Can multiple Long Range Anti-Air Missile Engagements be resolved on the Large Air Attack Resolution Table?

 

I calculated the missile index (1.0) and thereby determined the pK, in this case 40%. There were 12x Su-35's that had launched 24 AA-12 Adders. I calulated 12 aircraft * 2 attacks * .40

 

Does anyone else believe that this jives? I hope to have a quasi-official response sometime soon.

 

Thanks

Can multiple Long Range Anti-Air Missile Engagements be resolved on the Large Air Attack Resolution Table?

 

I calculated the missile index (1.0) and thereby determined the pK, in this case 40%. There were 12x Su-35's that had launched 24 AA-12 Adders. I calulated 12 aircraft * 2 attacks * .40

Paul K chimed in that math-wise it should not matter and we worked through the formula, where I once again displayed my math skills, with my specifics. The missile index should have been 1.5 which in turn becomes a pK of 45% for both AA-12 and AIM-120, so 12 (Su-35) * 2 (AA-12 attacks) * .45 = 10.8. I then used the 10.5 row on the multiple air-to-air chart (exact name escapes me). The F/A-18's were calculated at 6 (F/A-18C) * 2 (AIM-120) * .45 = 5.4. I resolved on the 5.0 row. Using the 2D6 rolls from the other night of US "10" and FSU "5" resulted in 9x (overkill, only 6 in the air) hits on F/A-18C's while 7x Su-35's are downed.

 

Paul did go into detail on some of the finer points of speed, missile range, individual aircraft evasion, and the ability to trade distance/time for more shots outside of an enemy's effective missile range.

 

With his assistance, I should be able to more closely depict the hypothetical fighter sweep to provide for open skies so that the An-12 Cubs and Su-25 Grach's can do their evil work.

Direct from Larry Bond.

 

" I hadn't thought of using 7.6 for missile attacks but yes, it should work and appears to in this case. Intuitively, the answer seems right, although it always seems a little off when an entire side is wiped out. But that does happen in air warfare, and you can always use the aircraft damage rules to who's just hurt and who is sincerely dead.

 

I'll add a note in 7.6 about using it for missiles."

 

 

Good gaming,

 

Pete

Direct from Larry Bond.

 

" I hadn't thought of using 7.6 for missile attacks but yes, it should work and appears to in this case. Intuitively, the answer seems right, although it always seems a little off when an entire side is wiped out. But that does happen in air warfare, and you can always use the aircraft damage rules to who's just hurt and who is sincerely dead.

 

I'll add a note in 7.6 about using it for missiles."

 

 

Good gaming,

 

Pete

 

For large numbers of fighters vs fighters I'd randomly allocate the hits so some aircraft would be 'killed' twice and some surviving.

 

Accounts of USAF combat - they do sort the targets but surely even with 2/4 v 2/4 some accounts have two friendlies locking the same guy up.

 

It does speed up the air combat in a GCS scenario, which is a good thing.

For large numbers of fighters vs fighters I'd randomly allocate the hits so some aircraft would be 'killed' twice and some surviving.

 

Accounts of USAF combat - they do sort the targets but surely even with 2/4 v 2/4 some accounts have two friendlies locking the same guy up.

 

It does speed up the air combat in a GCS scenario, which is a good thing.

Good idea, I'll try that as well.