Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: moot on July 28, 2013, 04:49:30 AM
-
"Better" sounds possibly rude to you guys at HTC, but more elegant's always better, no? More elegant because this would allow players to shoot only the guns they mean to, instead of e.g. MK103 and 20mm together.
We currently have these gun loadouts below, but first - we don't have 4x50kg bomb option like the 110 has. Is this because it's somehow more/too much trouble to have it on the 410 as is, or because the option was judged not interesting enough? I wager it's the latter: not interesting enough. So... I also suggest the 410's guns options could be these - more adapted to players' interests - if adding a third trigger is not possible or not desirable.
Current AH options (bold nose, regular bomb bay):
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm + 2x 20mm
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm + 4x 20mm
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm + 2x MK103
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm + 1x BK5
And then the same thing with 7.9mm's instead of MG131's.
Suggested:
2x MG131 + 2x 20mm : "Factory default", lightest package with 190D-9 lethality which is still respectable for A2A.
2x 20mm + 2x 20mm : "B2/U2 (MG 131 delete)". Just the minimum 20mm hardware (== ballast for maneuvering) you care about for dealing useful burst damage.
2x 20mm + 4x 20mm : "B2/U2/R5". 6x20 without the 13mm ballast.
2x 20mm + 2x MK103: "B2/U2/R3". 2x20 and 2xMK103, again with 75lbs or more deleted.
2x 20mm + BK5: "B2/U4". You would fire the BK5 without having to press backspace.
So basically, what we have but with MG131s deleted in the non-default configs.
These suggested configs are historical. Yep, the exact names are kind of arbitrary... but those are the notes I have from reading pretty much all Me 410 books, so I don't doubt they were fielded configurations, not projections. If just referring to these configs isn't enough... I'll go dig into notes & books for exact evidence of each config.
-
I generally use the 103s from long range - at 1k or more the trajectory of the 20mms is so far below that of the 103s that I know I'm just pooping them uselessly off into the ether - any way to map the 30mms and 20mms to separate buttons?
-
No, The grouping is done by HTC. And in this case it's particularly useless. No way to hit the target with both guns at the ranges the MK 103 is great at. :bhead
-
Hmmm.
What if the two fixed 20mm guns were grouped with the 7.92/13mm guns in the primary slot and the secondary slot was used for the additional 20/30/50/bombs/rockets?
That way you'd have, for example,
Primary: Two 13mm MG131 and two 20mm MG151/20
Secondary: Two 30mm MK103
Or
Primary: Two 13mm MG131 and two 20mm MG151/20
Secondary: Four 20mm MG151/20
And so on.
-
Hmmm.
What if the two fixed 20mm guns were grouped with the 7.92/13mm guns in the primary slot and the secondary slot was used for the additional 20/30/50/bombs/rockets?
That way you'd have, for example,
Primary: Two 13mm MG131 and two 20mm MG151/20
Secondary: Two 30mm MK103
Or
Primary: Two 13mm MG131 and two 20mm MG151/20
Secondary: Four 20mm MG151/20
And so on.
I think this makes more sense. I've also heard that on the late model 109s, the 20mm gun pods were grouped with the 13mm and the 30mm was on its own secondary trigger.
-
Evidently you have not tried the 6x20mm's? Far better trajectory, far more ammo, and much easier to use. Oh, and don't forget adding in the quad 13mm's as well since they closely match the 20mm's trajectory. That is a lot of lead heading down range. :aok
I think the 410 is just fine as is. I hope to see some more people use it to bust hangers (2 500kg SAP and a short burst of 20mm and 13mm in 1 pass). :aok But alas, the P51D is so much more easy to use. :bhead
-
Evidently you have not tried the 6x20mm's? Far better trajectory, far more ammo, and much easier to use. Oh, and don't forget adding in the quad 13mm's as well since they closely match the 20mm's trajectory. That is a lot of lead heading down range. :aok
I think the 410 is just fine as is. I hope to see some more people use it to bust hangers (2 500kg SAP and a short burst of 20mm and 13mm in 1 pass). :aok But alas, the P51D is so much more easy to use. :bhead
Set a target at 1000 meters and 1500 meters in the offline practice. Shoot at it with the 2x20mm/2x30mm package. Then ce back and tell us which has the better ballistics :D
-
The 30mm MK103 is not the same as the MK108 on the Bf109/Fw190/Me163/Me262/Ta152. It has a better than Hispano trajectory.
-
Evidently you have not tried the 6x20mm's? Far better trajectory, far more ammo, and much easier to use. Oh, and don't forget adding in the quad 13mm's as well since they closely match the 20mm's trajectory.
Quad 13mm? MG 151/20 better trajectory than the MK 103?
Have you ever actually used this plane? :neener:
-
What they said.
There's no quad 13mm
The ballistics for 20mm is not superior to the 103s'
It's very arguable whether 6x20 or 103s are easier to use
Again no quad 13mm (that second pair is the barbettes... can you say placebo?) and an extra pair of .50's lead thruput is negligible in the company of something like 6x20 or 2x103
And... you "evidently" did trials to check that 6x20 is as you say preferable in all ways to MK103 loadout, for instance in damage/time?
Even if what you said were true.... That's no design method, to just say "this apples is good enough, forget about letting players set their tool up with these oranges".
-
What they said.
There's no quad 13mm
The ballistics for 20mm is not superior to the 103s'
It's very arguable whether 6x20 or 103s are easier to use
Again no quad 13mm (that second pair is the barbettes... can you say placebo?) and an extra pair of .50's lead thruput is negligible in the company of something like 6x20 or 2x103
And... you "evidently" did trials to check that 6x20 is as you say preferable in all ways to MK103 loadout, for instance in damage/time?
Even if what you said were true.... That's no design method, to just say "this apples is good enough, forget about letting players set their tool up with these oranges".
I've already corrected my "quad 13mm's" mistake. You're late to the flame fest. Need an ego boost, do ya?
You can tool up whatever you want, it is good to have a choice. I've only suggested for people not forget about what the 6/20mm's have to offer. HTC has the trigger groupings set up for a reason and to have to worry about the differences in 30mm vs 20mm vs 13mm can be a bit challenging when you're out of the "sweet spot" for obvious reasons. Can you quote where I said "in all ways"? No? Didnt think so. I didn't mention damage per gun, gun package, over time, or pakage weights, etc. I'm rather familiar with the differences in RPM and damage over time differences. Are you? Why do you test it out and let me know your thoughts on the difference, k? The 6/20mm's are simple, offer plenty of damage, and are uniform. The same cant be said for having all three calibers represented for either bomber killer or ground pounder role.
-
Why do you test it out and let me know your thoughts on the difference, k?
Not possible to test because the MK103s are grouped with the two fixed MG151/20s.
-
Not possible to test because the MK103s are grouped with the two fixed MG151/20s.
Tell me you can't deduct using known weapon damages and OBJ hardness settings??? :headscratch:
-
Tell me you can't deduct using known weapon damages and OBJ hardness settings??? :headscratch:
Makes it lot harder to set the durability levels when you have four guns of two different types firing at different rates and merged ammo counters so that you can't even see how many rounds of each have been fired.
You'd need to empty the plane each time you did the test, changing the hangar durability to try to find where it is just high enough to be destroyed but even .1lbs more required and it isn't destroyed, then subtract the MG151/20 damage from the total and divide the remaining damage done by the number of 30mm shells carried. Even then I don't think you'd get down to the hundredth of a pound that I have for other guns.
-
This has come up before,Bustr was kind enough to post the evidence. IRL the 410 had the mg;s and stock 20mm on a single trigger and the addons were on the secondary trigger. If the 410 was armed with bombs and or rockets a third trigger was used.
Ideally it would be nice if HTC slaved the MG's and internal 20mm's to primary trigger and any other ords use the secondary,with the usual backspace to cycle the ords.
This effectively would give the desired results.
:salute
-
Sounds like a good plan.
Now, to bribe HT with whiskey...
-
I don't think having the "no-MGs" options is possible due to the hangar selection limitations.
I *DO* think the 4x50kg need to be added most definitely
I *DO* think the external gunpod needs to be added and combinable with other loadouts. It is a weight/drag penalty by itself.
I think combining the 13mm or 7mm with the internal main 20mm guns is the best bet for convergence and selection issues. I think, however, when you get to the 20mm gun selections (2x and 4x) it presents a problem with trigger grouping, though it is still possible to "fire all."
-
I think, however, when you get to the 20mm gun selections (2x and 4x) it presents a problem with trigger grouping, though it is still possible to "fire all."
How so? Many aircraft have 20mms in multiple banks, the F4U-1C, N1K2-J and Typhoon for example. If you mean that could couldn't just fire the six 20mm, that is true, you'd need to fire all so the MGs would be heading downrange too.
-
It also precludes firing off your MG rounds, which many people do love to do.
-
This has come up before,Bustr was kind enough to post the evidence. IRL the 410 had the mg;s and stock 20mm on a single trigger and the addons were on the secondary trigger. If the 410 was armed with bombs and or rockets a third trigger was used.
Ideally it would be nice if HTC slaved the MG's and internal 20mm's to primary trigger and any other ords use the secondary,with the usual backspace to cycle the ords.
This effectively would give the desired results.
:salute
That or a third trigger (#1 MG #2 (all?) 20mm #3 MK103/BK5(/bomb bay 20mm's)) would allow the same end result it seems everyone would appreciate. I personally think a third trigger, or MG131 deleted as historically are more elegant solutions, but whatever. As long as players can shoot the 20s and 30s, each separately, I think everyone would be satisfied.
I don't think having the "no-MGs" options is possible due to the hangar selection limitations.
Ok tell me if I'm wrong (serious brain fade from 12h+ work shift): wouldn't the MG delete be doable by having simply "2x MG 151/20" along with the current choices for 131+20mm and 7.9mm+20mm?
It also precludes firing off your MG rounds, which many people do love to do.
Yep... One of the reasons why I think option for MG delete is a better solution.
I've already corrected my "quad 13mm's" mistake. You're late to the flame fest. Need an ego boost, do ya?
You can tool up whatever you want, it is good to have a choice. I've only suggested for people not forget about what the 6/20mm's have to offer. HTC has the trigger groupings set up for a reason and to have to worry about the differences in 30mm vs 20mm vs 13mm can be a bit challenging when you're out of the "sweet spot" for obvious reasons. Can you quote where I said "in all ways"? No? Didnt think so. I didn't mention damage per gun, gun package, over time, or pakage weights, etc. I'm rather familiar with the differences in RPM and damage over time differences. Are you? Why do you test it out and let me know your thoughts on the difference, k? The 6/20mm's are simple, offer plenty of damage, and are uniform. The same cant be said for having all three calibers represented for either bomber killer or ground pounder role.
So much hostility.. The TLDR for what I said is... "What you're saying does not add up"; for the reasons I bullet pointed. You can get hung up on differences in expression or you can just argue. The latter's way more interesting.
What you said was wrong and I pointed out why/how. If that's offensive.. ??
-
It also precludes firing off your MG rounds, which many people do love to do.
Yep... One of the reasons why I think option for MG delete is a better solution.
I see it opposite, to me it is a reason to lump them together. Gamey stuff like that ought to be discouraged.
-
The issue is that the 410 is an instance where this was a standard practice. On Fw190s it was even done with regularity... Most other planes I agree with you, but the 410 has a very solid case for it.
Problem is how to get so many options into a single hangar?
I wish HTC would allow a checkbox for it, or more columns, or something.
-
Wait.. What's gamey? Emptying one set of your guns or having the MG-less loadout?
And.. Maybe it's just coincidence, but the current range of 410 gun loadouts is pretty much what I'd suggested. I don't mean I'm special, but that HTC possibly is really paying attention to these (IMO) good debates over this issue.
Problem is how to get so many options into a single hangar?
I wish HTC would allow a checkbox for it, or more columns, or something.
There's got to be a simple solution right?
-
Wait.. What's gamey? Emptying one set of your guns or having the MG-less loadout?
Both, emptying the MGs for a miniscule improvement in performance and removing them outright when the Me410 typically had them.
Per morfiend's post my suggestion near the top of the first page was as historically accurate as we can get in AH.
-
I think that the 410's less than generous flight modeling (handling and IMO issues with the lift over the wings are wrong), it can benefit from removing the 2000 rounds of MG ammo. For half the gunpod loadouts in this game, the MGs were removed to compensate for the weight of the other guns in the bomb bay.
Removing just the 13mm ammo alone saves 180lbs... Not much, right? But that would be over 200+ if you could yank the guns out along with the ammo. Experiences with this plane above 30K while hunting bombers both in the LWA and in scenario use have shown my that, like its historical counterparts, it needs this help.
-
Both, emptying the MGs for a miniscule improvement in performance and removing them outright when the Me410 typically had them.
Per morfiend's post my suggestion near the top of the first page was as historically accurate as we can get in AH.
Karnak the 410 crews removed not only the MG131s but also armor. The only reason they didn't stick with the single seater (it is explicit that #1 motivation in developing this variant is top speed & minimum weight) was because crews were psychologically unable to cope with single-crew flying. The 190A as Krusty said also had an MG131 delete "option" in the field. I think you already know what I'm saying.
I don't understand how you can just categorically see it as being gamey, when the in-game behavior is about as close a mirror of reality as any other in-game behavior ? What's the beef? E.G. The 152 has just so much ammo that I never used - by default I removed all but 125rpg and 60 rounds of 20 and 30mm respectively. Anything more was just dead weight. Literally. I had no use for it. It was enough for 10 kills. Why is that gamey - any more than taking less than full tanks (wasn't that also the historical norm?) or .. Well I can't think of any other examples right now. [edit: anti-reflective surface ahead of cockpit? See what I mean?] It isn't about desperate exploits, but about setting the plane up to fit your intention. Just like everyone does in the first place, when they choose one plane or another, and one submodel or another.
Totally separate philosophies, that one you describe, and this.
And... I did feel the difference, every time, between having and not having that initial extra ammo, as well as between having 60 at start of sortie and 45 later on and definitely not just detectable but significant, demonstrable practical difference when I was down to 20 rounds of 108. Same deal with having just 30mm and no 20mm. Same with fuel... I remember specifically thinking that I could tell how much fuel I had by "blind folding" myself IE guessing how much fuel was left by just maneuvering but not looking at fuel gauge.
These are not insignificant "minuscule" improvements. Every little bit of angle and fraction of a second counts. Admittedly... I think this is only meaningful when you are all the way towards final 10% "mastery" of your fav plane. But... That's what this game is about. Being one with your machine. It might be pixels but the mind-side of the equation is the same whether you have pixels or an actual Mossie or Fw190 in your hands. Same thing with tuning the build and setup for virtual vs real race cars and bikes, etc.
The pleasure of being able to make your fav machine an extension of yourself to the point that these tiny tweaks are so significant is one of the rewards of all these years of stick and rudder practice. I think it's a discredit to our discipline to deny us this choice.
I think that the 410's less than generous flight modeling (handling and IMO issues with the lift over the wings are wrong), it can benefit from removing the 2000 rounds of MG ammo. For half the gunpod loadouts in this game, the MGs were removed to compensate for the weight of the other guns in the bomb bay.
It does benefit, but it's still shaving hair and tail off an elephant... The plane is still far from competitive even for "stall fight the 152 vs almost everything" kind of mind set.
Removing just the 13mm ammo alone saves 180lbs... Not much, right? But that would be over 200+ if you could yank the guns out along with the ammo. Experiences with this plane above 30K while hunting bombers both in the LWA and in scenario use have shown my that, like its historical counterparts, it needs this help.
Yep. Krusty I told you the single seater was a legitimate option historically and for total in-game context and from pure dogfight gameplay perspective. Anyway, that's a separate topic and I'm not gonna throw fuel on that fire.
-
I'm not necessarily advocating the single seater option. Just the no-MGs option on a 2-seater.
Ok tell me if I'm wrong (serious brain fade from 12h+ work shift): wouldn't the MG delete be doable by having simply "2x MG 151/20" along with the current choices for 131+20mm and 7.9mm+20mm?Yep... One of the reasons why I think option for MG delete is a better solution.
You're right. I was thinking of a different hangar layout than what the 410 (it's also been a long day for me). That would be a perfect solution for now.
(now, if they could just add in 4x50kg and a gunpod..... :D )
-
removing them outright when the Me410 typically had them.
I'm going to dig into my notes and books for this. I'm fairly sure removing the MGs was not rare or deviant. Like I said they just removed armor.. The brass meeting notes explicitly quote said brass complaining about that being duplicate work, logistically. But that was the will of the field crews. If I was betting (I'm not asserting it, I have no actual basis either way), I'd bet HTC modeled with-armor from conservative POV - not enough evidence for how much it was done, or for it being the dominant trend.
Also reality check works better for removing them: what do you need a pair of 13mm when you have 4x20 or 2x20+2x103? The rube goldberg aspect of it also makes 131-delete more attractive.
I'm going to go back thru my notes once I'm done moving this weekend.
-
Wait.. What's gamey? Emptying one set of your guns or having the MG-less loadout?
And.. Maybe it's just coincidence, but the current range of 410 gun loadouts is pretty much what I'd suggested. I don't mean I'm special, but that HTC possibly is really paying attention to these (IMO) good debates over this issue.
There's got to be a simple solution right?
I think they do indeed pay attention to the debates. Several of my suggestions have been added to the letter so far. Not before some long debate as to their merits and demerits, and much refinement.
More than a wish list, per se, it seems to be where most of the thinking is done in terms of development. We the players ask for what we want, and over time and multiple threads, the issues are hammered out, the idea refined, and what started as a general request turns into the blueprint for our additions.
And more than gun packages, I'd like to see more ordnance options. While it has a nice range of guns, it's not too flexible in the bomb department.
-
Yeah maybe HTC wasn't motivated first by what we thought up, maybe these gun loadouts are just common sense. We'd been expecting more bomb options and those didn't happen. :P
--
Another clear disconnect from history: WEP. At least some AH models with WEP have this unreal ability to regenerate WEP. This makes their sorties completely unlike what ever happened in WWII, and yet still much like it. I'd argue that the MG 131 delete is analogous if not basically the same thing.
-
Another clear disconnect from history: WEP. At least some AH models with WEP have this unreal ability to regenerate WEP. This makes their sorties completely unlike what ever happened in WWII, and yet still much like it. I'd argue that the MG 131 delete is analogous if not basically the same thing.
Which models did you have in mind?
As to the gun and armor removal, I am not sure opening up field mods is a good idea.
-
No, The grouping is done by HTC. And in this case it's particularly useless. No way to hit the target with both guns at the ranges the MK 103 is great at. :bhead
this has come up many times before. The 30mm vs the 20mm in a A8 for example. But knowing that the real planes didn't have infinite triggers, are these guns historically mapped?
Some triggers were switchable in real planes, but were there planes with more than two triggers? :salute
-
Karnak we're not talking field mod. You don't seem to understand the systematic nature of the removal of the guns. There was even a sub-variant designation for it on the 190s and on the 410s. It wasn't something changed out per sortie. It was how the plane was configured and it was commonplace.
-
Which models did you have in mind?
As to the gun and armor removal, I am not sure opening up field mods is a good idea.
I said that about armor, remembering the armor removal as status quo.. Basically all 410s had those bits of armor removed, going by the way the meeting notes describe it, and IIRC.
Models... The 152 for one? Those models whose WEP (IIRC) is just higher manifold rather than special additive like MW50 or water injection, obviously are different story. But something like a 152 would not have anything like the AH "10' on, 5' off" kind of performance regime. And considering the output difference between 152 MIL and WEP, on its own and in AH (MA, HAs) context... It's just not "realistic". But it is still a lot like reality in that most AH fights' duration are proportional to AH WEP cycles' duration - does that make sense?
-
this has come up many times before. The 30mm vs the 20mm in a A8 for example. But knowing that the real planes didn't have infinite triggers, are these guns historically mapped?
Some triggers were switchable in real planes, but were there planes with more than two triggers? :salute
Vink,
As far as the FW is concerned,no it's not mapped correct,the MG's and inboard 20's were on a single trigger and the outboard guns were on a second,wether they were 20's or 30's. A sepperate trigger was setup if the FW was armed with bombs or rockets.
IIRC the same is applied to the 410,both A/C had issues with popping fuses while arming the guns.Pilots were warned to wait atleast 3 seconds before attempting to arm any auxiliary weapons. Wether HTC decides to allow removal of the MG's or not I think the weapons should be mapped as they were in RL.
:salute
-
Vink,
As far as the FW is concerned,no it's not mapped correct,the MG's and inboard 20's were on a single trigger and the outboard guns were on a second,wether they were 20's or 30's. A sepperate trigger was setup if the FW was armed with bombs or rockets.
IIRC the same is applied to the 410,both A/C had issues with popping fuses while arming the guns.Pilots were warned to wait atleast 3 seconds before attempting to arm any auxiliary weapons. Wether HTC decides to allow removal of the MG's or not I think the weapons should be mapped as they were in RL.
:salute
Ah-ha! I'm sure if brought to HTC's attention that can and will be fixed quite easily. :salute
To that end, is there a reference for that Morfied?
-
There is, but there is also a logical distinction that HTC made when mapping their triggers. Most planes in WW2 just fired all, all the time.
Their trigger mapping was a matter of gameplay consideration, NOT of historical accuracy.
-
Models... The 152 for one? Those models whose WEP (IIRC) is just higher manifold rather than special additive like MW50 or water injection, obviously are different story. But something like a 152 would not have anything like the AH "10' on, 5' off" kind of performance regime. And considering the output difference between 152 MIL and WEP, on its own and in AH (MA, HAs) context... It's just not "realistic". But it is still a lot like reality in that most AH fights' duration are proportional to AH WEP cycles' duration - does that make sense?
Oh, you know better than that... The 10 minutes and 5 minutes were based upon the engine overheating in that time. There was over 35 minutes worth of MW50 "go juice" in the 152 and the limiting factor was engine safety.
You could hypothetically run any engine in the game on WEP for hours on end dry or wet, and tests and isolated examples show this to be true... We can't run a game on that kind of anarchy. We use the official limitations on power settings to dictate if it was a 10 minute WEP duration or a 5 minute.
But you know this already. Our engines cool off and we can once again engage that WEP system. It's rudimentarily based on heat, not on WEP duration. This is true of the real system in WW2 as well.
-
Why don't you simply ask Hitech for the proper ordinance mapping to the buttons on the knuppelgriff? In effect he did that correctly with the BK5 package by separating it to the ordinance cycle button. The circuit blocks in the 410 versions are the same. Bombs or rockets were fired from additional buttons strapped onto the knuppelgriff aside from the default buttons.
Knopf A = Base package MG\20mm
Knopf B1 = Addon package, 20mm module, MG103, MG108, BK5.......
Knopf B2 = Bombs or rockets.
Knopf FT = MG cocker. The pinky button everyone thinks is for voice comm front bottom of the stick.
P(xxx) = Addon buttons visa straps for optional equipment. P(xxx) denotes the circuit used for the device.
In our game programing we already have switches A and B.
Fire All = Base package
Secondary Fire = Addon package, Weapon toggle fire for bombs\rockets.
Firing both the base package and the addon was done by holding down both buttons at the same time on the real knuppelgriff. The Fw190 A8 should allow you the ability to fire the outer wing mounted 20mm\30mm separate of the MG\root 20mm. In 109 with HUB 30mm and 20mm gondola, the hood MG and 20mm gondola were wired to fire together while the 30mm was on a separate button. In 109 with HUB 20mm and 20mm gondola, the HUB and hood MG were wired together with the gondola 20mm on Knopf B. When 109 and Fw\Ta had only the hood MG and HUB or wing root cannon, the two guns were separated to Knopf-A and Knopf-B like the game currently allows.
-
There was over 35 minutes worth of MW50 "go juice" in the 152 and the limiting factor was engine safety.
You could hypothetically run any engine in the game on WEP for hours on end dry or wet, and tests and isolated examples show this to be true... We can't run a game on that kind of anarchy. We use the official limitations on power settings to dictate if it was a 10 minute WEP duration or a 5 minute.
But you know this already.
Haha.. No I didn't actually. The most I did probably was read this info at a glance years ago. Thanks. I still think what I described to Karnak is true. We have combat trim - gamey. Standard tracers, arcade unhistorical restriction (not dig at HTC but calling it for what it is). 25% fuel load increments, idem. DTs + 25%, almost inarguably gamey. Auto retract flaps, basically gamey. Did all planes allow fuel tank selection? Probably, but any that didn't could be gamed at least as hard as "removing guns". Etc etc.
Hitech said it (I'll be paraphrasing) and I agree even accounting for the likely differences we ultimately have in vision or passion for warbirds/dogfighting etc: AH is not about rote realism of simulating air war. It's purist air combat with these machines. We have combat trim etc so that the planes/fights are distilled from "accounting" distractions. So that the substance of the planes and the fights are all that's left.
For me WWII was circumstantial. Germany and the rest of the world gamed WWII. Gun deletions were common enough to satisfy Pyro's (IIRC) "most common" IE "what you'd most likely see if you came across some of those aircraft in the field", and also might have (gotta check literature) come that way from factory. And AH's trigger attributions are arbitrary, optimized for gameplay.. And optimal gameplay would be least heterogeneous gun groups.
Not being able to fire 103s alone is for these reasons the same sort of arbitrary, unnecessary cramping of people's freedom to flog our planes to the max, as not being able to omit some guns that were omitted IRL.