SPI's Air War Game and A/C's Defensive Maneuvers

[AndrewJ]

Ah, Air War! I still have my copy, on a shelf somewhere down in the basement. We played it from time to time from the mid 80s to the early 90s, and even managed to have some good fun with it too. I particularly remember "VIFfing" with the Harrier, struggling to keep high speed jets together on the table, and watching my friend 'depart controlled flight' as he overdid it with his turns and manoeuvres. It was not easy to come to grips with the enemy, particularly with early missiles and their limited engagement capabilities, and you could have several hours of play for a very brief indecisive engagement.

There's no question it was a complex and very slow-moving monster. It was really more of a paper computer than a game, attempting to track all the different variables of flight with a suite of charts and tables and counters. The advent of the personal computer and the flight sim made it obsolete, as they could do almost everything Air War wanted to do, but so much faster and easier.

I think it's been over 30 years or more since my last game of Air War, but I still pull it out from time to time to show people when they try to brag about a "complex" modern board-game.

[thewood1]

This is why I gave up on games like Air War and Flight Commander:

https://www.mobygames.com/game/4678/flight-commander-2/

The devs went on to develop Combat Mission.

There have been several attempts at turn-based air combat games. None were anywhere near as good as FC2.

[Tcao]

I am wondering if the reluctance to do a vertical evasion has anything to do with mission type (Patrol zone vs Strike /Air intercept mission)

Two missions
Both sides in the one ending with AAW are using AAW Patrol zone. The fight is restricted at two dimensions (probably caused by default attack altitude 36kft in these kind of mission)

the 2nd file has both side on an air intercept mission, you will see lots of dive and climb although sometime one or two A/C in the airgroup will stay at 36kft

[thewood1]

I think you might be on to something around patrol vs other missions. I regularly see see strike and intercept missions using altitude in evasion. But in patrols, it seems to depend on a lot of different factors, with some keeping the aircraft at the patrol mandated default altitude. I think some of the dependencies are around engagement geometry. I'm going to run a few tests on it over the next few days.

[Tcao]

Thanks

One more piece of information, I hope this can bring us closer to the root of cause.

A/C in patrol zone mission changing altitude in evasion if they are flying over the land

First file, the similar quick air battle with both sides is on patrol zone mission. But instead of North sea, this time the battle happens over Balkan

Second file, I revised Quark73's evasion mission of F-4 vs S-75, this time the engagement happens over land. And the F-4 dives.

[boogabooga]

It's a good find. I'm seeing this over-land vs over-water difference in behavior too, now that I know to look for it.

I wonder if it is WAD for some reason, like accounting for pilot spatial orientation considerations or something.

[Tcao]

It's a good find. I'm seeing this over-land vs over-water difference in behavior too, now that I know to look for it.

I wonder if it is WAD for some reason, like accounting for pilot spatial orientation considerations or something.

Sorry for late reply
No , I don't think it is a WAD. Otherwise we cannot explain why the A/C assigned with an air interception mission over the water can do a vertical evasion.

I would assume this is a programming error. The default Patrol Zone setting, keep altitude 36k ft above ground level overwrite the need to dive or climb. But if it is over-land, the change of elevation will confuse the programs' action which is to set the altitude at a fixed number, instead it will begin to carry out dive or climb defined by defensive maneuvers.

[thewood1]

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/air-combat-1

About halfway through this podcast. Excellent discussion by a Hornet backseater on board game representation of air combat. Lot of pertinent info around CMO and A2A missile combat.

btw, these guys did a review of CMNAO in 2018. They generally liked the concept but just didn't think they could play it. They seem to like more out-of-the-box fun and less simulation.

[thewood1]

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/355628-ai ... -launches/

Just started getting back into DCS a little just to how its progressed. I was watching AI aircraft in a couple tracks and noted some anomalies. I wasn't sure if it was the actual AI or weirdness in the track, which can happen with DCS. So I went to the cesspool that is the Eagle Dynamics forum. There are several threads like this one on the DCS forums. I just found this one more relevant and recent. DCS is struggling with AI responses to attacks and aircraft defensive maneuvering. Its been like this almost since the original Flaming Cliffs days. So even in a flight simulator dedicated to A2A combat, the struggle with AI is real.

I will say that the AI has gotten a LOT better in DCS. But aircraft performance is so detailed that ED is fighting a losing battle trying to nail defensive maneuvering in detail.

[sfbaytf]

wow this brings back memories. Spent many hours during my summer going through the instructions to the predecessor to Airwar-Foxbat and Phantom with my uncle and neither of us could figure out the game, it was certainly too advanced for me at the time. I did dream of the day and wondered if computer could someday simulate it...

Years later I got Airwar and the update that had rules to calculate the fall patter of bombs as the original Airwar iirc bombs hit in the same hex ans the plane dropping them...

I founds the ads for AW on some S&Ts I have saved...