Might as well get my other grip out of my system........

[Toad]

Think about it.

Unless you model random mechanical failure, checking the magnetos has nothing whatsoever to do with playing.

Gun modeling ALWAYS has something to do with playing and HTC has always striven for accuracy in FM and ballistic modeling.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Think about it.

Unless you model random mechanical failure, checking the magnetos has nothing whatsoever to do with playing.

Gun modeling ALWAYS has something to do with playing and HTC has always striven for accuracy in FM and ballistic modeling.

Mr. T, I don't disagree - I don't want all that magneto checking, mixture setting nonsense - in a GAME that is played from a keyboard. Our "random mechanical failures" take the form of failures in the domestic electricity supply, disconnections, Lost UDP - transferring to TCP etc.

But I do feel that people often call for changes, in order to alter gameplay they don't like. Eg. increasing fuel bowser "hardness". Whenever I see a thread in which changes of "hardness" are proposed, it's usually to alter gameplay. If I may for a moment resurrect an old topic, the suicide fuel porker can have a devastating effect on an enemy field. And people start calling for the fuel tank "hardness" to be increased. Why? I can think of no better reason than the fact that they don't like having their fuel porked. And as OIO pointed out, it would seem perfectly legitimate for a hail of .50 cals to bust up a fuel tank and cause it to explode.

[Toad]

Beet1e, don't be deliberately obtuse ok? It's a tiresome act and it's causing me to lose any respect I have left for you.

Just some friendly words of advice, ok?

I haven't said a word about altering the pintle gun for gameplay reasons. I have said it is incorrectly modeled. I believe you know it is as well and have intimated as much in this thread. So the discussion is about accurate modeling. Period.

If accurate modeling has an "effect" on gameplay, so be it. I think you find nearly everyone here is in favor of correct FM, ballistic and other verifiable data related factors. I can't think of anyone that truly wants these factors "fudged" for gameplay.

It's the same as if we had a P-40 that climbed at 6000 fpm. Nobody wants that, not even the P-40 fans, because it simply isn't correct.

Armor hid from air as much as possible because armor was vulnerable to air and a pintle gun was no defense.

If anything should be done, the pintle should be modeled correctly and the AH "world" should provide more places for armor to hide, similar to what they had/used in the war.

Ta.

[rshubert]

I don't know, Toad.  I can see your side of the discussion, and also the other side.  I guess it could go either way, as far as I am concerned.  I do think that tanks are over-vulnerable to air attack, not necessarily because of modeling, but due to gameplay issues--air cover is hard to find, sometimes.  Especially when using GVs to attack airfields in the MA.  But that's GAMEPLAY.  

I think I have been destroyed by aircraft more than I have destroyed aircraft.  I'm not bothered by that.  It can be frustrating to get bombed by a jabo when I'm trying to lay my gun on a target, but what the heck??  If the game were too one-sided, I wouldn't enjoy it.  I gave up arcade games a long time ago.

Don't think that I feel you are "interfering" with my play when you introduce a plane into a GV battle.  It adds to the adrenaline level.  I play for the challenge.  It's challenging to shoot you down and survive the experience.  I may cuss you a little bit when you get me.  Nothing personal.

[rshubert]

Here's what we do.  Correct the pintle gun model, if it can be shown to be incorrect.  Get rid of the icons on GVs, except friendlies, so GVs are harder to see.  Make it impossible for the aircraft to disable clutter, so GVs can hide under trees and stuff.

Now my GV is hard for you to find, and if you find me, maybe I can shoot you down, maybe I can't.  

Peace??

[Toad]

Obviously, from all my previous posts here, I would have no problem with that. However, you still have to have a way to tell a friendly from an enemy, even in GV's.

[AKWarp]

I drive GV's a lot.  I think the current gun setup is ok.  It's absolutely ridiculous though, that a niki can take out both tracks, the main gun and the pintle gun in a single pass with cannons, regardless of vehicle type (except maybe the tiger on occasion).

I understand Toad's point, but to be fair, if this were to be, then GV's need to be afforded the ability to hide under cover, such as trees, etc.  Since foliage is now part of the "ground clutter" and can be turned off, GV's are wide open and can not hide at all.  The guns as they are are, IMHO fair compensation.

I rarely ever get a pintle kill on an aircraft, it takes too many bullets and a good pilot can usually disable them before I can kill his plane...but then again, there are a lot of not-so-smart pilots that will head on a GV at low alt.

[Toad]

Warp, it may be that the GV damage model is still too soft with respect to aircraft guns. If so, THAT would need to be fixed.

In the same way that an "overmodeled" pintle gun would need to be fixed.

The GV's do need a place to hide, so THAT needs to be fixed.

But an incorrectly modeled gun or FM  has, to my knowledge, never been proposed or tolerated when discovered by HTC. And certainly not for a gameplay advantage.

As I said, Hurri I's have a tough time in the game too. They can't run and they can't hide either. Do their .303's get a boost? I don't think so.

I'd rather see us fix what needs fixin' correctly than to start artificially tweaking.

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad said

I haven't said a word about altering the pintle gun for gameplay reasons.

You didn't have to. But the gameplay reasons still exist. I was getting ready to think what to say about this, but AKWarp has delivered an excellent reply, and I agree with him 110%. Your point about the Hurri-1 is good though, but there are two things I could say about that. [list=1]

• There are many other planes to fly, but only a limited number of GVs.
• The Hurri-1 was not designed to be used in 1945. By that time it was hopelessly outclassed by 109G/190 etc. Of course, were we to have an RPS, then the Hurri-1 would fare just fine in the early part of the war, as indeed it did in RL. But oh! We can't have an RPS - limiting people's choices etc. We wouldn't want that aspect of realism to be included now, would we?

My prediction for what will happen if pintle effectiveness is reduced, and vulnerability is increased is exactly what AKWarp tells us is already happening. The N1K GV vulchers will be out in force.

It is rare to get a pintle kill. I have had only 2-3 three in all the time I've been playing AH. And all those have been when an aircraft has really persisted with low passes at a constant trajectory relative to my GV. In other words, he was asking for it.

[Toad]

Come now, you just can't be as thick as a brick, despite how you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying.

"My prediction for what will happen if pintle effectiveness is reduced, and vulnerability is increased is exactly what AKWarp tells us is already happening. The N1K GV vulchers will be out in force."

The problem here is possibly two fold:

1. The GV's need cover to hide in from airpower, as they historically did.

2. (Possibly) GV armor needs more tweaking to make it more historically correct, more protection against aircraft guns.

So your solution is to artificially increase the effectiveness of the pintle gun?  

As to the rest.........

"only a limited number of GVs."

You can't seriously offer this as a reason to incorrectly model the ballistics of a gun. So anything limited in number should get a cheat code? I'm very close to ROFL......

"The Hurri-1 was not designed to be used in 1945."

Really? I'm pretty sure tanks were not designed to suppress air power either. The pintle gun mounted as "AA defense" is more truly just a gesture made at reassuring the tank crew. As I said, who'd want to stand in an open turret manning that thing when .50's or 20mm were raining down all over and around the tank?

Beyond that though.. thanks for stepping up and proving Ack-Ack right in the other thread by once again advocating an RPS.

Now I AM  ROFL!

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad.

HTC set the pintle ballistics. Given the amount of work they have in their in tray right now, I can't see them sitting down to model ground cover against air attacks. I didn't say increase the power of the pintle. I'm saying leave things alone for the time being. Besides, it seems entirely viable that the pintle gun could kill the pilot of a plane making a long slow pass.

It's not a piece of cheat code. It is a minor matter, but I don't think we need pintle revisions until we're ready for ground cover revisions as described by AKWarp, above. One outstanding change compensates for the other. Dead simple. Now I KNOW you're not thick as a brick, so I won't even ask if you get it now.

[Toad]

Accuracy first, features second.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Accuracy first, features second.

Whatever.

Toodle-Pip.