Suggestion: NO Random Stuff

[HFMudd]

Part of the problem with "random" failures is that it is subjective.  We can pontificate in the tavern all day long about what the chances of a lend-lease Hurricane engine failing in Russia because it had the wrong oil for the conditions.  Or we can sit in our armchairs with fine cigars and a glass of port and talk about the poor maintenance and manufacturing conditions relating to late war Japanese aircraft.  Or we can observe, as we walk by the lake, that slave labor made the detinator in a given German bomb and that it has some chance of having been intentionaly sabotaged.

We don't know what the right numbers are to plug into the game to reflect this.  Just imagine the amout of in-fighting and mud-slinging that will go if HTC deside that this failure for that aircraft is 2% per hour and 100% power...

I'm all for modeling a gun jam from over heating or for the Me262 engine to flame out if the throttle is advanced to fast.  However, I don't see how mechanical failures due to maintenance, supply or manufacture can be modeled unless the data that supports the frequency of failure for a given condition for every "like" system can located.

Note: By "like" system I mean that having accurate data for the jam rate of a Hispano does little for determining the jam rate for an MG151 or for a Type-99.  We can and would go round and round about the MG151 being more reliable but never agree on how much.

If HTC has the information, I say go for it.  If they don't then it is a can of worms I'd sure be reluctant to open if I were them.

[ergRTC]

ahhh good point mudd

But if he can I hope he does!

[Kweassa]

I have mixed thoughts about this one.

 Personally, I myself, am not very frustrated of random failure issues. If I fly even for 40 minutes for a mission, but by some freaky reason that my engine should start sputtering, trailing smoke and oil, I would still accept that as my bad luck, and will try to nurse my AC back home. It would be even more interesting when this might happen during a battle...

 However, I do admit not everyone thinks the way I do, and to considerable many people that random failures might be distasteful.

 ..

 But still, reliability issues are also a part of the pros and cons which make up an aircraft. For instance, prototypes and early manufactiured versions of the Ki-84 was known to be more versatile and reliable, while the production versions suffered vast shortage of maintenance and material, thus making the plane,  which specifications are so impressive on paper, very unreliable and uncomfortable for the pilot in actual performance.

 Reliability issues, in my opinion, are things too big to just 'discard' and 'do away', saying 'hey, it's only a game'.

 I can only hope for a reasonable decision on the part of HTC.

[Furious]

Originally posted by ergRTC
Then stay in the MA.

Are you a dork or do you just play one on the bbs?

This is an assinine request.  It would be a totally forced and BS gimmic.  Where you gonna get enough data to prove any system is not pure crap?  How many folks in their right mind would join the Nipponese side in a late war setup, knowing that 20+% of them will rtb after launch.  Poking youself in the face with a stick would be about as much fun, and at least you would have a cool scar when the 30 minutes was over.


All damage to an aircraft shoud be caused by the pilot or the enemy or friendly fire.    


...and maybe birds.


F.

[Wotan]

Mudd and Furious are correct,

Erg you always remain in the ct.......

[Midnight]

OK.. here's another way that I MIGHT accept random failures.

Game feature: Strat targets: factories

At the start of the war, all manufacturing and reliabilty are at 100% and no random failures occur.

If the fuel factory is bombed, then a random factor could be induced which "MIGHT" effect the octane level in available fuel, which in turn could limit total output power to an aircraft.

If the ammo factory is bombed, then a random factor could be incuded which "MIGHT" effect ammunition causing a gun to jam, or a bomb ending up being a dud.

If the maintenance hangers on a particular field are damaged, this "MIGHT" cause aircraft leaving that field to have a "POSSIBILITY" of a failure due to poor maintenance.

----

Random failures based on historical data and put into the game "just because" is not something that makes sense. Most of these historical failures (like the P-51B gun jams, Typhoon's poor engine performance at high altitude, etc.) were designed out in updated models.

Failures due to poor manufacturing conditions, low quality materials, untrained aircrews and other factors should not be designed into the game as a simple random thing. Tie these things directly to a strat system that works in the game, and the vague randomness becomes more acceptable (at least to me)

In playing a game/sim, we should be able to assume that the aircraft we choose to fly will work as advertised, unless there is some measurable detraction, such as broken supply lines, factories that are out of commission, airfields that are heavily damaged, etc.

In the real war, pilots had to deal with "random" failures becuase they really had no other choice. But if you think about it, most failures could be attributed to something else.

Like your car, for example... You can drive it and drive it, and if properly maintained, it will last a LONG time with very little chance of failure.

Now, go without maintenance.
1. Oil doesn't get changed because you don't have any fresh oil
2. Radiator hoses don't get replaced because you don't have any new ones.
3. Tires don't get rotated or replaced because your too busy to get it done.

Driving the car now, you have increased the chances of failure. The engine might seize, it might not. The radiator hose might crack, it might not. A tire might go flat or blow out, or it might not. One thing for sure, you CHANCE of failure is increased, but it's not really random when it DOES happen, just WHEN is the randomness.

Anyway, as I said, if we can have a measureable and trackable factor for determining the chances of a failure, it might be better, even for gameplay. It would encourage putting in the extra effort to kill the enemy's refinery, or spare parts factory (please make this new factory HT)

Random failure for history's sake does not a fun game make.

[Wotan]

Heres an idea for realism, Its works on the users front end

It will work for every one

Ya want gun jams 15 min after launch shoot off all your ammo....

instant simulated gun jam

Ya want eng failures 15 min into flight turn off your eng or take off with  25 gas and let it run out

instant simulated eng failure

Ya want no radar or clipboard gps map or adjustable head views

Put a paper bag over your head or hang a towel over your monitor, you can have all the realism ya want right on your front end.........

[HFMudd]

It may be possible to have it both way of course...  Since we will be playing for mission points in order to increase rank.  (As I understand it...)  One could make the degree of system reliability player selectable "in the hanger" and the greater degree of "realism" one chooses acts as a multiplier for mission points awarded at completion.

In the above I am of course equating "realism" with "things break."

BTW: If you want to read reams and reams of conversation on this very point, have a gander at the forums at the Wings With Wires sight.  None of this is anything new under the sun.

[Furious]

Midnight has any interesting idea there.

Lets pretend.....(wavy screen)

1.  Damage done to specific types of strategic targets have some varying affect on corresponding plane performance.

examples:
Oil refinery - would produce impurities that might cause an engine to run overly hot or would reduce the quality of fuels (lower octanes, etc.)
Ball Bearing plants - poor quality bearings might cause engines to sieze, tank turrets to rotate slower, etc.

...and so on.

2.  Pilots are awarded resource points (RP) for successful missions or some other activity.  Think perk points.

Situation:
Your ball bearing and oil refinery have been hit.  The game has determined that you have a 20% chance that your engine will malfunction and you only have a lower octane fuel available.

Your avatar could choose to roll the dice and just risk it, or could apply his resource points to improving the odds.

In this situation the pilot chooses to pay 10 RP to use the higher octane fuel that his crew chief has squirrelled away and uses 10 RP to bring the chance of engine failure down to 10% (1 RP per 1%) buy tossing the mechanic a full pack of smokes.

(wavy screen)


...anyway, this would the make possibility of failure known before flight and would give the pilot some way to lessen the chances of a scrubbed mission.

It also bases failure rates on in game situations.

Also, I think it would be well in line with the RPG aspect.



F.

[Fariz]

I would prefer all kind of random events. Guns jams for sure. Engines misfunctions -- yes, though read my other post. If we will be let to spend our CP for some additional plane care, you can spend some on ordering your ground crew to check the engine, so it is much less chances for failer. So you will have to chose between keeping them for promossion or other staff, like making your plane better, or having more chances to go home alive.

I understand that engine failer can be hell of frustration, specially over enemy territory. But it shall not happen often, because it have not happen often in RL.

Actually knowing HTC I can say that AHII still will not be a clear sim, it will have lot of gameplay compromise, so unlikely we will get random engine dammages.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by Furious
Midnight has any interesting idea there.

Lets pretend.....(wavy screen)



(wavy screen)

Cool

[Mini D]

I'm not a big fan of the idea of random failures.  However, I do believe you can instill some level of marginality in performance.

Basically, we should have to check our oil pressure, head PSI and so forth.  There should be a certain random performance range where our aircraft will opperate.  There shouldn't be an instant "your engine is dead", but it should be possible that someone, ever so often, experiences an overheating problem.  Or perhaps a minor vibration.  That type of thing.

Minor variances would be frustrating, but also immersive.  Especially if they drove the need for a decision on wether or not to fly or RTB.

MiniD

[Kweassa]

I like what Furious says

 It'd also help people give some serious motivation in carrying out assignments given to them. Miserable mission stats = worse conditions of the war... that will effect everyone slowly, but steadily, ever increasing.

 ....

 But on the other hand... what about pilots playing the role such as the USAAF? They didn't have any resource targets to worry about and protect.. What will effect them in terms of balance?

(or, in TOD, will historic disadvantages such as strategical mistakes, dwindling resources effect only one side?)

[snafu]

I'm inclined to feel that any form of "random failure" should somehow be originally linked to a pilot or other players action, (Either you or someone else). I'm all for guns overheating because of to much use - or freezing because of to little at alt, Engine overheating because of to much WEP or damage but "True random" failures"?? Leave em out of AH, we already have enough to contend with due to the vaguries of the internet sometimes. Treat a CTD as pilot heart attack, System lockup as someone left a spanner somewhere, Lost UDP treat the connection degredation as pilot fatigue

For me Random failures which would make a real WW2 pilot go "What the F..." are amply represented in areas they could not even imagine in the 1940's.

TTFN
snafu