Damage on planes

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Ok this may get a little long.

I am wondering if in the next update we could see an end to the disappearing dead. As it is now when a plane gets a pilot kill or when it accumulates too much damage it just disappears and the sytem flashes a kill mess.

What I would like to see is instead could pilot kills or plane failures flash some new graphics overtop the view (bullet holes in canopy, some blood all over the dials etc etc) and take control of the plane away from the pilot. This would make for a slightly more realistic pace, people when killed get to watch their plane auger or spin or roll over into the ground either from the cockpit or from f3 f4 views. Plus the shooter has to make a judgement call on whether the opponent is dead if the plane isn't damaged badly enough to spin and crash right away  

I envision fights where a plane that gets a head shot in on a plane right away doesn't get to know it until the plane crashes, where pilots could "play dead" to evade and freako one shot kills can leave a plane flying straight and level or in gentle banks making the gunner keep wasting his ammo on a kill he allready has until trim pulls it into the ground.  

A final note upon the B-17

As far as I have read the Fortress was one of the squeakiest planes in WWII to shoot down. As it stands now the model used now seems to be innaccurate.

My idea is that instead of beefing up some damage errata on the model to re-arrange how the plane treats damage. Right now I know the model understands damage to parts of the plane because control surfaces, engines pilots etc can be damaged seperatly.
Instead of the current system I think a better one would be to have the model assign an incredibly high damage capability to the fuselage of the fort and beefing up the wing and tail damage required for destruction. Also set the ability for pilot kills to only those bullets that hit in the 180` axis horizontal to the front windows and say a 90` axis from center line to top of the pilot cabin.

The result would be that as in RL pilots after a fort would have to work on destroying control surfaces, engines and wings to bring the plane down. The emphasis would be much more on breaking down the plane until the pilot loses control and crashes instead of the current paste it until it blows. And, as in RL the only advantage of nailing the biggest target, the Fuselage would be making lots of holes and killing gunners. These planes came home regularly looking like swiss cheese yet flying fine.

The ideal I think would be having wings and tail require a good steady pasting to be destroyed, fueselage proof against anything short of collision, Engines and control surfaces becoming prime targets and pilot kills limited basically to head on attacks (The favorite tactic of Japanese pilots who couldn't get them down any other way due to the amount of guns onboard)

This would mean that A: pilots would have a bigger challenge getting a Buff down, having to break it down systematically instead of just firing indiscriminatly.
B: Buff pilots would have a bigger challange. No longer just fly and die, they would have to baby badly damaged planes and this would take a great deal more skill and work hence greater enjoyment.

[214CaveJ]

I like that idea for the 17s.
It's kind of in there already, although I think it really depends on the skill of the pilot shooting at the 17.  A couple of days ago I was making a run on an airfield and got jumped by a pony.  The 51 got a couple of passes on me before little friends showed up and pulled him off my tail.  I make my last pass over the target and engine 1 dies as I let the bombs fly.  I look at the damage list and engine oil, radiator, left aileron, and one of the flaps.  Made for an interesting trip home  

This was a very rare occasion, as I usually end up blown out of the sky on the first pass a fighter makes on me.  And it was before the change on teh server making the 17s 'harder' to kill (dinnae seem it, I've suffered 1 ping kills since that update)

[Brethon]

2 words for ya, frame rate, or if you like, 1 word, lag.

------------------
"Do unto others....and get your head blown off." -Brethon

[Drum]

  I like your idea regarding a shot down pilot being forced the humility of watching his plane go down all the way.  Would give a little more satifaction to the victor as well, I'm sure.  ;-)

Drum rolling over and out!

[Minotaur]

Very good Idea!

I believe a very high percentage of B17's were actually killed by ACK.  Like 90% of them.  The German 88's were very good.

These planes were pretty tough against fighters.

Mino

[leonid]

Minotaur,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually only 10% of bombers over Germany fell to ack.  The LW was winning the war over Germany until the arrival of the P-51B/C/D.

[SC-GreyBeard]

hehe goyya agree with 214Cave..
I haven't noticed any improvement in B-17's capability to sustain damage and still fly.

1 b-17 took a collision with a ftr, flew home, and fell in half after coming to a stop. hundreds of accounts of them getting home with extremely little rudder or stab. left, massive holes in fuslages, nose's completely gone, etc.
Lots of accounts of german pilots frustrated after useing all their ammo, and the damn thing kept flying..

Also, why is it every time an engine goes, it's always number 1??  only one they shoot I guess..  

Will be SOOOOO glad to seem some guns,, regardless that without all 10, they'll be easy meat, unless they have instant change to diff gun position.




------------------
GreyBeard
Flight Commander, Aces High
Skeleton Crew

[Minotaur]

Leanid;

Thanks, for your reply to my comment.

My comment refered to the B-17 (the G model or last run - modeled in AH), not all Allied Bombers.  

It was not you who has burst my bubble.  My bubble was burst after watching an episode on "The History Channel".  

In this episode of THC they described the B-17 losses for ground AAA or flak, about 95%.  THC described the B-17 was able to take extreme amounts of damage and get home.  This fact is well known, for this famous plane.  The pictures shown, illustrated damage from AAA fire.  Lots of it, for the planes able to return.  This is relying upon my recollection, and possibly prone to error.    

THC described this as a common mis-understanding.  THC, on another topic and episode, described the mis-understandings  related to another very famous plane, the P-51.  This is well known to the AW, WB and AH crowd, concerning the P-51.

The German's had literally 1,000's of AAA guns surrounding high value assets.  I believe, THC described them as high ROF, 2 to 6 SPM, accruate and very capable of reaching the bombers at altitude.  Primarily 88's, but later in the war bigger guns were put into service.

About 12,677 B-17's were built, 4,750 were lost during combat missions.  Each one of those lost planes contained crewmembers, enough said.

Depending on who's log book you read, the B-17 had a fighter kill ratio of 23 for 1000 sorties.  All fighters had a kill ratio of 11 and 22 for the B-24.

The B-17's dropped about 40% of all the bombs dropped by all US bombers, 640k tons +/-.  Typically, I am guessing due to long range missions, the B-17 carried much the same bomb payload as the British Mosquito.  Even though the B-17 was capable of much more.

I have read several accounts and have spoken with one crewmember of the B-17.  I used to play golf with a tailgunner, who talked about the Flak and how bad it was. (His wife was British and was able to beat him often at golf.  This made him practice and play alot - another story) Reading most accounts of crewmebers, a variation of this phrase is almost always contained "The Flak was so thick you could land on it".

I have been interested in planes since the day that guy, at my hometown airshow, popped me into the seat of a P-51.  I was very young at the time.

Unfornately, I some times let the BULL do my talking and I am just plain WRONG.  Thanks again for sparking my interest.

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 10-24-1999).]

[weazel]

Check this site out_> http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/B-17/

------------------
}]

[Samart]

I like the idea about the B-17.

As it stands right now, it looks as if this sim is going to be solely, or a large portion of it, dedicated to the Fighter types.  For us people that are good at buffing, this sim isn't too good for us.  How many people do you think are going to ride along on a B-17 and man the guns?  Yes there might be a few at first, but just like the other game.....it will die out fast!

As it is right now, it is hard enough to fly formation and not have to worry about manning your guns.  

Remember that B-17's did have 8 other crewmen to man the guns, not one  )))

Until something changes about the B-17, I am afraid that this sim is going to be another fighter game.

I can hear all the flames now......"fighters are what won the war!!!!"

Well....yes and no.  They helped the bombers get to their target and allow them to drop their bombs, therefor to inflict much damage on the target.  But it was also the bombers that had a very good hand in ending the war.  Notice that I didn't say "they did win the war!"  I said that they had a hand in helping win the war.

Sam

[TT]

I miss explosions. There is something very satisfying about watching a plane explode in your crosshairs.

[Brazos]

Hope not Sam,

With the tracers and 3D gunner positions, it's gonna fun to gun for awhile anyway. Good shots will love controlling all availible guns from the ball. A squad using Roger Wilco and tight formations would be a shredder.

[Granger]

I keep hearing the dismal cries of Buff drivers who dont think they will ever get anyone to gun for them. I dont know what sim you guys been flying, but in aw3 buffs have no guns..period..unless someone guns. And never, I mean never does anyone have trouble gettin someone to man the guns...nothin like a fully gunned b-17 "Deathstar" goin up with 6 gunners n a pilot on it. Maybe that other sim dont have gunners because for 2 bucks an hour its a waste of money..but with the price model of AH, there will be no shortage of gunners believe me. Especially if there is a way to see whos up in a buff..and attach during flight..heck I'll prolly check that screen ever time i get shot down just to see if any buffs need a gunner. Have a little optimism guys..

Granger

[Toad]

Weazel,

A TOTALLY EXCELLENT site!

Thanks!

[Flathat]

TT mentioned explosions...at the risk of getting my eyebrows scorched off, I'm gonna say I like the visual kill feedback from EAW (con starts streaming major smoke) as well as anything.

To address Samart's point on the strat topic, I'd be more than willing to settle for a strat system that didn't affect anything else in the arena...just so it's there. Like, f'r instance, a window in the tower that says something like "Heavy transport activity/truck convoys reported in 2,7 and 4,5". I don't particularly care whether blowing up trucks and trains slows down enema field rebuild time, ammo/fuel availability or even gives me any points; if there's something there to jabo I'm just liable to check out a Jug and go do it.  

I think there are a lot of people around here who will, even if they only do it as a change of pace from ACM. And as AH goes pay and the community coalesces, I believe score will become less important, much as it has done in DoA. Everybody knows who the hot sticks are, without worrying about who's got what score (in fact, the TODs are sort of a running joke in DoA, if a somewhat sardonic joke).

For dedicated buffers, though, there should be a bit more in the way of integrated strat. It could be as simple as a bombing point multiplier for landing your sortie, just as Brand W/Brand D offers for landing fighter kills. Do they do that now for buffers? I don't know. Somebody enlighten me.

In the meantime, what about that? I think we can all agree that it would be preferable to have strategy that would affect the course of the war, but if the strategy were there (i.e., something to blow up other than airfields and generic factories, maybe some nice sub pens or marshaling yards or armored formations   ) wouldn't you use it even if it "didn't matter?"

I bring it up because an interim solution might be easier to implement while the fellas are modeling airplanes....


------------------
Flathat
'Black Dahlia'
No10 RNAS "The Black Flight"
Angel on your wing, devil on your tail



[This message has been edited by Flathat (edited 10-25-1999).]