Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations» Forums » General

Subject: AGM-65 Mavericks rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From Dan's "Past, Present and Future" article on the DVG website:

Quote:
Rework Ordnance Counters
We’ve also completed an extensive revision of the ordnance counters ...

Here’s a nice comparison, the AGM-65 Maverick vs. the Mk.82 iron bomb…
1991 version of the counters:
AGM-65: Hits 4/11 at range 0, 6/12 at range 1, Weight: 1
Mk.82: Hits 4/10 at range 0, Weight 1

2010 version of the counters:
AGM-65: Hits 5 at ranges 0 to 2, Weight: 1
Mk.82: Hits 7/10 at range 0, Weight 1

They both weight 1 point.

Compared to the 2010 counters, where the AGM-65 hits much easier, but can never score a second hit. They both weigh 1, so that is even. At this point, the AGM-65 is looking to be superior, because while it can’t score 2 hits, it does have a much greater range. This is balanced by AGM-65s costing 1 Special Option point.


Now my brain was already puzzling over why Mavericks were costing me 2 weight points. I mean, once you load an F/A-18C Hornet with a pair of Sidewinders, you're a a point where you can carry just THREE Mavericks; I'm no expert on RL load-outs, but I'm pretty sure that almost every plane in the inventory can carry more than three of the things. And a look at the note above shows that for a long time, AGM-65s were a more palatable 1 WP each.

I'm guessing that the changes (1SO to 0, 1WP to 2) were to keep things balanced while continuing to maintain enough of a difference between the various weapon options that everything has a purpose (that there is never an automatic decision because such-and-such is just plain better than so-and-so in any given situation). But man, it sucks to only be able to carry a handful of AGM-65s instead of bucket-loads of them.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Heath
Australia
Brisbane
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Choosing the right weapons mix for a mission is a great feature of this game (and Phantom Leader). Sucks when you have the right mix but your pilots miss anywayshake. Just flew the first mission in my Libya 1984 medium campaign but failed as different aircraft got damaged so lost ordinance. No planes lost but lots of stressed navy flyboys.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew C
United States
San Marcos
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay I'm lost.

Does Dan's post refer to Phantom Leader and not Hornet Leader?

The AGM-65's in my copy of Hornet Leader are:

Hit on 7/10
Weight 2
+3 vs Vehicles
Can get multiple hits on Dispersed targets
Range 0-2, High or Low.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's right. But the quote from Dan comes from notes posted on the DVG website (www.dvg.com/hornetnewstuff.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://images.dvg.com/www.dvg.com/hornetnewstuff.pdf).

Quite a number of changes were made between Dan posting information about the new edition while it was a work in progress and the finished article (eg I gather that a number of different campaigns were playtested or considered before the list was finalised); I'm just interested why HL pilots get to carry so few AGM-65s, given that earlier in the redesign process they were lighter. I know what the answer will be, but part of my brain struggles with the idea that AGM-65s "weigh" twice as much as AGM-88s.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.