Rob Wubbenhorst, a longtime CaS and Harpoon player, sent in the following email. I’ve enclosed my answer: I would like your opinions on intent of the rules for air-to-air dogfighting. When engaged in a dogfight, and pulling counters out of the cup, do you pull 2 targets per each attacker and choose 1, OR do you pull 2 targets per 2 attackers, and then IF you have a single attacker left (odd number of attackers) you are allowed to pull 2 targets and choose 1. My confusion on this results from the following examples in the rules: 7.3.3 Dogfight Procedure: "Place all enemy aircraft counters in a cup or other container and randomly draw out two. The attacking fighter may choose either of these two aircraft as his target. ... Take the enemy aircraft counter that was rolled against and place it to one side. It cannot be attacked again until all the other aircraft on its side have been attacked once. Do not place any aircraft back in the cup until it is empty." Issue #1: What happens to the second counter drawn that was not chosen and rolled against? Back in cup or to the side until all others have been drawn? This example clearly states that 1 attacker pulls 2 targets and gets to choose. Hold that thought. 7.3.4 Defensive Maneuvering: Example with the Nicks, Franks, and Hellcats: "...the six Franks attack first. Each of the Franks, in turn, randomly chooses one Hellcat from a pair randomly drawn from the cup. ... The six Franks and ten Nicks are placed in the cup and the six remaining Hellcats must each draw a pair of counters from the cup. The American player draws for the first pair of Hellcats, and gets one Nick and one Frank. Each Hellcat takes one Japanese aircraft. ... The next Hellcat pair draws two Franks. ... The last Hellcat pair draws two Nicks." Issue #2: In the first part of the 7.3.4 example, each Frank was clearly drawing two targets and choosing one. Then the Hellcats each draw two targets and choose one. But then, the example changes with a pair of Hellcats drawing a pair of Japanese planes, so now it’s one v. one on target choices. The 2nd and 3rd Hellcat pairs draw two aircraft as well, continuing this change from 2 for 1 to 1 for 1. I’m getting confused here. This example changes in mid-flow from attacker pulling 2 targets and choosing, to 2 attackers pulling 2 targets and not having a choice. 7.3.6 Slashing Attacks: "Like other dogfighting aircraft, a slashing attacker draws two random opponents, chooses his target, and makes his roll to gain position." Issue #3: Now we’re back to the original position. 2 targets pulled for each attacker. 7.3.8 Formations: "The American player now draws a pair of aircraft from his remaining pile of three Wildcats, and the Japanese player randomly pulls out a pair of aircraft, a Zero and a Claude. The American rolls for a Wildcat against each Japanese plane and resolves the attack. He and the Japanese player draw again. This time the Japanese player draws two Zeroes, and the single American Wildcat rolls from position against one of them." Issue #4: Switch again, back to pairs of attackers drawing pairs of targets, effectively 1 v 1 with no choices. However, the single Wildcat reverts to the 2 for 1 with choice, since it is the odd attacker in the group of 3. This explains why I am confused on this 2 for 1 or 1 for 1 situation. I have read Robert Shaw’s Fighter Combat, and learned about tactical maneuvering. The fighting wing formation (echelon) was tactical doctrine in WW II. The lead runs the fight, while the wingman tries to keep up and follow throughout the engagement. A variation called Double Attack was a bit looser, where the wingman could become the lead in a situation where the engaged lead is at a disadvantage. The wingman, or free fighter, becomes the lead in a coordinated handoff as the pair conduct the fight. In this doctrine, the two-plane elements would not be scattering to the ends of the furball, each in their own world picking between 2 targets, but fighting as a team (or trying at least). I can see in CaS that the intent of the draw is to simulate the confusion of a furball. Not really knowing the designers’ intent, I would suggest that the examples where a pair of attackers choose pairs of targets to be realistic. The odd fighter without a wingman would be a little more free in the fight, and could pull two targets and choose one. There are examples in the rules that show it working each way, so it’s hard for players and referee to agree. I would request a clarification on this from the design team to resolve this potential confusion. Check 6, Rob. My Answer The rules haven’t been consistently applied in the examples, which is probably why rules designers never include a lot of examples. The purpose of the rule is to simulate a furball, but not exactly in the way you’ve interpreted. My intention was to allow each aircraft in the fight, regardless of his status as a leader or a wingman, two opportunities in a 30-second turn to attack an enemy aircraft. The enemy aircraft that are not attacked are not returned to the cup immediately because I want to spread out the chance of being attacked. An interesting variation might be to change the number of potential opponents based on the attacker’s experience. A novice gets none, a nugget one, and so on. Of course, then you have to keep track of exactly who’s who, but if you’re using the pilot experience rules, you’re doing that anyway. I’ll clean up the examples in the next edition. Another correction: Section 7.4.1.2 Level Bombing. In the Low Altitude Level Bomber Attack Table at the bottom of page 7-13, the “Other Modifiers” should be changed from +.01 and +.02 to +1 and +2. In the High Altitude Level Bomber Attack Table at the bottom of the same page, the column headings for the number of bombs dropped should be whole numbers, not decimals, reading 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 across the top. Thanks to Rob Wubbenhorst. This question was asked by our editor at Clash of Arms, Charlie Spiegel ...If you take the rules as written (the fighter is forced to maneuver and goes half speed, while the bomber uses its full speed), there is no possibility of engagement, as the bomber will always disengage in the first round with no chance of suffering any free attack. The fighter’s only chance of hitting the bomber will be through a slashing attack, which sounds a little strange (I am no naval air expert though). It would have been simpler to say that there is no chance of engagement if one aircraft does not want to maneuver and flees instead. Maybe I am missing something? My answer: It is possible that some fast bombers can be attacked only by slashing attacks. This was especially true early in the war. The German concept of the “schnellbomber” is well-known, and in the 1930s many nations believed that bombers would be able to simply outrun fighters. But it is too easy in CaS to outrun dogfighting aircraft. Instead of using half-maximum speed, use their combat cruise speed. This helps the fighters a little, and simplifies things, since it doesn’t have to be calculated separately. The other part of the problem has never been addressed, but should have been included in the formation rules. While individual bombers, even loaded ones, might be able to outrun fighters, bombers in formation can’t fly at maximum speed. They’re limited to their combat cruise speed as well. They would normally fly at range cruise. Flying in formation is hard enough at moderate speeds. It was never done at top speed because individual aircraft wouldn’t be able to keep up. Also, the formation would not be able to turn, since the outside aircraft would fall behind. One final question, forwarded by Charlie Spiegel: pjcbt@yahoo.es writes: I have a question about the Rising Sun game. In the description of the skip bombing attack, you say that the damage is resolved on the torpedo table. Does this means that it inflicts an automatic flooding critical? My answer: Skip bombing should not impose an automatic flooding penalty. A torpedo, by its nature, always creates an underwater hull breach, in addition to whatever other damage its warhead causes. A skip bomb may strike at the waterline, but it may not, as well. The torpedo table has an increased chance of a flooding critical, and that’s enough. These corrections have all been added to the CaS Errata for the third edition. A copy of the current errata can be obtained at the Clash of Arms Web site at www.clashofarms.com. Smart Referee Tricks To speed up critical hit resolution, I have the types written on cards and when I roll them (no sense having ALL the players know), I give the appropriate card(s) to the affected player. Thanks to Charlie Spiegel BT Back to The Naval Sitrep #20 Table of Contents Back to Naval Sitrep List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 by Larry Bond and Clash of Arms. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com