MiG-21 vs. F-4s, Also variable escort missions involving A-4s on bombing runs.

Falklands- A-4s and Mirage IIIs on attack mission against ships vs. Sea Harriers. IAI Daggers (Mirage V) vs. Sea Harriers in all out combat

Various Indo-Pakistani conflicts- Canadair Sabre vs. MiG-21 and Hawker Hunters.

Various Israeli/Arab conflicts- MiG-17 vs. Mirage III, MiG-21 vs Mirage III, Mig-21 vs. Mirage V, Hawker Hunter vs. Mirage III (As well as trying to work in the Kfir and Nesher variants)

[tikkifriend]

Where did you get them from Lucas?

[OldGuy59]

May need stats for more jets, it appears...


North Vietnamese Mig-17?

[Jager]

May need stats for more jets, it appears...


North Vietnamese Mig-17?

Well, if someone has a copy of Check Your 6 Jet Age, and can send me the stats, I could make rough guesses of post-Korea planes (I have a copy of CY6 Korea).
Maybe Speed of the Heat will help too (in my office/workbench area now).

Karl

[Lord_Ninja]

Where did you get them from Lucas?

http://www.raidenminiatures.co.uk/ Not the greatest but with the cheap prices they are very much worth the bang for the buck

[Lord_Ninja]

Well, if someone has a copy of Check Your 6 Jet Age, and can send me the stats, I could make rough guesses of post-Korea planes (I have a copy of CY6 Korea).
Maybe Speed of the Heat will help too (in my office/workbench area now).

Karl

Here are some rough estimates I have come up with for a few of the planes so far. I am using a literal translation of the empty weight in pounds to Damage Points for the time being. For cannons I use rate of fire now instead of actual numbers of weapons to decide chit use. And missiles are being hammered out using modified "Aiming Artillery" rules from the rule book.

Some of the special rules we use
3/4 ruler gun range, no half range. This is to represent the higher speed and the new ground scale of using the same decks for these jet scenarios.

Missiles, similar to the aiming rules for artillery in the rule book, I will go more in depth of what we have figured out tracking and explosive wise in another post

An example of a Lucas interpretation of the MiG-17 and the Canadair Sabre for Jets

MiG-17

Speed- 711 mph

2X 23mm NR-23
1x 37mm N-37
2x K-13 Missiles
Weight 8,640 lbs

L Deck (No 90 degree), 9 Hp, 2x Gen 1 Missiles SR

Canadair Sabre

Speed- 710 mph

6x .50 cal M3
2x Aim-9
Weight 10,618 Lbs

L Deck (No 90 degree), 11 Hp, 8x B chits, 2x Gen 1 SR Missiles

[Lord_Ninja]

Concerning Missiles

Let's take a look at two missiles used during the Vietnam conflict. The Russian K-13 and the U.S. AIM-9 Sidewinder

I am using these two missiles to explain my idea on how they are rated and used in a game

So in my previous post you can see for the MiG-17 "2x Gen 1 Missiles SR" for Soviet K-13

I am going to break down "my logic" for the K-13 missile

Gen 1 is the style of tracking device on the missile

I have read of roughly 4 Generations of missile tracking devices

Gen 1 had a 30 degree field of view
Gen 2 had a 45 degree field of view
Gen 3 had a larger one but I can't find an exact degree so I am using a stopgap measurement of 60 degrees
Gen 4 jumps to a ridiculous 120 degree field of view
There is a Gen 5 but those won't be needed until we evolve to game to F-22, Su-47, and Eurofighter standards

So the missile will get it's own base with it's Gen field of view.

Example: The K-13 from above will appear to have a 30 degree firing arc from above

Game wise this will represent what the missile can see, if a target is in that field of view it is a valid target. If the target leaves the field of view the lock is broken and the missile streaks off into the distance to pester some poor farmer on the ground.

The Generations of the missiles also represent how often the missile actually exploded. Many times an early missile would lock on to the target but fail to explode or it even might fall off the plane without igniting.

To represent this I have a very simple system

If the missile tracks and comes close enough to the target to explode draw the representative chit for it's reliability

Gen 1- D chit
Gen 2- C Chit
Gen 3/4- B Chit

If the Chit is Zero the missile fails to detonate
If the Chit has an amount on it it successfully detonates: Put back the chit and draw the corresponding damage for the missile. (THE CHIT IS NOT THE DAMAGE, IT'S JUST TO SEE IF THE MISSILE DETONATES)

Damage and Range are represented by the simplified SR (Short Range), MR (Medium Range), and LR (Long Range). In my research I quickly noticed a pattern, the longer range a missile the more explosives it carried. This is simply because it has a larger rocket motor for the range which in turn gives it more carrying capabilities, this simplifies the process greatly.

SR missiles are allowed two rulers of movement
MR missiles are allowed three rulers of movement
LR missiles are allowed four rulers of movement

Each missile can only move one ruler a turn until it runs out of movements (Missile motor dies)
The SR missiles can turn within it's degree FoV every half ruler (But only if it's still locked on)
The MR missiles can turn within it's degree FoV every 3/4 ruler (But only if it's still locked on)
The LR missiles can only turn at a full ruler (But only if it's still locked on)

Damage (currently stopgap figures until I figure out a better system)
SR- 3 C chits upon successful contact
MR- 4 C chits upon successful contact
LR- 5 C chits upon successful contact

These are the ramblings in my head and I hope you enjoy them

[Foz]

I can work up stats once people decide what system they want ;-)
The conversation died a little on the threads to thrash that out.

MiG-17
Speed- 711 mph
2X 23mm NR-23
1x 37mm N-37
2x K-13 Missiles
Weight 8,640 lbs
L Deck (No 90 degree), 9 Hp, 2x Gen 1 Missiles SR

Climb: x3
Ceiling: 18
Damage: 20
Weapons: DCC/CC

Canadair Sabre
Speed- 710 mph
6x .50 cal M3
2x Aim-9
Weight 10,618 Lbs
L Deck (No 90 degree), 11 Hp, 8x B chits, 2x Gen 1 SR Missiles

Climb: x3
Ceiling: 18
Damage: 22
Weapons: BBB/BA

These aren't including missiles.

Both of these planes have wing loading that would suggest at maximum 30 degree turns.
Advancements in aileron and flap technology would probably add back the 45 degree turns, but I'm still working on those bits.

[David Manley]

Your missile generations might also want to take account of the development of "all aspect" missiles (some of which - Red Top for example - were fielded rather earlier than may would think)

[Lord_Ninja]

Your missile generations might also want to take account of the development of "all aspect" missiles (some of which - Red Top for example - were fielded rather earlier than may would think)

The missile Generation system is not necessarily needed to be taken year by year literally. For instance, the failure rate of the AIM-7 in Vietnam would make it Gen 1 MR in my book despite it being an advance design for it's time. If a missile was ahead it's time you can use a later generation rating (Like 3 or 4) if you think it deserves it.

[David Manley]

Indeed, its just the all aspect bit was something I thought was worth adding, since lower capability missiles will need to launched not only with the target within their seeker head cone, but also from a position in a cone behind the target (which actually varies depending on whether the aircraft is turning, and how hard, but is a detail too far for a simple air wargame - or even a complex one). You could keep things simple and use the same cone for both (apart from all aspect seekers which would only need to worry about their seeker head cone). I used a similar system when I wrote Fox Two! - it works pretty well and really shows how limited those early AAMs were, and why having a gun is a good idea!

[csadn]

Bringing up the MiG jets raises another problem: Differing performance at differing altitude.

MiGs were designed as high-altitude bomber-interceptors -- at high altitudes, very fast and maneuverable; down low (sub-15K') and slow, they got the s*** kicked out of them by F-86s, which had been designed for dogfighting. So we run into the same problem as with WG2: Each side is playing a completely different game -- the West plays horizontally, the East vertically, "and never the two shall meet".

[Lord_Ninja]

Bringing up the MiG jets raises another problem: Differing performance at differing altitude.

MiGs were designed as high-altitude bomber-interceptors -- at high altitudes, very fast and maneuverable; down low (sub-15K') and slow, they got the s*** kicked out of them by F-86s, which had been designed for dogfighting. So we run into the same problem as with WG2: Each side is playing a completely different game -- the West plays horizontally, the East vertically, "and never the two shall meet".

Not to invoke a pun but got to "play the hand you're dealt" in this case. Long term wise I'd like to mix and match decks to get a deck that be suits the plane. The MiG-21 and F-4 are great examples, the MiG-21 should have the the fast straight and slow turn of the C deck and the fast turn of the H deck. Whereas the F-4 should have the fast straight and slow turn of the H deck but the fast turn of the C deck. So I need the 45 degree turns of the H and C decks for one plane and the 45 degree turns of the H and C deck but reversed for the other plane. (IMHO)

[Jager]

Bringing up the MiG jets raises another problem: Differing performance at differing altitude.

MiGs were designed as high-altitude bomber-interceptors -- at high altitudes, very fast and maneuverable; down low (sub-15K') and slow, they got the s*** kicked out of them by F-86s, which had been designed for dogfighting. So we run into the same problem as with WG2: Each side is playing a completely different game -- the West plays horizontally, the East vertically, "and never the two shall meet".

We already have that issue with WGS, both official and unofficial. The MiG-3 could have used 3 different decks, depending on it's altitude. The committee chose the one that best matched where it fought the most, which was not quite it's worst deck, but close

The possibility does exist, since we're talking either making or reusing decks anyway, to go the CY6 way, and have slightly different stats for high (<20K feet) and low-medium (=> 20k feet). More work but a more accurate game.
Karl

[Foz]

We already have that issue with WGS, both official and unofficial. The MiG-3 could have used 3 different decks, depending on it's altitude. The committee chose the one that best matched where it fought the most, which was not quite it's worst deck, but close

The possibility does exist, since we're talking either making or reusing decks anyway, to go the CY6 way, and have slightly different stats for high (<20K feet) and low-medium (=> 20k feet). More work bmegan salinas ut a more accurate game.
karl

Possibly have an altitude range a plane works best at, and outside that range the plane is limited to slow maneuvers.
That would keep things simple and not require juggling multiple decks.

[Guntruck]

Well, if someone has a copy of Check Your 6 Jet Age, and can send me the stats, I could make rough guesses of post-Korea planes (I have a copy of CY6 Korea).
Maybe Speed of the Heat will help too (in my office/workbench area now).

Karl

There you go

[Jager]

Well, thank yea kindly, Gunners
Karl

[csadn]

More work bmegan salinas ut a more accurate game.
karl

Um -- I think Cthulhu took over your keyboard for a moment there.... :)

[Lord_Ninja]

Um -- I think Cthulhu took over your keyboard for a moment there....

The Lord Demands Sacrifice

[boomerpete53]

just a little overpriced for my pocketbook, nice sets maybe if i could find them in plastic....