Suggestion: NO Random Stuff

[Midnight]

I think most players will pretty much agree that 'random' failures for no apparent reason are too much BS for a game or sim.

I would be on the brink of quitting if I flew 20+ minutes in a bomber escort mission only to have my engine quit for no reason just as we came into contact with the enemy.

In a game, failures need to be the result of something the player did, or something that happened as a result of combat (i.e. taking fire from the enemy)

A failure occuring because of some mistake an unseen ground crew person made, or a small defect in the manufacturing process is just not something that people want to accept.

Maybe, just maybe, if HT made a second part of the game, called "Aces High : Ground Crew" where each player could manually inspect his aircraft and make adjustments/repairs with virtual tools, etc. Then 'random' failures could be the fault of the player for not checking something or fixing it properly.

That being said, I doubt HT is going to make that part of the game, so bottom line...

Vote NO for random failures.

[Flash Gordon]

I'm not sure if this counts as being random or not but I vote YES for gun jams.

Might encourage people to fire short bursts instead of hosing tracers left and right.

And how would you recreate Jim Howard's MoH-winning feat with a P-51B with guns that DIDN'T jam?

[ergRTC]

I thought this was supposed to be a sim?  You guys that cant take a little random failure can go fly in the MA.

I say make it real.

[kurupi]

SUGGESTION: Check box  (  ) Random Damage. If u like it, check it!!

[Wotan]

I am for single gun jams that are random and rare, I am not for flying 15 min and then my guns dont function or my  eng cuts out with no warning or reason.

Progressive Eng damage due to overheating or over revving would be ok as long as we have the necessary controls to regulate these.

Progressive damage on engines  that recieved battle damage I would be for.

I am as much a realism freak as anyone but I like to have fun too. Even then you would have a hard time convincing me that you could introduce random eng failures and gun jams based on real data.

So creating an artificial condition that causes gun jams and eng failures because you "heard" about it in ww2 is hardly real.

[ergRTC]

I would disagree.  I think much of the war was about keeping planes running, and depending on the theatre this was very important.  I think it would be just as 'fun' to try and get a dying plane back to land as shooting someone.  I think this would become critical later in the 'Tour' when planes like the ki84/61 come in.  That would make a zeke look very appealing.


In a perfect world these would not be truely random, it would depend on theatre, base condition, and plane type.  Just as gun jams in badly mounted p51b 50s would be more common.

Like I said, make it real.  Its a sim.

[Modas]

I would like to see this as realistic as possible.  Random stuff, not so much, but I would like to see failures due to something the player is doing.

i.e. Pull to many g's during firing - guns jam
i.e. Run the engine on full power to long, overhead, engine damage

Lets make the failures something the player can control.  If the player choices to exceed the mechnical limits so to speak, they can, but will have to pay a price

[Imp]

Random failure will turn off too many players.

Engine overheating on WEP would be fun, WEP would have to be used wisely.

Gun jams could be done like Fighter Ace 3.5, guns heat and stop firing for a little while. You have to be careful on the trigger if you dont want to miss a good firing opportunity.

[ergRTC]

I guess the real question here is, what kind of power are game play (arcade) concessions going to have on development.  I know a few dweebs that would like to see black outs go too.

Since the game is going to be split between MA and TOD, I dont see a single reason not to keep the TOD real.

[Saurdaukar]

I would like to see AHII be as realistic as possible.  Gun jams, engine failures based on reliability records (say not only does an engine overheat from WOT, but the lesser quality designs like the (cough) N1k might be damaged from engine overuse).  That way its not entirely random, but is based player actions.  People might just have to get used to the fact that sure, you can fly a Ki84 - but damn if it wont be a 50/50 chance of the thing breaking mid-flight.

I dont think the above mentioned requests would take away from the player base at all - I think more players would flow in.  If you think about why most of us play AH, its because the learning curve is steep.  People that have played online flight sims since AW Genie are still playing because you cant learn everything there is to learn in complex games like this overnight.  Most games run about a 6 month course before players have "been there, done that" and get bored.  We're not attracting CS players here, but flight SIM junkies, and flight SIM junkies want flight SIMs.  

In any event, I would like to see AHII change the flight sim genre just as AH did - that means something new, like the above mentioned, as opposed to rehashing the MA rules/gameplay with sharper graphics.  If you want to quake it up - as Im sure I will from time to time, thats what the MA is for.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by ergRTC
I would disagree.  I think much of the war was about keeping planes running, and depending on the theatre this was very important...

See my original post...
I don't want to rely on some 'random' thing that might have happened based on untold variables..
1. mechanic was sick, left 2 bolts loose on intake manifold.

2. weapons loader dropped ammo belt in the mud and didn't have time to clean everything up prior to the mission.

3. a tiny crack in the engine block caused during a casting operation in a manufacturing plant.

or any other failures that a player has no control over.

Originally posted by ergRTC Like I said, make it real.  Its a sim.

Check the boards. You will see that I am one of the more outspoken proponents of realism in this sim. Realism, however needs to be based on palyer controllable actions or interactions.

1. I am for gun jams based on player actions such as continuous firing or firing during high G maneuvers.

2. I am for engine damage (power loss) caused by over-stress, such as prolonged WEP or when the engine takes a bullet.

3. I am for structural failures caused by high G maneuvers when a component has been damaged (i.e. a P-51 should not still be able to pull 5+ Gs if the ailerons and flaps have been shot off. One would have to think that the rest of the wing is probably hanging on by a thread and the plane should be nursed home as soon as possible, not sticking around to stay in the fight.)

4. I am for limiting a pilot's ability to bail out succesfully under high G loads, extreme spins, or past critical velocity.

5. I am for removing 'exact' range from icons and changing them so they alpha-fade in and out depending on distance.

6. I am for adding a strat system that uses limited supplies and resources to prevent insta-spawning and endless vulching/suicide raids

7. I am for limiting player lives (in the MA) to a fixed number per hour, again to limit suiciding.

There are a lot of other realism features that I am for, but random failures that are beyond my control are NOT one of them.

[ergRTC]

I disagree with your opinion on randomness.  Within the bounds of the aircraft (its history) I think these things should happen.  This will add a large bit of personality to each plane.  We will see why those guys that flew the p40 loved it so much even though it was a little doggy.  If you had a choice between a beast that might break down or a yugo that you know is rock solid, that may affect your choice.  I think the fact that it is out of your control is only after you pick the plane.  You knew the chances when you strapped in.  

Can you imagine flying the mission listening carefully to the 'highly realistic new engine noise' and flinching when you think you hear a knock or two?  Maybe a little backfire when you push it to full throttle tips you off something is not right.  Then you decide to play it easy, and let your buddies know your plane is lowsy.  Maybe a guy behind you lets you know your plane is spitting a little smoke out of the left bank of cylinders.  

That is the kind of realism I would like to see.  Down to personal aircraft, so when you get a good one you take care of it, even get attached to it.  If you get a bad one, maybe a little selective bail out over the base (lose some major points of course, maybe demoted, but you are still alive) after you give it a couple tries....  

What would even be better is that you would stick with your same ride till you either get sent back or forward 'in the game'.  

For example when you spawn a new ride in the TOD, this ride is given a profile that will determine its abilities (hot engine, weak frame, unreliable oil pump, poor radiator) from then on out.   Every time you fly from then on out, that is your beast till death (or ditch) do you part.   Gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.


erg

[Furious]

Random breakdowns would be as much fun as paying $12 dollars to see a movie only to have the film break and the theater employees tell you to go home.

This is entertainment.  It is not anywhere close to being real, and noone would really want it to be anyway.


F.

[ergRTC]

Then stay in the MA.

[MRPLUTO]

I agree with Midnight, plus...

...the longer you fly over 30,000 feet, the greater the chance of your guns freezing up (unless you fire them often).  Buffs could still bomb from 35k, but by the time they got that high their guns would all be beginning to freeze up.  Alt monkeys must pay a price.

MRPLUTO  VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~  MAG-33