For discussion of Aeronautica Imperialis news, rumours and tactics. Will you be hunter or hunted?. For things like planes, an officer of the fleet, etc, they have Aeronautica Imperialis listed on their data sheets in the faction keywords section. The Tabletop Tactics Forum The idea is that the Aeronautica Imperialis acts like the US Navy with carrier launched aircraft acting as both a.
|Published (Last):||22 September 2018|
|PDF File Size:||3.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Bad Behavior has blocked access attempts in the last 7 days. Home Forum Help Calendar Articles. Aeronautica Imperialis – use of ‘real’ tactics.
Up to now it seems most of the AI talk has impsrialis about ground-attack or troop deployment missions and the troublesome problems that must be overcome for these missions to succeed.
I’m going to tangent away from that and list a series of “real world” tactics that have proven useful to me in pure “air superiority” missions. Tellingly, most of these are WW2 vintage and concentrate on multiple fighters covering one another. I’d also like to hear about anyone elses experiences of “real tactic” use or any unique tactics of their own devising.
To imperialiss, this overtly technical break-down of virtual dogfighting, which nonetheless is useful once you crawl through the maths: This, the “thatch weave”, http: Having said that, in AI, once a bomber is empty, screaming towards board edge seems like the best idea!
This I think, should be obvious to those who’ve read air combat history, but not everyone has; so: I’ve always used it, or a division of it usually 2 planes and I remember a distinct early tactucs in seronautica books about the Battle of Britain is that the RAF 3-triangle formation was eaten by the finger-four.
The rules pretty much demand this, as they are “luxury” add-ons, not the weapons primary armament, whose ammo you ought to be more concerned with.
THE WAR ROOMS
I can only speak from an Imperial perspective, though I hope to get a zeronautica chaos wing soon and an excuse to build a cool land-aircraft carrier from Double Eagle! Imlerialis else got other thoughts? May 27, Vilamus Full Member Posts: Short game times seem to lend the game an air of ease with which to tachics new tactics.
As an example, tactics as to how take on bomber formations with fighter cover come primarilly from two instances in WW2 – the Battle of Britain and the Aerial bombardment of Germany – in which the defending forces were outnumbered ranging from 2: Other things are a bit too ‘macro’ for AI, like sending differing wings of bombers on differing paths setting off the entire of north-west europe’s air defence network before they all suddenly turn to converge on the one target at the last minute.
So, I guess AI is providing us with an opportunity to fight as certain of our forefathers never did, on equal terms – at least numberswise! I might take a cue from the oldie-but-goodie mini-game “Bommerz over da Sulpha river” and do a ‘Dambusters’ mission, low-level, high-surrounding terrain, at night.
Historically, after the suicidal first waves, the surviving Lancasters that had dropped their bouncing-bombs swung around then went ahead of imperialks still-loaded Lanc to distract fire – i imagine this tactic could apply to all bombers in AI, you do your points-winning bombing run, then, rather than fly the bombers off the board you swing them back to ensure other bombers get their load down.
Imperialiw for the nice, fast-play of AI games allowing for tactical experimentation, I’m reminded of an old flying adage I am a Hufflepuff. A chance to engage in more complicated dogfights than those used aeronsutica Fokker Wolves and Tiger Moths.
This imperilais a theme or at least a slight narrative to the missions other than the “kill’em all” approach common to 40K games. It also allows more depth to planning the game as escort, SEAD, and exfiltration cover become necessary. That seems to be the prevailing thought: I must ocnfess to being somewhat of aeronautifa dogfightest: Vilamus on May 27, It occurs to me one possible expansion of AI they could pull out could be a ‘space combat’ version.
With the Imperial Fury starfighter and what not. Now that’d be interesting, inertial drift and other fun physics facts – or Babylon 5 starfighting, as I prefer to call it.
It’d probably be better off as a Gothic add-on, but I’d still love to final see what they want the Fury to look like! Viffing is, oddly, mentioned numerous times in Double Eagle, yet didn’t make it into the rules even for aircraft that would seem most able – Valkyries and Vultures, as you pointed out – perhaps because that would have made most single-seaters in the game all very-hi-man and debalanced it a bit?
I mean, thunderbolts tacticcs meant to viff and vtol – though they only ever seem to land that waythough i’d like to find some vector-thrust nozzles on them! I didn’t want to indicate that AI is meant to be entirely a WW2 air-combat game, though that’s definately the spirit it engenders I mean, the only missile that can be used over 18″ in this game is the Grot Bomb! I do agree that the Valkyrie and Vulture at least need something done to them to make them a bit more in the words of my security studies lecturer ‘whizzier’.
Even with their ground attack skill, they seem horribly clunky. Dogfighting to the death, however, really comes into its own when you do linked missions as then those increasing pilot skills and the odd Ace or two really mean something. I noticed in one of the pictures in the back of AI theres a board with a series of armoured vehicles Trojans I think parked up, a Falaise pocket mission would be fun, one player – with a mix of AA and planes, covering armour that has to escape off-board.
They didn’t really seem to cover anti-convoy ie, moving ground enemy missions in the spec-rules. A model shop near me has started selling a ‘Falklands Task Force’ box set of great little ships and I’m tempted to get it, then you could have the AA mounted on the boats. Still, as another version of “SEAD” in a form I like the anti-titan idea mentioned on the imperialix AI board, as those things would definately be a bit of ikperialis presence in air combat – I love the little lightnings and fighta-bombas zipping round the titans on the Epic cover.
And if a Tiger Moth ever saw a Aeronaufica Wulf it’d explode into flames from fear alone! Could I interest you in a small bribe? Currently, games like 40k are set up to operate at the tactical level of warfare.
Aeronautica Imperialis – Tournament Overview | T³ – TableTop Tournaments – Germany
I’d venture to say that even BFG is at the same level, although if you are conducting a planetary bombardment or a blockade you’d of course be at the aerpnautica level immediately. Epic and, by the sound of it, Aeronautica Imperialis are set up to be played at the operational level of warfare. Why can’t we just dispense with the nostalgic references to outmoded dogfighting styles and bring AI to the strategic level by giving them AMRAAM-style missiles capable of long-range air-to-air kills?
I understand some races may not be able to understand such weaponry impedialis like orks.
These would then die by the thousands in a “real life” air campaign, both in the air and on the ground. Imperials, Chaos, Tau, and likely Eldar would all have such advanced weaponry.
A true game of aerial combat would take that into account, compelling you to do proper mission planning to conduct effects-based operations designed, first, to destroy or suppress enemy air defenses, to sweep enemy fighter aircraft over their own airbases, destroy such airbases, and, after achieving air superiority or better yet, supremacy! I love Abnett’s books, all of them.
I read them voraciously. That said, never has he come closer to turning me off as a fan than in Double Eagle. What an absolute crock! They immperialis discern from orbit which of the heat blooms in the ipmerialis were carriers and aeronautifa weren’t?
A high-altitude recon mission could have easily solved this, or barring that a Sword-class frigate or two making high-speed, low-orbit passes over the planet. Once the targets were determined as land-carriers, their coordinates could be fixed and combination ttactics bombardments could have annihilated the enemy carriers without jeopardizing a single airframe.
This is the strategic nature of spacepower at work!
What I guess I’m getting at is, aerial combat is gee-whiz nice. It makes for an interesting game. But in “real life” tactics, if you’re that close, you’ve already missed the point at somewhere along the kill-chain. My call, if I were the Lord Militant, would be to use my global perspective from space to ascertain where enemy strongpoints are and destroy them from space using a massive lance-and-melta barrage. Then, I would land my forces in the cleansed areas to establish a planetfall.
Forgeworld Aeronautica Imperialis analysis thread
Then, using the same methods, now combined with ground reconnaissance and air-breathing airframes like the thunderbolt or lightning, I would determine the location of enemy airfields and neutralize them, again from orbit. That would give me air superiority immediately, freeing the majority of my air assets to support the burgeoning ground offensive s by interdicting troop columns and by performing close air support, where applicable.
I would also then have plenty of air assets available to continue to perform reconnaissance and determine the location of fuel dumps, ammo depots, and food caches and I would use lance strikes no need for melta torpedoes any more – they’re expensive to eliminate them, as well.
This would of course depend on space superiority A lot of GW strategic reasoning is governed by ‘the rule of cool’ rather than what’s necessarily best – something that’s largely a pure missile fight may be more effective, but it’s pretty much lanchester equations and therefore no fun to play as a wargame I’m afraid I have to throw in this hackneyed old phrase: People like “fun” to be included in these games rather than “realism”.
And if you wajnt a validation of dogfighting, then look to current operational aircraft which still have rotary cannons incase missiles run out, are jammed by HARM missiles and are therefore useless or just fire for luck and hope they hit. Doesnt happen because nowadays the West has a huge technical supremacy. The far, far future is much more equal in terms of fights. Lets GW and FW make more money that way. I’d like to thank Ornsworlder for pointing me at this; Haven’t yet played AI, but with a bit of reworking, I tried something based on a Thach Weave in Battlefleet Gothic yesterday.
Ork Fleet noted as highly unmanouvrable verseus Dark Eldar you take a guess Normally the ork fleet slams up the centre – then has to fight to turn around whilst the enemy rip up its weak rear armour. A lot of people use Roks slow moving but degree armed asteroid emplacements as backstops to protect against this.
It doesn’t always work. Fielding 2 ‘weaving’ groups instead worked very well; turning away after a few prow shots for the ‘weave’ left the Dark Eldar with the unfortunate choice of break off and run or try to drop in on the rear and find themselves with another pair of kroozas bearing down on them head-on, heavy gunz blazing. Result was 2 Dark Eldar Torture -class Carriers well – one escaped, crippled, on one hit point remaining, with most of its command deck shot awayand twenty Corsair escorts killed in exchange for 3 Ramships and a Carrier.
Score one for the US Airforce. HARMs don’t jam air-to-air missiles You want to see some wicked dogfighters, look to the Israelis. They’re the real deal. Thats why dogfighting games tend to be WW2: HARMs don’t jam anything what so ever.
A next gen HARM would continue this role. Dale Brown novels were full of decoy missiles launched within a squadron to mimic real aircraft as well as jam and interfere with enemy radar systems. For the enemy to detect whether the aircraft they are approaching is real or a phantom they have to close within medium range. If the aircraft is a phantom it’s removed from the board automatically. No infringement of their trademarks is intended.