Aircraft tech

[Kaiser Kirk]

A better question is how do aircraft of whatever generation interact with ships, ground units and other air units.  I suggest we come up with some type of generic system to use, like the Army rating systems or perhaps the sub chart.  Aircraft would need more detail than subs though I think.

I think arranging air contests as theater-level would work for land.  Sea I'm not so sure, never bothered with airstrikes in Seekrieg to my recollection.

What I mean is
Total Air superiority
Air dominance
Contested air superiority
Partial air coverage
Thin or absent air coverage

Each allows the possibility of scouting, tactical harassment attacks, and tactical supply interdiction.  Scouting would modify fluid battles, and help in prepared assaults/detect prepared assaults, and in counter-battery fire.  Tactical harassment in this period would be of marginal use, but supply interdiction over a protracted period of time could be of benefit.  None are 'war winning', but could apply modifiers for the ground war.

Plane tech level, number of planes, distance to nearest airfield, and I think pilot-training would enter into things as well.

I would like to note that, while I fully expect to be shouted down by a crusade of fanatic historical purists, the ability to apply Crimson Skies conceptualizations to the planes and airships of Navalism would make me squee like a little schoolgirl.

Kinda skipped this the first time around, but I really don't care if aircraft pics are "correct", Crimson Skies looks "cool", which is bonus points.

[miketr]

A better question is how do aircraft of whatever generation interact with ships, ground units and other air units.  I suggest we come up with some type of generic system to use, like the Army rating systems or perhaps the sub chart.  Aircraft would need more detail than subs though I think.

I think arranging air contests as theater-level would work for land.  Sea I'm not so sure, never bothered with airstrikes in Seekrieg to my recollection.

What I mean is
Total Air superiority
Air dominance
Contested air superiority
Partial air coverage
Thin or absent air coverage

Each allows the possibility of scouting, tactical harassment attacks, and tactical supply interdiction.  Scouting would modify fluid battles, and help in prepared assaults/detect prepared assaults, and in counter-battery fire.  Tactical harassment in this period would be of marginal use, but supply interdiction over a protracted period of time could be of benefit.  None are 'war winning', but could apply modifiers for the ground war.

Plane tech level, number of planes, distance to nearest airfield, and I think pilot-training would enter into things as well.

If we could keep land combat at a Corps Level we could come up with something I think for aircraft to support that.  Give aircraft the following ratings.

Range:
Air to Air rating: A value 1,2,3, etc to provide odds vs. other Aircraft.  Yes some type of Front / Theater level combat.
Air to Ground: I have scene different systems do things different ways, odds shift, bonus to die roll and add of combat factors.  I would lean towards adding combat factors.  EX: a 1930 tech level ground attack squadron adds +2 to the ratings total of allied units in a specific fight.  So you could end up with five 7-5 infantry divisions for a total of 60 attack and five squadrons of +2 ground attack to add another 10 for a total of 70 for the attacking force.
Air to Naval: I haven't looked at SeeKriegs Air system to be honest but hopeful could fit something in.
Strategic: A value 1,2,3, etc that you add up and roll on a chart.  This results in effects for targets industry between nothing, reduced cash production, reduced BP production, damaged IC  & BP and at the high end destroyed end IC & BP.  I would suggest that strategic bombing not be very efficient in terms of cost.  IE you will need a large investment of strategic bombers to achieve a given effect.  Of course avoiding having to send troops and being able to send attacks large distances is an advantage.

End ramble

[Kaiser Kirk]

I was thinking the fighter component, or fighter/scout, would determine the air level, and then the other aircraft would impart modifiers to the ground combat, somewhat as you are suggesting.

I am not up to speed on the current ground combat thread, but I presume concepts like initiative, information, disruption, mass, defense fortification level, etc. are in the works.  Terrain and weather would be huge factors of course.

Superior scouting helps seize init or avoid suprise, vector reinforcements, etc. Disruption via tactical harassment effects disruption and supply status, and would be effective against low fortification levels. Though we have to remember this is WWI, not II, there were mass uses of aircraft late WWI for tactical disruption, but we don't field anywhere near those numbers.

[Desertfox]

But do remember that the late-WWI battles were on a massive scale. While we don't have the same amount of aircraft, we will probably be seeing smaller battles, were tactical disruption by air could play a factor.

[miketr]

I have scene stuff like the following in corps level combat games.

You send all the aircraft you are going to along a specific front / area for an attack mission.  Defender has no clue what the aircraft are going to do in that front.  They could do tactical air support, strike the airfield, do a strategic bombing mission, or linger over the front to attempt to contest control of the skies; IE on the other persons turn aircraft are waiting for them to come up and attempt their own missions.  

The defender choose to send up aircraft or not to contest the skies. Total up all the air to air factors.  Consult an odds table and roll.  Figure out how many aircraft factors have been destroyed and the two sides then have to "kill" their own units to meet those losses.  Some times systems allow for one side or another to direct the others losses.  Or to direct them at a cost, IE if the defender did 10 Air to Air factors of damage and they REALLY want to kill something they can but then they only do 5 Air to Air factors but then the defender gets to select what he wants.  So the ground attack aircraft or the strategic bombers or strategic transports get wasted.

Most systems I have scene have no fog of war and supply rules are open ended with air power having little ability to effect supply status.

[miketr]

But do remember that the late-WWI battles were on a massive scale. While we don't have the same amount of aircraft, we will probably be seeing smaller battles, were tactical disruption by air could play a factor.

Again its a question of scale.  The western front had... what a few thousand aircraft with millions of ground troops / hundreds of divisions.  If you have say 500 aircraft and only two corps duking it out (IE 100,000 total) then the relative effect would be much bigger as you had more aircraft compared to ground troops and one would assume more air to ground combat power.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

I've seen some of the systems you describe. I was figuring more a two -tiered system. One simple fighter superiority. The degree that is achieved governs the attrition and max results of the rest.  That conditional order you describe could be "if we achieve lvl 2, do this".  Though I suppose some morale should work in.

As for supply and rear areas, I think leaving that to mod discretion might be best, or stick to descriptive guidelines as to what to expect. "Interdicted supply lines will, after frontline depots are drawn down, impose limits on artillery usage in subsequent months, and limit offensive effectiveness". 

One of the real problems is that you might destroy 10% of the supplies....but if the supply routes were only running 75% capacity, they can add more supplies. Add in night movements, terrain, etc, and interdiction has limits.

However while it can be overcome, that doesn't mean it's not adding friction and larger material and  manpower demands just to get a bullet to the front, which impairs the front lines.

[miketr]

Most games I have played haven't played a massive amount of attention to such issues as supply or again its very simple.  Most examples that come to the top of my mind were 18th / 19th century games Empires in Arms and War Between the States where you had to build chains of depots to support your forces.  There was one game I saw for the WW2 Eastern front was regiment level (had thousands of chits) and it fairly detailed rules for supply.

One game I saw dealt indirectly with supply in an interesting way.  World in Flames requires mech units, air and naval to have oil to be used or flipped back to active.  If you could smash oil production or the germans coal conversions plants you could force those units out of supply or at least force the player to make choices.  Again its more of a large scale then you are thinking of.

I would suggest that we just assume any attacks on supply lines (except for special cases like naval shipping or like cases) be just assumed as part of close air support missions.  You are attacking the enemy unit, blowing up the supply depot or a infantry battalion is the same either way.  KISS.

Michael

[Logi]

I don't know, you get much less from the latter than the former.

What are the odds you will hit alot of troops and put them out of action per plane? Its more likely you hit a supply depot and thereby put a whole bunch of enemy out of commission.

I feel supply has a larger effect on the enemy than direct attrition.

As for the games, I feel its because players are more interested in strategy than logistics.

[TexanCowboy]

I would actually apreiciate it if there was a way to sim combat between planes, and not use just the "generic" planes. Those of us who go out of their way to post the info on their aircraft should be reward, no? For example, those of us who developed seperate torpedo and bomber naval attack variants shouldn't be lumped together into the same "catagory". Perhaps a small research fee of $.05 per type of plan you want to research? You can use just the "generic" planes, but the planes that have been fleshed out are superior in actual combat?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Re Logi :  I think you've hit it on the head- Logistics are boring compared to battles.  Never mind that severing the foes logistics has frequently been an important goal.

Personally, I feel that in a strategic level game, where we do pay maintenance and Corps-level artillery supply, and the old RR text discussed how many corps could be supplied, and ports limit tonnage supplied....logistics should be carefully considered.

One can fling 10 corps somewhere far easier than one can send them food. Guarding those merchants shipping the supplies over calls for a merchant marine to carry it, small ships to scout and screen, and provides a critical raider target. 

Texan : I'm going to disagree with you there. My Wesworld experience says some folks have more aptitude, interest and time than others. Plus you wind up with raging arguments over if something is appropriate for the tech level.  I'd be far more inclined to have pilot quality and aircraft manufactories.

[miketr]

I don't know, you get much less from the latter than the former.

What are the odds you will hit alot of troops and put them out of action per plane? Its more likely you hit a supply depot and thereby put a whole bunch of enemy out of commission.

I feel supply has a larger effect on the enemy than direct attrition.

Again I would assume its all roled together.  Unit takes X damage and is there for X less effect.  If thats because of destroyed logistics / supply line does it really matter?

As to player interest very possible.  Logistics is a pure paper work exercise in many cases and while important in the real worl and to understanding real events people are more likely interested in conquest than pure administration stuff.

Michael

[Desertfox]

Texan : I'm going to disagree with you there. My Wesworld experience says some folks have more aptitude, interest and time than others. Plus you wind up with raging arguments over if something is appropriate for the tech level.  I'd be far more inclined to have pilot quality and aircraft manufactories.

I have to disagree with both of you. I don't think we should give bonuses, but I do think there has to be at least some more detail. Yes you have 200 single-engine planes, but what are they? Scouts? Trainers? Torpedo bombers? Fighters? Those 200 Fokker DVIIs might be great fighter but they'll do squat against the battleship sitting offshore. I do think that if you want airplanes, you have to go to the effort of at least stating what they are for.

[ctwaterman]

I dont want to see a detailed ariel combat system and Im a full blown Air Purest my first love has always been planes not ships  :o   In this case we are fighting wars on a Strategic Level [Macro] not the Micro Level... Rocky is correct over all a 1916 figher is a 1916 fighter.

As an Example the Empire of Italia has a force of about 1300 Aircraft.
400 of those Aircraft are single engine or twin engine aircraft of the 1910: Historic 1914 Aircraft tech level and they are all assigned to my Two Training Wings.

In addition the Empire 900 remaining front line combat aircraft are devided into Maritime Reconisance, Light Bomber/Recon, Scout/Fighers, and Long Range Heavy Bomber/Reconisance Squadrons.

Over all this amounts to about 30 to 40 Aircraft per Corp/Legion that the Empire deploys.  This would amount to a a good bonus to the reconisance and attack strength of any Corp/Legion but Dive Bombing hasnt come into existance yet so pin point bombing is very iffy.  ::) And just dropping bombs on trench lines while demorilizing for the defender is helpful but not critical.

So remember we are not going to be tracking individual plane losses just a % of your total force deployed that is destroyed. 

As a reminder I just took 40 Aircraft deployed them to Kolkata durring the Monsoon season and I learned a valuable lesson.  Wooden and Fabric Airplanes absoloutely do not like constant rain and heat... and that Mold and Fungus love to eat Canvas. ;)

[Kaiser Kirk]

1300? Hmm should watch my southern border closer... 8p

OK, Foxy has a bit of a point here. As we get further along there was specialization.
We can still be generic "1916" but 1916 what?

I can build these :
100 single-engine aircraft (fighter or bomber with historic loads)
  50 multi-engine aircraft (with historical bomb load)
  25 long-range bombers (with historical bomb load)

So far, I've built fighter/scouts, and I have 50 multi-engine seaplanes.  I've been retiring older planes faster than needed and building new ones...something like 900.

For me, torpedo or no torpedo isn't a question, with 1916 AC, single engine birds aren't ferrying torpedoes. The only thing with torpedoes are my dirigibles. However, 1918 planes loom.


So what are the categories of fighter or bomber?
Bomber, tactical
Bomber, torpedo
Bomber, "strategic"
Fighter
Recon
Trainer

Any others?
So buy 100 single engine ____ model 1918 planes. Fill in _____.