Air Strike: Modern Air Combat for the Whole Family... Really!

Yes...really!

The BLUF: These are great, best $4.50 you'll ever spend!
Buy them [HERE]

The card-driven mechanics are not a mechanical simulation, so forget the variations of planes and hardware. BUT, they may be seen as a simulation of the balance Airmen make between:

- decisions within their control using the resources at hand, 

- fleeting opportunities seen as a risk worth taking, 

- and enemy activity that "gets a vote".

In that sense, they are actually closer to a simulation than a lot of other games that claim to be. Interestingly, this game does not.

If you need more convincing for your hard-earned cash, on to the more detailed review...

So I bought these rules b/c I was intrigued - and amused - at the "for the whole family" thing since I have a 10yo and my wife can occasionally be convinced to try a game with us. I was also thinking that I can always tweak it if the bones are good but it is half-baked [not the first time I've done that].

I got more confidence after watching the intro video to T. Jenson's "Missile Threat" which I found accidentally on another blog where they were using it for the Falklands. It clearly had some clean, straightforward mechanics that are a nice balance of abstraction and realism. So I was hopeful about "Air Strike..." and figured what the heck, it is only $4.50!

The card mechanics orient around the following limits:
- 4 card hand per plane, you must play two a turn.
- Number cards are movement, turns, and [with optional rule] cannon attacks; face cards are moves and missile attacks.
- you can defeat enemy attacks by playing a higher card [thus, if you are faced with many attacks, you may run out of cards, or high cards, and take hits].

- if you run out of cards, you lose your turn but draw extra cards next turn.
Aside from that, just a few nuances in play mechanics.

I set up a simple fight, two Russky Su-27 [red, left] v. two F-16s [blue, right]. I put out their card hands, which *seem to* favor the Reds, who have more high cards.


Blue Turn 1. They start by playing out some weak number cards hoping for better replacements. Or they're just obeying the ROE?

Red Turn 1. No worries about the ROE here! Reds advance [number cards] then fired a missile each [face cards - higher the card the greater the "threat level" of the attack, which I interpret as the quality of the lock-on]. The missiles move fast but fixed distances each turn when the firing plane activates [creats tension against the variable move opportunities of the aircraft - nice!].


Blue Turn 2. Hands are still a bit weak [no face cards for missile attacks - they can't get a lock-on...they must be getting jammed!] so they turn away, playing for time and preparing to evade missiles!

Red Turn 2. They have hot cards, and great lock-ons! They again fire missiles [Jack and Ace] as their previous missiles track and close in. cue menacing voice..."I have you now, imperialist running dog!"


Blue Turn 3. BUT! USAF training kicks in, and both planes dodge at point-blank range, running past and along side the incoming missiles, finishing far to their left to get out of the missile tracking arcs. I marked the missiles tracking Blue 1 red and those tracking Blue 2 [wingman] green.

Above, both Red missiles lose Blue 1 [he passed their tracking area, so they turn towards him and lose their lock]...

...and are removed.
Red Turn 3. Red 1 turns and advances, but can't fire a missile or use his cannon. He used the 8 for the turn and the 5 for distance, not wanting to get too close and perhaps be attacked in return.

Red 2 starts his turn, both his missiles track but the foremost missile loses the target...

...which is behind the tracking arc...

...so is removed. The second missile has closed in, however!

Red 2 then moves, using two number cards to turn then move 2" forward. I'm leery about getting too close...this may or may not be a wise tactic, hard to tell at this point.


Blue Turn 4. Blue 1 turns and moves a little. Blue 2 just moves a bit. Basically, they just didn't have the cards to lock-on and attack with missiles, so they took some short moves and ditched low cards looking to improve their options, i.e. their hands of cards.

Red Turn 4. Red 1 advances 3", locks-on with an Ace and fires a missile - Blue 1 can't defeat it with a higher card so it hits!

Damage in Air Strike is pretty simple - take two hits and you're shot down. There's a rule for matching missile hits by threat level, but I ditched it as a bit odd and complicated. One of the few rules that made no sense to me.

Red 2 turns and plays an Ace lock-on also! Missile fires off and can't be defeated, so Blue 1 is down! Bottom of his class at Top Gun?


Blue Turn 5. Blue 2 is out for revenge - and he has the cards! Unfortunately, he is just a hair out of 8" and missile range, so he'll have to turn and close in for a real melee!

He plays 4 to turn and 10 for distance, and is all over Red 2.

Red Turn 5. Red 1 has weak cards so just turns around tight as possible. Red 2 turns with a '5', locks-on with a King and launches. But Blue 2 is too slick - he dodges with an Ace! would've liked that card for a missile lock but...outnumbered and no Hits on either Russkie means he has to bide his time...


Blue Turn 6. Blue 2 brakes hard right, locks-on with a King, launches and can't be beat [Red 2 has no Ace to beat the King lock-on, so can't even play his King]. A hit is scored - first blood!

Red Turn 6. Red 1 floors it past Blue 2. 

Red 2 fires his cannon at a 9, but Blue 2 evades playing a Queen. Red 2 then passes Blue 2 and Red 1.


Blue Turn 7. Blue 1 hard turns and is on both Red tails!

Red Turn 7. Red 1 blasts forward out of dodge and then hard turns left.

Red 2 then gets past Red 1 and also turns hard left. My thinking is that they don't want to be too close, and they don't want Blue 2 on their tail.  It's my first game, I'm uncertain what's best...


Blue Turn 8. A short advance against Red 1 and a 6 cannon attack is defeated by Red 1 playing a King and evading the hail of shells.

Red Turn 8. Red 1 turns hard left, fires a 6 cannon which is defeated by Blue 2's 7 evade. you can feel the micro-seconds ticking along between the actions and interactions of this dogfight!

Red 2 then turns, locks on with an Ace and fires a missile.

Blue 9. Blue 2 locks-on with a Jack and fires, to finish off Red 2! After all, he can't have a second Ace up his sleeve, can he?? He then full thrusts with a 10 and cuts within the Red missile's tracking capabilities evading it...but it was very very close!

Red 9. Red 1 is short of cards, and plays a low move card. Red 2 turns hard right...

...but has nothing to avoid being struck by the missile as he can't get out of its tracking arc or defeat it with a Queen or better.

So on Blue Turn 9, it's "Buh-bye Red 2!" Blue 2 then turns hard left.


Red Turn 9 sees Red 1 go for some distance, using a Jack for 10" of forward burn.

Distance has lengthened out of either missile or cannon range. Blue has two face cards but Red has one Ace! Shhh, don't tell...


Blue Turn 10. He turns hard left and locks-on with his Queen and launches.

Red 10. With no fear, he hard turns with two cards for 180.

Blue Turn 11. The Queen lock-on is defeated by the Ace Red 1 had up his sleeve!

Blue then moves up and locks-on with his Jack, getting a hit 

[Red has zero cards at this point, anyway, so something to be said for pacing yourself and/or pushing your opponent to go all-out to defend himself, spending cards in the process].

Red 11. Fate has turned against him - he draws 3 cards and should lose his turn as he had no cards left to play [clearly, he was regaining his senses or lost sight of Blue]. However, I forgot this and Red moved 2 and fired his cannon for a 6, best card he had. This is defeated by Blue's 10 easily.


Blue Turn 12. Blue turns with his 2 and...

...has Red in his sights. however, I think I erred in drawing two cards first - I was interrupted by the family at some point and this may have been it.

In any event, whether I skipped a turn with the pics, or not...

...Blue has a 7 which smokes Red since he can't beat the card with a higher card - his 7 is only equal.

Dosvedanya Comeraden!

Whew, that was a pretty intense little dogfight. Between paging thru the rules, playing both sides and figuring out what to try and do [plus an interruption or two], I am spent!

This is one of the most interesting games I've run into in a long time. The card mechanics aren't complicated, but it isn't easy figuring out how best to plan your actions when you don't know what cards the other guy has up his sleeve! It's amazing how much you get used to that "I know what's happening" vibe with miniatures [I realize lots of other games have concealed possibilities].  A lot depends on how your opponent reacts and what cards he has, so the game is much less predictable than a typical miniatures game - this captures the wild, fast-moving possibilities of air-air combat, or air-ship-ground combat, for that matter!

Interestingly, the card mechanics evade the limits of the fixed-time turn. The fixed-time turn is where each turn represents a fixed interval with speed limits, firing limits, reaction limits, built around the time the turn represents.

Interestingly, in fast-moving or intense periods of human activity, training and reaction times are so disparate that a fixed time turn just doesn't work. It often necessitate a mechanic to try and splice it into reactive sub-phases or partial turns where players may react and change their plotted orders. This feels more realistic and gives tempo to reactions in a game about fast-moving gear, e.g. Star Fleet Battles [32 sub-phases?] or Car Wars [10 sub phases? can't remember].

Here, the turn is best perceived as of flexible length, and based upon reaction times of pilots which of course are not identical. For example, if both players play low cards, then the turn may be seen as shorter with more intense activity, e.g. attacks or maneuvers. If both players have higher cards, then the turn may be seen as longer, with more movement and fewer opportunities for actions. When players play a mix of cards, there's an increasing variable between movement and activity.

Ergo, the cards should be seen as representing opportunities for decision points to change position relative to other fighters; low cards can represent a quick decision to act [turn or shoot], while high cards are useful to push the speed up and either close in or get away.

The interaction and availability of various decision points and opportunities [cards] and how the player uses them determines who wins the game.

Critical point: the cards played for movement do NOT represent speed / velocity! They represent the interval of movement between opportunities for OTHER types of activity, e.g. lock-on and launch a missile, shoot a cannon, maneuver / turn.

Interestingly, I found high cards less useful at times when I wanted to dogfight - you want the low cards to stay close, turn tight, etc, then lock-on with a missile or fire off the cannon.

Altho missiles can be evaded at longer ranges [easier reaction for the target] close in they are better than cannon fire since they have a wider arc of fire [180 front v. straight ahead, this may be way off...perhaps it should be a 90 arc].

Only thing I don't like is that you can decline to move at all, just rotate on the spot up to 180 - this would take two cards and your whole move, so perhaps is not entirely misplaced [representing an Immelman or other extreme maneuver?].  Still, it can be done over and over with no chance of failure and no repercussions.

It may be that the scale allows the plane counter itself to be the size of the tightest turn possible...but I still don't like it since it gives the planes a turret sort of feel. Also, the forward momentum of the planes creates tension with the maneuvers and prevents the players from twirling around in place and just shooting...like a turret! Perhaps a tweak needed here.

Overall, I think this game is amazing - I would never have thought of these mechanics, and I wonder if the designer stumbled upon the concept or stole it from someone else [how many original mechanics are there in this hobby, anyway??]. Whatever, in 37 years of wargaming, I haven't seen it before. 

The game has some obvious limits - there is no difference in plane capabilities or in weapon capabilities. Neither pilot is better trained than the other. The technical aspect of the gear has been completely set aside in favor of the player choices and the cards that fate brings. This gives the game a fast, risky feel that is great.

Playing two on two and both sides, I feel like I saw a lot of action and yet am just scratching the surface of a brilliant little game. I can hardly wait to try it with some pals or my family, even!

WWI Torpedo Boat Tactics

This attack may look somewhat crazy...

...but it was successful! [link]

[Sorry for hiatus of several months! Have been pursuing Franco-Prussian War and a few other things, plus real life keeps getting in the way! But, have a couple of quick, interesting posts to make...]

Here are some great posts on WWI DD Tactics and Torpedo Runs, etc. Altho it may be between your interests, say Pre-Dreadnoughts and WWII, it should inform both discussions to some degree. After all, if they are having difficulty in WWI, they must be having more difficulties in 1898 or earlier, right?

Anyway, the info is from this TMP Post: 
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=443552

I haven't found any good reference material for DD tactics in the first World War. Would they have attacked as a group? If so, would they have launched a massive number of torpedoes against a single ship or cluster of ships? If one out of five takes a rudder critical, or a bridge critical, would it just drop out and the remainder of the flotilla continue moving together?

Yellow Admiral: They did attack in swarms, by flotilla or half-flotilla. I don't think they had sufficient inter-ship C3 to concentrate torpedoes on a single ship in a line, but could almost certainly concentrate on a single ship alone (e.g. Warspite circling helplessly between battlelines…).

German and British DD captains certainly seemed to have the élan to press home attacks at great odds (not so sure about other navies), but real-life DDs tended to abort and retreat more often than gamers do. In WWI naval games, DD complements are frequently wiped out or reduced to paltry numbers, whereas in real life they tended to suffer some losses and then limp home. The morale rules in GQ3/FAI help defuse the suicidal devotion demanded by gamer admirals quite a bit, if the GM and/or players are paying attention.

There is this RN paper expressing an opinion on how DD should perform a torpedo attack
>>>It is therefore necessary, at long ranges, to take the whole of an enemy's line as the target, and, since the centre of spread should be near the point of aim, it is desirable to fire at the centre of the line. The spread of the torpedoes if a number are fired, may then be expected to cover a considerable area, and, provided the enemy are within range and maintain the same course and speed during the time of flight, not only the centre ship, but a part of the line on either side of the centre will be in danger, the length of line endangered depending on the actual spread of the torpedoes. Moreover, even if the enemy alters course after they are fired, he will probably not be able to keep entirely clear of the dangerous area unless he turns at least eight points, or, if at a range near to the extreme running range of the torpedoes, turns to such less extent as will admit of his ships outranging them. Nothing less than an eight point turn is likely to keep the whole line clear of their angular spread, but a smaller turn may suffice to take the line outside their range before the torpedoes can reach it.>>>>
gwpda.org/naval/nr191402.htm

+1 re Buckeye Bob's post. I have employed just such a minor (20-30deg?) turn away in war games to counter over-enthusiastic torpedo attacks launched at too distant a range. It's simple geometry and works as well on the table top as it did on the North Sea.

My books are still not fully unpacked, so can't cite chapter and verse, but my recollection of readings on WW1 DD tactics is as follows -

In tactical actions, the functions of the destroyers were two-fold: (a) to defend against any enemy torpedo attacks upon the battle line; (b) to attack the the enemy battle line should the opportunity present itself. Whereas the most dangerous torpedo attacks would originate from forward of the head of the battle line, friendly destroyer flotillas were typically positioned well ahead of the battle line on the disengaged side where their smoke would not interfere with gunnery; a certain proportion of destroyers (if available) would positioned at the rear of the battle line to provide protection in case of a course reversal by the battle line.

In a flotilla vs flotilla gunnery fight, British doctrine was to attack in line ahead and concentrate the gunfire by division upon a single enemy destroyer (preferably an opposing division leader) at an effective/decisive range within 3,000 yards or so in hope of quickly crippling it and disrupting the enemy division. The track chart of the destroyer action between Hipper's and Beatty's battle cruiser forces during the "Run to the South" will give an excellent nuts and bolts example.

Torpedo attacks against individual ship targets during daylight (for example, the torpedo attack made upon SEYDLITZ at Jutland) were very much the exception, rarely being undertaken unless said enemy ship was an isolated cripple. Torpedo attacks were intended to be delivered against the enemy battle line by a destroyer flotilla, whose respective divisions would successively launch their torpedoes en masse in a "browning" attack designed to fill with torpedoes a particular zone of ocean through which the enemy formation was projected to pass through. Hit expectations were based upon the relationship of number of torpedoes fired versus the number of enemy ships within the zone and the interval between them. 

British doctrine recommended that such attacks not close nearer than 5,000 yards, as any improvement in the odds of hitting was felt to be greatly outweighed by the increased risk of loss/damage from defensive fire.

The recommended approach to such an attack was from ahead and to windward on a reciprocal course to that of the enemy line, with launch point about 4 to 6 point off the enemy bow; this promised the maximum closure rate between attacker and defender, the shortest practical torpedo running time, the best net angle of attack for the torpedo vis-a-vis enemy base course, restricted the number of secondary guns and the length of time that they could be brought to bear upon the attacker, limited the evasive options open to the targeted line and provided the attacker an opportunity to rapidly disengage under cover of smoke. Simultaneous attacks upon both enemy bows ("anvil" attack) was extremely advantageous, but highly difficult to coordinate and carry out. Attacks from abaft the enemy's beam were highly discouraged, as they largely negated all the afore-mentioned advantages cited in connection with attack from ahead.

The number of torpedoes fired by each destroyer in such an attack depended upon the number of tubes that would bear and the number of torpedoes with the correct range/speed setting. WW1 era torpedo gyros were unreliable and imprecise; torpedo mounts were therefore typically trained over the side (broadly speaking – C/L mounts @ +/- 30deg of abeam on each side; Beam mounts @ +/- 60deg on that side) and fired only when the sight on the torpedo mount or director came onto the nominated target (say, the fourth ship in the enemy battle line). Torpedoes of WW1 were capable of multiple range/speed settings; generally and approximately speaking: 4,000 yds @ 45 kts; 10,000 yds @ 30 kts; 15,000+ yds @ 18-20 kts. However (IIRC) 

British destroyer torpedo settings had to be performed prior to being loaded into their deck mount tubes; settings could not be altered on the fly. Hence, to cover all tactical eventualities, a destroyer might carry two set for medium range, one for short range and one for extended range. Only torpedoes of the same setting could be effectively used in a given attack.

The results of such torpedo attacks in terms of actual hits upon the enemy were dramatically lower than pre-war predictions had suggested. There were several reasons for this. 
*First, the threat of mass torpedo attack was (quite rightly IMO) taken extremely seriously by all navies; even the appearance of an impending attack might well provoke evasive maneuver by the battle line. 
*Second, the technical performance of torpedoes (direction keeping, depth keeping, speed, charge fuzes) under actual war conditions proved considerably less efficient than theoretical pre-war assumptions. British 1916 estimates were that, for one reason or another, only about half of torpedoes launched actually arrived within the target's danger zone. 

That having been said, even an attack that scored zero hits might still yield benefit if it provoked the opponent to turn away at an important tactical moment. The multiple flotilla torpedo attack ordered by Scheer against the British battle line at Jutland scored no hits whatsoever but disordered the British as various ships were forced to evade oncoming torpedoes and compelled Jellicoe to turn his line away and, in the course of doing so, lose sight of Scheer's battle line at a vital moment.

Lots of typing here, LOL. Hope it proves of some interest and use.

Blutarski

**************************************************************

The only bit of Blutarski's post I'd differ from is this bit:

In tactical actions, the functions of the destroyers were two-fold: (a) to defend against any enemy torpedo attacks upon the battle line; (b) to attack the the enemy battle line should the opportunity present itself.

My impression is that this describes the British destroyer mission priorities, whereas the German priority was b/ over a/, which is supported to an extent by design differences observable between the two navies' ships (size, weapon type, etc). That said, this could be a gamer's over-simplification that I'm remembering.

Sailor Steve: I do remember reading somewhere, it may have been John Campbell's 'Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting':  The Germans tended to go in line abreast, then do a group turn and all six fire one torpedo each, then turn again and run away line abreast. The British habit was to go in line astern. The lead boat would turn and fire, then the second, third etc.

The source I read noted that the Germans thought the British tactics were suicidal, whereas their own were much better.

Pre-dreadnought Project, p.5: 1:3000 Assembly, cleaning

1:1 Ship model - farther along than mine, but it took ten years or so...

Nice image from this great post at video game forum: [CLICK]

Whew! First post since November, 2018. Things have been super-busy but 2019 is hopefully going to be a lot calmer with only a couple of major projects with the family and a lighter work schedule, overall. TY2020 is scheduled to be VERY light so the 1:1 Army will not be too bad, and I just have to await what God does with pastoral work to see how busy I will be or not be. Hopefully, there'll be lots of time connecting with my immediate family and spending time with my almost 10yo who is getting very very active! In any event, this project was from late spring / early summer of 2018, and I hope to get these painted up and experiment with masts, fighting tops and a little rigging.

The Italian squadron, below. I've doubled down on Italia and Lepanto on the fictional assumption that Italy had the desire and resources to produce additional ships. Next to them are the plastic fighting tops. Overall, smaller is better for these, and if one has to err in a certain direction, get the smaller ones instead of the larger ones.

As noted before, these lovely little white metal ships are from Wartime Journal's now extinct metal line of 1/3000 ships. As they are totally gone, there's no point in a review. However, it should give you an idea of the kind of work done there and more confidence in the line of 3D plastics that are rapidly being produced [and which continue to be a sore tempation for me!].

My wargame tendancy for 1/3000 is to have squadron battles using variations of Portable Wargame rules, so groups of 3-4 ships are most suitable. I can also pair them into small "squadrons" of two ships each for games where extra players show up. The balance of captain business - allocating resources of crew, steam, and navigation - is what I find players to be most interested in, so 2-4 ships is just fine. Also, fighting squadrons per player instead of just a ship or two gives some space for lucky shots and accidental blowups.


Another view. Casting was excellent, but there's a bit of flash spiraling off the area where I supposed the metal is injected into the mold. Note that the plastics don't have any flash.


1/3000 ships are available from several sources, so altho I don't have any intent to add to this project at this time, the possibility is always there. Top view shows the interesting layout of the Italian ships. Altho the guns are supposed to be able to fire nearly 180 degrees, in practice the muzzle blast made this very difficult, so I'd probably restrict the ship to a much smaller angle, say 120 or something, just to differentiate in a rule set.


Flash removal was performed with a sharp X-acto blade, bracing the ship against a wooden ruler. Despite the cutting, there was still a bit left upon the stacks that had to be smoothed with a file. Still, this was just a few minutes of work per ship.


This "q-tip" appearing thingamabob is actually a bit of soft-sanding material on a plastic blue stick. I used it to gently rub off the mold lines and such. For some of the ships, they actually had a deck line halfway down the hull, so it may not be a flash line at all.


The four Big Ships, 2 x Italian class, 2 x Lepanto class [really, the same class, same designer, Benedetto Brin]. These are larger and easier to clean up.


The four smaller ships. Calabria PC [CLICK], cruiser Dogali [CLICK], 2 x Etna-class Protected Cruiser [CLICK]. The selection was based upon availability from WTJ. However, all four of these ships were similarly armed and could easily be a squadron with identical stats, or differentiated for more individualized play in a game. 

The nice thing about the pre-dreadnought era is that so many ships were singular, even eccentric and quirky in their design and even maintenance, that any amount of individuality can be argued as historically accurate! Let's here it for creativity and imagination: "huzzah!"

Some interesting model comparisons from the Italians to the Spanish Squadron, BELOW. 

The three Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi Armored Cruisers are only a minor stretch of history. The Italians built ten which went to four countries [CLICK]. The Cristobal Colon was delivered to Spain [CLICK] but Pedro de Aragon was cancelled, and certainly one or two could've been acquired or loaned from Argentina during the occasional Spanish naval panics of the 1890s. The Pelayo [tilted on the file] is an early pre-dread BB design [CLICK]. It's a French design with some tumblehome, and the most powerful ship in the Spanish navy; some argue that had she and Armored Cruiser Carlos V entered action during the Spanish-American war the history might be different [insert grain of salt here].

Some flash sticking out of the ends or various deck projections of the ships. Easy removal.

Below, torpedo-boats, destroyers, who can tell? Tiny ships that can be a pain to work with but useful on the tabl. They can also be fought as squadrons or individuals on the table, depending on player numbers, so these little guys add a lot of flexibility to a host's game. All you need is two sets of player aids on hand. 

Here, they are being gently scrubbed down with a soft toothbrush and mild dish soap, removing any release agent from the ship. Note that these have no mold, flash or other bits to be removed.

Note that these really need to be mounted on something for ease of handling, not to mention speed of painting!

Drake - Class cruisers below [CLICK]. From about 1902, they are really at the tail end of the project, but provide a glimpse of the future. Their 23-knot speed and 9" and 6" guns offer some variety in tactical play that will presage WWI choices. For gaming, a bit of variety in speed, gunnery and armor provides players with different challenges on the table. I see these operating similarly to the WWI British and German battlecruisers in my earlier fictitious Mediterranean naval flare-up!

Flash was not too bad, similar to that of the Italian BBs, and the mold lines actually appear to be almost natural. Big pic from Wiki shows a bit of shadowing there. Can't remember if I sanded them down at this point or not, but you get the idea. Internet pics are definitely our friend when it comes to working on these little guys.

Well, there you have it - a long wait for this post to go up, I think the pics are from June 2018. Just putting up the post makes me want to get moving again on this project. The question is who should fight whom first? Italians v. French for ownership of Sardegna? Spanish v. Italians over the Baleric Islans? Hard to say, but stay tuned!