FU7
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 04-2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Fighter cover defense not rule-compliant ?
Hi all. Sorry that my first post here is in this section. Particularly because this emulator is really a cool and fine program.
Look at the following report extraction from my second mission (with fighter cover reports in bold) :
*************************************************
Zone 3, Turn 1 (Ret)
Terrain: W
Weather: Clear
1 German fighter waves
Wave 1 (Attack 1): 4 fighters
Fighter cover: Poor
0 enemy fighters chased off by cover
Nose missed Me109 at 12 High
Port Waist missed spray fire.
Stbd Waist hit Me109 at 3 High - FCA
Top Turret missed Me109 at 3 High
Ball Turret hit Me109 at 9 Level - FCA
Me109 at 12 High missed.
Me109 at 3 High missed.
Me109 at 9 High registers 2 hits.
Port Wing: Superficial damage
Bomb Bay: Superficial damage
Me109 at 9 Level registers 1 hits.
Port Wing: #2 Engine - #2 oil tank leak; shut off engine after 3 more zones.
Wave 1 (Attack 2): 2 fighters
Fighter cover: Poor
1 enemy fighters chased off by cover
Port Waist missed spray fire.
Top Turret hit Me109 at 9 Level - shot down
Ball Turret missed Me109 at 9 Level
******************************************************
I don't see how an enemy fighter can be chased off during first successive attack if none were in the initial one.
From rule 6.5.a : "After all fighters conducting successive attacks are positioned, remove the number of fighters allowed due to successful fighter cover according to the roll on table M-4 during the initial attack."
From Table M-4 : "Roll one die for each wave" (not each attack ! see also Notes under Table M-4).
Here it seems the emulator re-rolled the fighter cover defense in the successive attack.
|
|
Apr/17/2007, 17:02
|
Send Email to FU7
Send PM to FU7
|
Jasta6
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 01-2005
Posts: 20
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Fighter cover defense not rule-compliant ?
I too have had some odd outcomes with the fighters. Where it would remove one fitghter initial attack then remove two on the second successive attack. Also I have been getting a lot of gun jams even hough I don't use the mechanical failure opption?
Jim P 
---
"Those who do not remember the past...
...are condemned to repeat it." -Santayana-
|
|
May/2/2007, 2:02
|
Send Email to Jasta6
Send PM to Jasta6
|
pmcmurry
Head Administrator
Global user
Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 383
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Fighter cover defense not rule-compliant ?
Look at the report again: There were four fighters in the first wave. 0 of them were chased off. None of the fighters suffered heavy damage. Two of them got hits on the B-17. Two of them made a second pass. That is all correct.
Gun jams may be due to crew experience, spray fire, or any number of other factors, not just mechanical failure.
Last edited by pmcmurry, Jun/10/2007, 14:25
|
|
Jun/10/2007, 14:23
|
|
FU7
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 04-2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Fighter cover defense not rule-compliant ?
Two of them made a second pass, that's the point. Because one of the two which made the second pass was chased off by friendly cover. I think this isn't rule compliant.
Even if German successful attacks allow them 3 consecutive attacks (not waves), friendly cover only roll once (during initial/1st attack) on M-4 table to determine how many fighters are chased off in initial (1st) attack phase and successive (2nd and 3rd) attack phases.
In the example I gave, no fighter was driven off in initial attack and one was on the 2nd. This could be translated as a "0 (1)" result per the above rule.
Unfortunately, this isn't a possible result in M-4 table. In fact, no M-4 result may lead to drive off more fighters in successive attacks than in the initial 1st.
I have no problem with jamming rules.
|
|
Jun/11/2007, 10:31
|
Send Email to FU7
Send PM to FU7
|
pmcmurry
Head Administrator
Global user
Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 383
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Fighter cover defense not rule-compliant ?
Not sure why that happened. I do not remember it happening to anyone else. Certainly has not happened to me ... :-)
|
|
Jun/28/2007, 16:14
|
|