Through the wonders of VASSAL I've been testing various configurations of airborne Inquisitorial force (which has always been one of the main foci of the list). I've been playing around with fighters and one of the big problems I've been having is that I keep putting my fighters on CAP to intercept enemy interceptors and of course they are avoided by the fact that you can't CAP an intercept move. While this is entirely due to my own moronic stupidity (I now have a sticky note on my monitor that says "CAP - DON'T DO IT!") and the canniness of my opponents, air combat boils down to me sending out "sacrifical" bombers to try and draw out the interceptors before sending in my own fighters to shoot them down.

So I wanted to know, what Bomber Escort rules are out there? Are they as simple as "you can intercept an intercept" and attempting to not go insane working out the AA order, or has anyone come up with any more subtle systems? How often are they used? How much of an impact do these have on list balance?

Yep, you can intercept an interceptor. Not that difficult and been using it for years.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Heh, truth be told I played like that for years too until someone pointed out that intercepts didn't work on intercepts in the rulebook. Do you place a limit on the number of CAPs that can be triggered this way? We've had some crazy situations where one bombing run triggered three or four CAPs, turning the battlefield into an insane (but really rather cool) mess of dogfighting planes...

I believe there was a thread discussing allowing CAP to intercept other fighters on CAP.It does appear that things would get messy pretty quick and would there be a limit on the number of CAP formations allowed to CAP each other.

As it stands CAP can only be used to intercept formations performing   a ground attack of some kind so no CAP on CAP dogfights (as it stands).
However with the Intercept activation fighters (in their own activation) could intercept after fighters that had come on the board performing CAP but not in time to "bounce" the formation.

Why not give it a try and report back with any news.

One alternative suggested in the Elysian thread was to make a single formation up form both the Bomber and its close escort.

I really like the concept because it allows the escort to be used as a shield against ground AA, while being virtually useless against Fighters on CAP (because the escort is placed first and can be avoided by the enemy fighters). From what little I know of aerial combat, this is absolutely correct - so you have the 'Escort' performing a form of wild-weasel against ground targets, but being outmanoeuvered by enemy fighters attacking the formation.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If this was true, then I would hate to be a pilot.:

- we need you to escourt the bomber
- excellent! take out the enemy as they come in...
- eeer. no actually. we just need you there to take the hits
- in the air?
- correct
- But my plane can only take 1 hit and then it explodes!

      *silence*

- why can't I take out the craft coming in?
- it's not in the rules, sorry
- I won't do it!

      *calls for the commissar are heard...*

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

If you read up on WWII German aerial tactics, to improve efficiency and reduce bomber losses, the Luftwaffe leadership insisted that the fighter cover fly 'close escort' with the bombers, at the same speed as the bombers (against the wishes of the aircrew themselves, who wanted the escort fighters to be allowed to roam more freely from the bombers). The result was exactly as you portrayed, and ultimately led to one of the quotes of WWII;

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I've a feeling that we've stumbled across someone who is an expert in the field here lads!

While I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the historical accuracy - and I make no bones about my knowledge of these things being from old war movies and from reading Biggles as a child   - nevertheless, the fighters would at least in principle be able to engage the enemy, although I'm well aware that the attackers should have "the drop" (literally) on them.

So allowing interceptors to be intercepted via CAP is the simplest, perhaps we can have some better rules...

How about the following for some ideas, both are based around the idea that the bombers and escorts activate at the same time. Option 1 forms bombers and fighters together as a single, large, wing, while Option 2 is more akin to a second layer of CAP. So feel free to shoot my ideas down!  

Squadrons of fighters may form up as escorts for bombers (producing a combined formation known as a wing). Declare that they are flying escort before activating the bombers. Neither bomber formation nor fighter squadron may have already taken an action this turn. The whole wing activates on the bomber's initative, but count any blast markers held by the fighters against the bomber's initative in addition their own. Should the bomber fail to activate the whole wing stands down and the fighters may not attempt an action of their own later in the turn.

OPTION 1
Assuming the activation roll is successful, deploy the whole wing at the edge of the board as a single, large, formation. The formation can then move (turning as bombers) into position to make a ground attack. The fighters may not contribute to the ground attack (they are watching the skies!). Should the wing be intercepted (either by CAP or later in the turn) the fighters may make a single turn to face any direction after the enemy fighters complete their move (essentially allowing the escorts to turn their weapons on the enemy!). Bombers may not land as part of a wing, and remember that escorting fighters do not receive the +1 to hit when they attack. Escort fighters may only make one free turn even if they are intercepted more than once. The wing disengages as two seperate formations (split any BM acquired as even as possible between the two formations assuming that there is at least one bomber and one fighter left alive, any odd BM can be assigned at the controlling player's choice).

OPTION 2
Assuming the activation roll is successful, place the bombers and the fighters at your board edge. Then make the approach move with the bombers as normal, leaving the fighters at the board edge. Should the bombers be intercepted (either by a CAP or later in the turn), the fighters may move to intercept the enemy fighters after they have made their approach move. Resolve any ground flak at this point against all aircraft. The enemy fighter squadron may choose to either continue their attack against the bombers or engage the escorts in a deadly dogfight. If they continue, they must fight their way through the escorts - resolve both the bombers' and the escorting fighters' AA against the enemy interceptors first (the escort fighters do not receive the +1 to hit) before resolving the interceptors who do receive the +1 to hit as normal. If the enemy aircraft choose to engage the escorts, they may immediately turn to face the escorts. The bombers may not fire at all (too much risk of hitting friendly aircraft!), and both side's fire are resolved simultaneously and neither side receives the +1 to hit. Both escort fighters and bombers are treated as seperate formations after activation and accrue Blast Markers independently as normal.

Now, these have been written to be tight rules (and possibly are a little convoluted as a result), but essentially you activate the bombers and escorts together and either 1) move them together as a single formation and the escorts can make one turn before the formation fires flak normally or 2) form the escorts as a CAPCAP, moving them in and the enemy can either take their attacks as well as the bombers' defences or turn and fire simultaneously with the escorts. Neither should be as complicated as they look!

Ok, since we are spitballing a bit here, I think I would change the air rules as follows:-

• Keep the principle rules, but change the title of "Interception" to something less confusing, perhaps 'air assault'.
  
• Permit Fighters and Fighter-bombers on CAP to be used to 'intercept' enemy ground formations. This would be resolved after the enemy ground formation has moved, but before it shoots or assaults. In all other respects it would work as before except that they would not get the +1 bonus (which represents an aerial tactical advantage)
  
• Permit all Bombers and Fighter-Bombers to have a limited form of "commander" as outlined by Lord =I=, to permit two formations to be activated simultaneously for ground attack / escort purposes, where they would then act as a single formation until they disengage.

Of the two mechanics, I think that option #1 (both move together and fighters turn to face) is the better one because it still represents the limited abilities of the fighters to defend the bombers from an attack and is generally simpler. However, I can see no good reason to prevent an air-transport "ground assault" from being escorted in this fashion.

The main question not posed or answered is how to handle CAP. So, can multiple CAP formations attack the bomber and escort and if so, what is the limit in numbers? Equally, can you use a single activation to set up a single mega-CAP formation comprising two  separate a/c formations?

Other questions revolve around formation integrity - do the fighters have to maintain 'squadron' integrity while defending the bomber, or can they be put anywhere around the bomber.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

In option 1, I was assuming that:

Yes, they count as a single formation for all intents and purposes until they disengage, so they have to keep coherency (and why they can't land, bit odd to have landed and airborne units "in coherency").

I would say you've still got the restriction as before that only one formation may CAP at once - you can still intercept normally. This was intended as a supplement to the existing rules in all respects, so it shouldn't change the existing rules.

While I understood 'formation' coherency, I was wondering whether the fighters also needed to maintain coherency to the other fighters in its 'squadron'.

On CAP I think you are right, but in turn this ought to limit the number of 'escorts' that can be used to accompany the bombers. Hence the suggestion that only two formations can activate in this fashion.

Back to the mechanics a sceond, do you envisage maintaining the current process for option#1, so resolving all AA against the fighters first before resolving the attacks of any remaining fighters on the combined formation?

On a separate note, have you considered the effects of the positioning of the various a/c on the outcome? Assuming the usual BM placement rules will potentially blunt the effectiveness of CAP both by shooting down some of the attacking fighters and diluting the number of hits placed on the Bombers. Is this going to be too significant, and if so, can we allow the CAP to choose what to shoot at?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I really think you are pushing the air rules into situations it just can't cope with.

How so? While we are 'spitballing' here, the idea presented by Lord =I= would essentially work within the existing air rules, albeit with a slightly larger formation that has enhanced defensive capabilities. The advantages are offset by the reduction in the number of activations and the increased risk that neither formation will fly if the activation is failed.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Would introducing another action choice for aircraft work.
Just "spit balling" here.

Maybe called Escort.

Fighters (probably not allow fighter bombers) would be allowed to be put on escort duties.
This would be similar to CAP but instead of intercepting formations on ground attack they could only intercept a formation that came into play on CAP orders.
They could even be limited to only being allowed to intercept attackers to the formation they were escorting.
They could be placed on table edge (similar to CAP orders) and would fly on to the table after CAP moves by opponent (basically to intercept the interceptors) .