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

[DWReese]

Recently there has been some talk about the game's method for when a plane is under attack from an enemy plane. All of the various posters have mentioned that CMO's approach to this situation is to have the target aircraft remain at the same altitude, thus making it a two dimensional fight. I have personally observed this, so I know it to be the case.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, SPI came out with a board game called Air War, and it was quite detailed. The game player had to basically fly the plane, learn about speed, and altitude, and turning stress. The air war basics, if I recall correctly, preached that having altitude allowed the aircraft to be able to dive. thereby gaining speed when under attack. There were various maneuvers involved in the game, but speed was the most important. The main concept of the game was to pit two planes (sort of like the Foxbat v. Phantom game which was also from SPI, but this is much more detailed than the old game) and have them do battle.

Most battles began with a plane (or group) firing at an unsuspecting target, and then the target aircraft has to do what it can to evade the missiles, and then get into position to return fire. The game was SUPER detailed, and that essentially made it almost unplayable. It was really a game more about learning the mechanics or warfare, rather than actually engaging in battle. At least that was my opinion.

From my take, the attackers liked to be higher than the target aircraft, and the game notes from some actual pilots almost always suggested that the target aircraft should immediately dive to increase it speed, and distance its self from the firing aircraft. I successfully did this often. I would then create a huge distance from the firing aircraft, and the game would end because I could no longer keep up with the distance on the map (on the floor) as to the location of the two planes. But, it was obvious that speed is the friend of the target aircraft, and the most amount of speed is generated by diving.

The game was fun but, like I said, unplayable.

Knowing that these same tactics were endorsed by actual fighter pilots, it seems obvious to me that CMO should likely adopt some sort of similar response to a threat. Continuing to fly at the same altitude seems to be unrealistic, at least to me.

I would love to see some altitude changes on the part of target aircraft when under attack. I realize that SAMs, and slow-moving bombers, might make altitude changes less realistic, but it would definitely seem to be appropriate in the case of fighters, etc.

So, go pull out your old Air War game, if you still have it, and read some of the literature. It's pretty good.

[Nikel]

Thanks for posting this.

The history of the game in the wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_War_(game)


The rules of the first version.

https://www.spigames.net/PDFv2/AirWar.pdf


The rules of the 80s version.

https://www.spigames.net/PDFv7/AirWarUpdate1980.pdf


Both links include in the same pdf the scenarios, charts and tables.

[thewood1]

I bought Air War in the early nineties and set it aside as a lesson-learned. I spent one night trying to actually play it and gave up. As the saying goes...the squeeze isn't worth the juice. I went back to Flight Leader.

I thought this comment by a game designer was pertinent for any board or PC game builder; "There is apparently no absurd extreme to which SPI will not go in its quest for realism (or the appearance thereof) for which it will not have a small but vocal coterie shouting huzzahs at the results. [...] Many of the systems are unnecessarily complex and unwieldy, even for the intended level of realism".

[maverick3320]

I'm currently playing Northern Fury 39. When I fire my AMRAAM As at 1994-era SU-27 Flankers, they repeatedly dive to evade the missiles.

[Nikel]

I'm currently playing Northern Fury 39. When I fire my AMRAAM As at 1994-era SU-27 Flankers, they repeatedly dive to evade the missiles.

May you post a save previous to what you describe happens?

[Quark73]

Yes, would be interesting.

[Tcao]

I am pretty sure dive and climb in defensive maneuvers happen alot during my air battle QB

[FrangibleCover]

Standard auto-evade behaviour for missiles in CMO is to notch, dive to the deck and accelerate to max speed. Are you guys not seeing this? Or is this a question about gun fights?

[Quark73]

There are IMHO some IFs and WHENs in that equation. And this is what the issue is about.

[Tcao]

Agree, let's keep an eye on this and share some save files later.

I would guess the automatic evasion climb and dive decision is driven by range, missile flight profile apogee and speed.

[Quark73]

Thanks to maverick3220 input I made a scenario with an air-2-air engagement, containing three different head-on-head setups: 36 kft F-4 vs. 18 kft MiG 29, 36 kft F-4 vs. 36 kft MiG 29 and 18 kft F-4 vs. 36 kft Mig 29.

Here my observation: The planes climb and dive to evade the missiles. Sometimes notching is observable first, sometimes it just turn away without notching and try to gain distance to the missile. Nice to see how the planes try to pick up speed before launching missiles.
This is my observation after first shot (after that it gets a little messy):
Case 1: (Low F4 - High Mig 29) - F4 climbs vs missile from above & MiG 29 dives vs missile from above

HighF4_LoMiG29.png (61.71 KiB) Viewed 418 times

Case 2: (High F4 - High Mig 29) - F4 dives vs missile from same level & MiG 29 climbs vs missile from above

HighF4_HighMiG29.png (64.35 KiB) Viewed 418 times

Case 2: (LowF4 - High Mig 29) - F4 climbs vs missile from beyond & MiG 29 climbes vs missile from above

LoF4_HighMiG29.png (43.4 KiB) Viewed 418 times

[rmeckman]

Standard auto-evade behaviour for missiles in CMO is to notch, dive to the deck and accelerate to max speed. Are you guys not seeing this? Or is this a question about gun fights?

That was the default evasion behavior prior to the Tiny update, but now the default is described at

https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5500.

I haven't seen any evidence that aircraft are deviating from what is described at this site. With BVR missiles having the automatic firing range set to 50% of max, targeted aircraft usually try to outrun the missiles. Issues like radar warning receivers, cockpit visibility, and clouds may influence the evasion behavior in specific situations.

[Nikel]

In Harpoon (miniatures game) is very simple.






Just a joke

Flowchart from this very nice site by Tomasz Niedzinski, still under construction.

https://ndzpbem.wixsite.com/tom-harpoon

[boogabooga]

A few things:

Thanks for posting this.

The history of the game in the wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_War_(game)


The rules of the first version.

https://www.spigames.net/PDFv2/AirWar.pdf


The rules of the 80s version.

https://www.spigames.net/PDFv7/AirWarUpdate1980.pdf


Both links include in the same pdf the scenarios, charts and tables.

Thanks for posting. Interesting reference material there with scenario ideas for either CMO or flight sims.

I bought Air War in the early nineties and set it aside as a lesson-learned. I spent one night trying to actually play it and gave up. As the saying goes...the squeeze isn't worth the juice. I went back to Flight Leader.

It seems like it was just a little ahead of it's time in that it was really needing the advent of the personal computer to take the mathematical grind out of it. (Reminds me of when "Computer" was actually someone's job title at NASA back in the day). It seems like it is a paper ancestor of both Falcon BMS/DCS-type "ulta-realistic" flight sims, as well as Harpoon/CMO type, but probably more of the former.

I am pretty sure dive and climb in defensive maneuvers happen alot during my air battle QB

I concur. I've seen lots of vertical evasion post-Tiny or so. I've even seen MiGs evade AMRAAMs by being able do dive under the radar cone before the missile activates so that it flies harmlessly overhead. I'm not sure what the OP is seeing.

[Tcao]

TBF, there are some cases the evasion A/C remain at the same altitude. Some can be explained as the missiles fired too far away and these missiles are not a serious threat at the beginning, why wasting fuel to dive while you can just easily outrun the missile?
Other cases can be explained as missile fired in NEZ or too close , it make sense that the only defensive maneuvers works is notching.
（like this one : https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=403784 )

We need more save files.

[Nikel]

This is a save from Kharg Island 2024, scenario by Beirutdude.

Israeli F-35I Adir vs Iranian F-14A Tomcats.

Saved just before the F-35Is attack the island while the F-16I are reserved flying over Kuwait.

I do not see any diving or climbing in any aircraft. The missiles are first shot at long distance, but as the air battle evolves the distance may be much shorter. The F-14As are eventually destroyed.

There are also air defenses on the island that the F-35I may have to manage if they are near enough.

Kharg Island, 2024 F35.zip

(184.75 KiB) Downloaded 7 times

[DWReese]

In air war there is quite a bit of altitude change, both before and after the missiles are fired. While the game does allow for POST-firing altitude changes on most occasions, there seems to be no PRE-firing altitude changes. As pointed out, attackers benefit from being above the target. After the missiles are fired, the target, and the pursuing attacker, each head toward the deck, and the one that reaches the deck first runs out of options.

In CMO, the planes make no effort to climb above the attacker. This is often a critical mistake that could have been avoided.

In my opinion, CMO tends to initially treat air war combat as two dimensional combat, With no pre-attack positioning, the attack is sort of like a tank battle in the sky.

I offered the post on Air War because I believe that the game, albeit actually unplayable, does properly illustrate real air war tactics and maneuvers, therefore it could be beneficial.

As difficult as Air War was to play, programming an AI response to air war combat in CMO has to be equally as difficult, if not as equally impossible. While it's obvious that it would be a lot of work, it would be nice if CMO's programming could at least be slightly tweaked to include some of the tactics and methods that were described in Air War. It's just an offered thought as the game company is always asking for ways to improve the game.

[thewood1]

So does this boil down to friendly aircraft not maneuvering upon detection of enemy aircraft, but before missile launch?

[Nikel]

Short video by P Gatcomb in Matrix Pro channel when war planner update was released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0LHX-KVr2c

[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)