The Guns or the Armor?

[Hobo]

I certainly don't want to start an argument or a squeak session, but I am curious...does amnyone else think the guns are a tad too strong?  Or conversly, the plane armor is a tad too weak?

Seems to me that you only have to sneeze on a plane to take a wing off.  What does everyone else think?


Hobo

[Dago]

I like it just as it is!  You shoot someone, they stay shot!  Unlike brand x where you can blast away to no effect, these guns really do some damage.
This helps teach some of us dweebs not to take the HO shot, work harder to get in a good gun position and make it count.
My basic feeling is, as long as all are effected in the same way by a factor like guns, then it is almost a none issue.  A bigger frustration for me is when there is an unbalance issue.  To me this is a fairly balanced issue with all enjoying the good points and bad points of the issue evenly.
Dago

[JFalk]

I like the damage the way it is, from what I read it seems right, a short burst could knock a guy out.  Perhaps we are used to putting so many rounds in a target that what we thought was correct is probally more incorrect.

I say dont change anything regarding damage done, except accuracy of acks  

[Hobo]

Now who said anything about Brand W?    I'm definitely not advocating fighting with bb guns.  I prefer stronger guns.  My *gripe* is that you can't afford to take a single ping without risking an instant death or wing loss.  

I think in a good dogfight, both sides should be able to survive a couple minor pings *most* of the time.  The occasional PK by snapshot is good.  The occasional snapshot that takes out an engine or other critical part is also good.  But when it is typical that a 1 ping shot rips your wing off, I think that is too strong.


Hobo

[JFalk]

hmm, I have been pinged plenty of times and survived, lost a tail wheel, left airelon before, and still survived.
  I admit it was quite a shock when i died at first to what seemed a few rounds but I am used to it and like the model, give it some more time.

[indian]

I think someone said that sm pilots have much more stick time then real pilots in WWII so I think we are just hitting the mark better. Not the guns or the armor just good shooting.

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
  1st Aces High Trainer Crew
Home of The Allied Fighter Wing A.F.W.
A.F.W. Homepage

[bloom25]

Disclaimer: The following is personal opinion only.

I was talking to one of my squadmates tonight who was saying that he could pour 100s of rounds into an enemy and he was still flying, yet when he got hit once, he lost a wing.  He had this happen 3 times in a row and logged off rather angry.

Is this rubber bullets raising their ugly head yet again?  I don't know.  Could this thread's topic be somehow related to connection quality?  Maybe.

My personal opinion is that this is pretty realistic.  Cannon rounds would be absolutely devastating to metal-skinned aircraft.  In fact I've read that only 5 - 10 MG151 could do lethal damage to a b17.  The only guns that I personally think are a little weak are 50 cals.  These, by virtue of the shear number of bullets put into the air, should be excellent snapshot weapons.  Most all accounts by US aces tell of wings being sawed in half by quick bursts of 50 cal.  Currently it seems a good 2 second burst at convergence is needed to bring down anything using 50 cals IMO.  Overall, I'm pretty happy with the damage modeling as it is, though a few minor refinements to the 50s would make it excellent.  Compared to other games that I've played though, we have it pretty good in here.  Great work so far HTC.

bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[funked]

Guys there are plenty of war stories of fighters coming home with dozens of 20mm strikes and hundreds of MG hits.

[Skorpyon]

Regarding how lethal the guns can/should be...
(paraphrased from Air Classics Magazine, Feb. 2000)
Hans Joachim Marseille, flying with JG52 over France between 1939 and 1941, and with JG27 over North Africa between the spring of 1941 and Sept. 30 of 1942, scored a total of 158 kills in 382 missions, with one 17 kill day, and averaging approximately 15 rounds fired per kill.  On Sept. 1, 1942, the 17 kill day, on his first sortie before refueling he shot down 4 P-40 Kittyhawks in his BF109F, using only 20 rds. of cannon and 60 rds. of machine gun ammunition.

 There are other accounts (as mentioned above) of aircraft being shredded, and still returning to base.  Much of this depended on the plane in question, as several had outstanding durability records.  Draw your own conclusions from this info, but with the possible exception of the F4U-1C, I think the guns are modeled pretty accurately in AH, or at least they are modeled fairly evenly across the board, with the one exception I suggested.

 

[Dinger]

I dunno if they're "too strong" or not.
I do know that the -1C is annoying precisely because a snapshot will kill ya.
Anything else wants a few more rounds than that.  Still, if you give someone a guns solution 100 yards behind you, you will go down.  A mid-range ping or two won't kill, unless it's a cannon hawg.
The ShVAKs kill pretty good too.

[Nash]

Forgive my ignorance - this could be common knowledge. But - from my understanding, ammo and the damage it inflicts is modelled. Each AC's armour, however, is not (yet).

Do I have this wrong?

[juzz]

H.J. Marseille's low ammo use per kill was almost entirely due to his unique shooting style, ie: very close range and high deflection. His wingman would report seeing round strikes "walking" down the nose to the cockpit area. It should only take a few 7.92mm to kill a pilot...

But are PK's even in AH? I never had one. And, the gunner positions in bombers cannot be destroyed either, afaik.  

[Rommel]

------------------


[This message has been edited by Rommel (edited 03-22-2000).]

[Jekyll]

Juzz.. gun positions in bombers can most definitely be killed.

Nothing worse than being in a b17 when you see the messages:

Tail gunner is dead
Top turret is dead
Bottom turret is dead

Time to think of bailing  

[Beaz]

Interesting discussion. We had exactly the same discussion on the Tangmere BB about a week ago. There are now several members of Tangmere 'moonlighting' in AH and the question reared its head about the whole of Tangmere moving over to AH... that's about another 50 pilots.

Last week I downloaded AH again after not having flown it since the very first beta. I felt quite enthusiastic, it does have some very nice features. There is no doubt that AH now holds a lot of promise and I genuinely think that both the Warbirds and AH flight models are so similar that you couldn't probably pick between the two. I'm not convinced as yet that one is significantly better than the other one or vice-versa. The only thing I can really say about it is that aircraft in AH bleed energy like stuffed pigs and in Warbirds they retain too much energy. It's a matter of personal preference but I don't have a problem with either one of them.

Where I may have a problem, is in what I would call the 'combat' model. When the next AH release comes out (2 weeks) I will go online and give it a full two week no holds barred evaluation and I will do the same for Warbirds. I have no axe to grind here and I will be as fair and impartial as I can be. If I find that the only way to survive in AH is to climb out into the stratosphere, split-s, dive, get a couple of pings on someone and watch them disintegrate then I doubt very much I will be coming back to AH for a very long time. Personally I hate that sort of crap and I especially hate those people who think they are so damn toejam-hot because of it. It is a complete no-brainer to me. I would be absolutely bored toejamless in no time at all.

The cost is a non-issue. I value my free time a lot more than the time I would spend playing any one of these sims. $29.95 per month is nothing. I wouldn't miss it at all. Being a Warbirds trainer I have a comped account. In return I give up my time to train people. Like I say the cost is a non-issue. I will fly what I perceive to be the best sim I can lay my hands on regardless of cost (within reason).

Let's say that iEN goes belly-up tomorrow and Warbirds is no more. Even if AH were the only alternative I wouldn't fly it under the conditions I have described above. It would be a complete waste of my time and I would just sit it out until something else came along. I'm not going to waste my time so that Joe Bloggs 'dweeb' with 2 days flight
experience in AH can point his heavily gunned FW 190 at me and vapourise me as soon as look at me... not going to happen. If on the other hand the 'combat' model was such that I felt that he had 'worked' a bit for his kill then I would be happy with that. Simply falling out the sky at the speed of sound, loosing off a couple of shells, vapourising someone and disappearing off to the far side of the planet is not how it should be. It might have been indicitive of air combat in 1944-45 but it is certainly not 'fun' IMHO.

Regards

Daren

------------------
Beaz aka ==bz==
249 Squadron RAF "Gold Coast"
"With Fists and Heels"
Part of the Tangmere Wing