Will there be airpower be included...

[yabba]

In any of the posts so far,there has not been any mention of airpower on either side. Has this important item been left out? This would included Helo's,fixed wing as well as carrier aircraft. NATO, did have access to the fleet that was stationed in the Med. Just an important piece of information, that seems to have not been covered as of yet.

[PJJ]

Considering the massive impact of aircraft on modern warfare, I'd be really surprised if the air forces weren't in the game. WW2 fighters and bombers may be powerful, but they are nothing compared to modern ground attack fighters and other planetypes.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Airpower is included and may have crucial role in the gameplay. You have A-10 tankkillers as US, Su-24, Su-25 as Soviets, various helicopters for both sides...

O.

[yabba]

How about the fixed wing aircraft in both (NATO, Warsaw Pact) inventories? Such as F-4's, F-104's,F-15's,F-111's...Mig 21's,Mig 23's,Tu-144's. May be it is me, but am I asking for too much from this game? I was looking at the entire European Theater of Operations. This would include every thing on hand when hostiles started. Not just a bunch of tanks and ground units.

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

You are probably asking to much of the game....

There are an assortment of air units currently in the game, which I will get a list when I get back to my home, but they are basically used for killing things on the ground. There is a basic assumption that they have penetrated the opposing forces air cover to get to the target.

Currently there are no B-52s or Backfires in the game. Most of the air units are the tactical ground attack fighters.

The modeling of the air units is more generic also. The system does not keep track of how many rounds are left in the A-10's cannon or mavericks on its rails. I will post some of the rules about air power later that will really highlight how air power is modeled.

Ron

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

Here is the current list of jets within the game....

US
A10, F111, F15, F16, F4E

British
Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado

FRG
F4E, Alpha, Tornado

Soviet
Mig23, Su17, Su24, Su25

As I mentioned earlier the air aspect of the game is a bit abstract in that the game doesn't track all the different weapons that a plane necessarily carriers. See screen shot of unit inspector of the A10. It has "8 bombs" which is more a of represenation of the firepower of the jet. I have also posted a shot of the f16.

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

The F16

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

And a screen capture of the a part of the rules discussing air power.

[yabba]

Thank you for your hard work. You did answer all of my questions... I shall look forward to battle with you in the future. Us of the Warsaw Pact, do know how to take of care of capitalist dogs like you...

[Greyshaft]

Airpower is not considered a maneauvre element in FPG. If you want to order an airstrike then you pick your target hex, allocate your air assets and then hope any local enemy SAMs roll low dice that day. Given the scale of the game you never actually get to see the aircraft appear on the map.
They came. They saw. They annihilated.
Call them again in an hour after they have refuelled and they'll do it again.

Helicopters are a different category. They are a maneauvre element to which you can give orders... wait behind that hill for ten minutes then come in from the east while our M1 wave hits them from the west

[Dunedain]

Catgh: I don't understand how the "Protection Rating" for an A-10 Thunderbolt can be only 8 on a scale of
0-15 for the aircraft included in the game, and also be rated only 1 higher than an F-16. The A-10 is vastly
tougher than an F-16, or any other fighter. The A-10 is famed for it's brutally tough armored construction,
multiple redundant systems and ability to take enormous damage and still stay in the air (and which was
proven in combat in Kuwait and Iraq in the first Gulf War). It's the closest thing there is to a flying tank.

How in the world could the A-10 be rated in FlashPoint Germany only 1 more in the "Protection Rating" than a
relatively delicate aircraft like the F-16? If anything, the A-10 should be at or near the highest protection
rating of any aircraft in the game.

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

Dunedain,

First apologizes for the slow response.

You bring up a good point about the A10 v F16. I will pass your comments off to Robert for his consideration. FPG is basically a remake of an older computer game called Main Battle Tank. Most of the values probably are a carry over from that system. If you are wondering about MBT, it came on a single floppy with a laminented map with grease pins so you can track your units.

I agree with you that the A-10 is a more rugged aircraft, but a potential arguement could be made that the F16 would have operated in a more stand-off roll while the A10 would still be in the thick of things. The A10 would still bring it's crew home, but probably would have been operational "killed" after a few flights thru the smaller arms fire that an F16 would avoid.

[Dunedain]

Catgh: While it is true that the F-16 would tend to attack from greater altitude and thus
not be in as much danger from light AA fire and such, this also means that some of the heavier
AA guns and also SAM's will have an easier time spotting the F-16 and getting shots off at it.
Whereas the A-10 flies at incredibly low altitudes, using any and all tree lines, hills, ravines, etc.
for terrain masking, making it a very tricky target to spot and acquire with weapons in the first place.

And it's so heavily armored and strongly constructed that small arms fire is highly unlikely to
do any significant damage. It's designed to routinely defeat light stuff like that.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Dunedain

Catgh: While it is true that the F-16 would tend to attack from greater altitude and thus
not be in as much danger from light AA fire and such, this also means that some of the heavier
AA guns and also SAM's will have an easier time spotting the F-16 and getting shots off at it.
Whereas the A-10 flies at incredibly low altitudes, using any and all tree lines, hills, ravines, etc.
for terrain masking, making it a very tricky target to spot and acquire with weapons in the first place.

And it's so heavily armored and strongly constructed that small arms fire is highly unlikely to
do any significant damage. It's designed to routinely defeat light stuff like that.

That´s true , anything below 20mm is only making wierd sounds on the hull [;)]. IIRC the A-10 is designed to withstand ZSU-23 Shilka bursts with "ease".

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

Like I said "potential arguement". Anyhow I will pass off the A10 v F16 comments off to Robert.

Ron

[Dunedain]

Catgh: Have you heard back from Robert on this issue yet?

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

Other than he will take it under consideration, NO; but I know he has been focusing on getting some other issues taken care of first. I think the other issues are handled and will poke him about it again. [:D]

If I get some time I will compile the ratings of all the air units for further discussion.

[Catgh_MatrixForum]

As promised. Here are the protection values for all the air (with wings) platforms in the game. As you can see the A10 has the highest rating.

A-10 --- 8
F-111 --- 6
F-15 --- 7
F-16 --- 7
F4E --- 6

Alpha --- 5
Harrier --- 6
Jaguar --- 6
Tornado --- 6

Mig 23/27 --- 5
SU17 --- 6
SU 24 --- 6
SU 25 --- 7

[IronManBeta]

ORIGINAL: Catgh

As promised. Here are the protection values for all the air (with wings) platforms in the game. As you can see the A10 has the highest rating.

A-10 --- 8
F-111 --- 6
F-15 --- 7
F-16 --- 7
F4E --- 6

Alpha --- 5
Harrier --- 6
Jaguar --- 6
Tornado --- 6

Mig 23/27 --- 5
SU17 --- 6
SU 24 --- 6
SU 25 --- 7

In the 'better late than never' department, I am tuning in at last to this discussion. Dunedain makes a very apt point and I must say that I agonized over these ratings a fair bit at the time. If the general consensus is that they turned out to be wrong then hey, they are easy to change down the line. I would like to try with these first though.

The purpose of this Protection rating is to see if the aircraft gets brought down on the approach run or not. There is, as you note, the intrinsic toughness and survivability of the airframe itself to consider. Without a doubt the A-10 Thunderbolt rates extremely highly in this regard. More generally, I consider the NATO aircraft to be somewhat more rugged then their WP counterparts (even though the stereotype seems to be the opposite) because they are simply better made and maintained. Even a cursory bit of research will show that these machines are fiendishly complicated devices and incredibly hard to keep in 100% working order. My assumption is that pretty quickly a lot of the WP inventory will be flying with multiple systems not at 100% and this will really impact their survivability over the forward edge of battle area. Remember that the premise of the game is that it is an extremely short war. It is all over in a week or so and winning is the only option. Maintenance corners can and will be cut!

Apart from from the actual physical protection value of the airframe itself is the 'virtual' protection afforded by a small silhouette and quick and agile handling. A fragile plane that is very hard to hit has a high 'protection' rating too in this game. The WP aircraft are generally built smaller and lighter for just this reason. While this is necessarily somewhat subjective, I tried to factor this consideration in too.

Finally, apart from the actual and virtual protection values of the airframe there is the psychological profile of the pilot to consider. Put a competent pilot in a flimsy aircraft (Su-17, Alpha jet) and he will become extremely risk averse. NATO pilots have it pounded into them that priority #1 is to stay alive, #2 is to bring back the airplane, and #3 is to complete the mission. If the aircraft has a low chance of survival then the pilot will concentrate fully on staying alive and not look for trouble. Odds are this will improve his survival rate although it will degrade his mission effectiveness in terms of pasting enemy ground units. Conversely, if he thinks he is invulnerable he will willingly accept a much higher risk profile and go looking for trouble (hello, A-10s!). He will fly a little lower and slower and spend more time looking for targets and less time looking for air defense threats. This is rational - he is giving up part of his margin of safety to aquire enhanced sortie effectiveness. In the case of the Thunderbolt this caused me to lower the protection rating a bit but to also bump up the 'bombs' capacity correspondingly. This 'willingness to accept risk to get results' concept is factored into the overall ratings for the other planes too.

Is it perfect? I would be the first to admit it is an approximation only, but that is how I have done it and I look forward to seeing everyone give it a go. We can change it around in version 1.1 if need be - that is part of the joy of working with Matrix Games on a title like this. What I would like you to know is that I did not just pull these values out of a hat but researched it and gave it a little creative thought too.

Cheers all, Rob.

[Blackhorse]

Robert,

Thanks for the cogent explanation of the air ratings. The '8' rating for the A-10 still seems low; maybe its the 1-15 scale. What's a 15? An M1 Abrams with wings? The Empire's Death Star? Also, if the A-10s 'protection' rating is lowered because the pilot is willing to loiter lower/ closer / longer, shouldn't the accuracy be increased? (From the screen shots, it looks like both the A-10 and the F-16 have an accuracy of '5'.)

I'm surprised to see the Aardvark (F-111) included. IIRC, the F-111s were trained/ slotted for deep strike missions (nuclear and non-nuclear) far behind the Pact lines. It is of course possible that they - or B-52s for that matter - could be thrown into front-line tactical support if the situation was desperate, but they were not intended or expected to be used in that role.