Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pepino on January 11, 2001, 06:11:00 AM
-
Following with Keassa post, I think it is worth to open a side thread.
Well, the whole issue is pretty much 2 sided. All kind of reasons have been given for the yes/no.
It is a fact that Gun Jams existed, whatever the reasons.
Now, I suggest a mean to know how many of us are for/against this being modelled.
Please answer (if you want) yes or no.
My particular vote is Yes
P.S.: Recruiting period for counters/recounters/re-re-counters open from now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
My particular vote is No
<edit> well I vote yes if it's linked to the behaviour of the player (spray & pray + high G-forces come to mind)
But I'll never accept random failures.
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
My vote is yes !!
-
Mark me as 'either', since I adapt to any given situation.
-
Not random jams without player doing something 'wrong'.
If guns jammed because of G-forces thats fine.
-
No doubt about my vote: YES
-
scout, I will have to ask for some Floridan help (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Pepe
-
Originally posted by Pepino:
scout, I will have to ask for some Floridan help (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Pepe
There's only 4 counties down there that you may find the type of 'help' you ask for ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
mis-clicked
sorry
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Yes, but no random failures please, unless historically justifiable for the gun type.
Same goes for other system failures, especially engine overheating!!
Camo
------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
www.muodos.fi/LLv34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
Brewster into AH!
"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."
-
gun failing due to burning out barrels etc.. YES
RANDOM failure -> Hell NO !! (there's enough random conection hickups, mass dumps, lost packets, puter reboots etc.)
DW6
-
Duck, you do realize that the Browning .50 MG was much more prone to burning out its barrels, than the hispano 20mm?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
yes
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
gun failing due to burning out barrels etc.. YES
RANDOM failure -> Hell NO !! (there's enough random conection hickups, mass dumps, lost packets, puter reboots etc.)
DW6
Can't do it. Theres not enough ammo per gun in any plane to burn the barrels out. Cuase a stopage mabey but not melt or torche the barrel. stopage is an issue with maintance lubercation cleaning and proper laoding of a weapon. (hell we used to put condoms over the barrals of some of our guns in desert storm). now if you land and reload really fast take off and start firing mabey. fly to high and you might freeze the guns.
The whole issue has me mixxed. absolutley no on random. but will HTC be able to easily model G forces tempature over firing (constant not burst) and maintance as well as ammo quality for a given country (remember there are strat targets), Ide say yes if they can then go for it. I think it would be a nice addition to the game model provided it is done right. that means you really have to be abusing your guns and your plane to cuase a malfuntion.
TAC and RAM shut up I don't want to hear it! I know what I said but Iam refuring to all guns not just hispano's or M2s.
------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"
[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Mayhem, this thread is intended as a poll. No flowers, no lyrics. Everybody knows the reasons for and against. Please keep it simple. (Ideally yes or no, but some elaboration maybe needed).
Thks,
Pepe
[edit] Ideally, It would serve the purpose of giving a table of #yes (absolutely), #yes (only mismanagement) and #no. Just to know the figures.[/edit]
[This message has been edited by Pepino (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Random, no. Pilot action and evironment-related, yes. I would not try to model ammo quality or manufacturing-related reliability, for the same reason we don't model engine breakdowns. AH assumes perfect quality control, because most of the data available on failures due to poor QC is anecdotal.
------------------
Sabre, a.k.a. Rojo
(S-2, The Buccaneers)
-
All equipment has malfunctions. Adding engine failures, gun jams etc... may or may not detract overall enjoyment of the game but... Since implementing any sort of malfunction features that produce accurate results (i.e. based on historical data) results will strongly penalize Axis aircraft, and I think it is a very bad idea.
Hooligan
-
I say no. It would open a real can of worms. Plus, the german planes have enough problems without modeling the high failure rate of their inferior electricly fired primers.
lazs
-
Unsere guns arr verre reliable, you pigdog! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
No.. a definate no. At least not in the MA.
AKDejaVu
-
Clear-able jams or unclear-able jams?
In other words, if you jam it in flight are you done shooting until you re-plane?
I'll take unclear-able jams if pilot induced by shooting at over 2.5 G's or so. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As far as "continuous fire jams" I'd say no, base on anecdotal evidence. My father used to strafe Japanese airfields in a B-25C strafer nose. He says policy was to hold the trigger down all the way across the field. 15-30 seconds of continous fire. Rarely a jam. However, usually warped barrels by the end of the run and rounds "cooking off" after you released the trigger. (Note: the barrels were not necessarily "ruined". Some were replaced after a mission some were OK after they cooled out.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway, do it with the unclear-able 2.5G limit.
I want to see how long it takes for the screams to "change it back, change it back!" to start. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I would like it added to the game so we can try it in H2H see how it works. Definalty not random unless a weapon was notoriosly unreliable. Maybe it is not appropriate for the MA though.
My vote is yes.
-
Verm i do .. if teh cal 50s have a limitation well so be it we're striving for realism arn't we ?
warped barrels and cooking off rounds are bad enough mayhem and that's what i meant ..
DW6
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
gun failing due to burning out barrels etc.. YES
RANDOM failure -> Hell NO !! (there's enough random conection hickups, mass dumps, lost packets, puter reboots etc.)
DW6
Agree 99%, 1% for low probability random fails.
Abuse of firing should cause a noticeable decrease of guns precission, even more abuse should cause a definitive gun fail.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Unsere guns arr verre reliable, you pigdog! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
In regards to their 109G6's..."Two others had to leave the fight when their guns malfunctioned..."
From March 2001 'Aviation History' magazine and the story "Lightings vs Messerschmidts over Hungary", and I can quote you hundreds of other stories as well... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Maybe condition related, but definitely not random.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Pepino:
Mayhem, this thread is intended as a poll. No flowers, no lyrics. Everybody knows the reasons for and against. Please keep it simple. (Ideally yes or no, but some elaboration maybe needed).
Thks,
Pepe
[edit] Ideally, It would serve the purpose of giving a table of #yes (absolutely), #yes (only mismanagement) and #no. Just to know the figures.[/edit]
[This message has been edited by Pepino (edited 01-11-2001).]
to vague then . Absolutely no.
------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"
-
I'm somewhere between a no and a whatever... but definitely no randomness.
-
Yes - same failure rate for all gun types unless different failure rates are supported by engineering data.
-
Yes, I like realism.
-
No random failures.
-
Kill me by shootin me. Don't disarm me with a 'random' failure. I get my pony's guns shot out often enuff in furballs.. don't need the system givin the other guy a hand.
No. No random failure. Operation hindered by over 'g'? Nope to that one too. 'G' effects in the sim are too oddly interpeted as it is.. untrimmed; my pony blacks out at the worst possible times, and if I run the trim out the other way it doesn't. Seems too easy to have the system 'misinterpet' what over g really is.
No; NO.
Hang
-
No on the random effects. Yes if the pilot exceeds some parameter and causes a jam. For instance, firing at high G's causing a feed failure. This would affect high caliber cannon shells the most with their subsequent weight of each belted round.
I'd like to see the addition of a gun charging control to give the pilot the ability to try to clear a jam if this was ever implemented.
MiG
-
My vote is no on gun jams or any other attempt to introduce random failures in the game. I am not here for realism as I have stated before. I am here to play a GAME. If the game doesn't work, there is no reason to continue to pay for it.
There have been innumerable posts and squeakes about bugs and a "beta" product. In my opinion, introducing random "failures" of equipment in the game is just the insertion of programmed bugs.
This issue is the "brain" child of a few players who think that this "realism" would enhance game play. That is a fallacy. You can't enhance game play by making it impossible to play on a random basis. All you do is increase frustration with the product.
As has been stated by Pyro, reducing buff accuracy at alt will reduce the playability of buffs and decrease the viability of an important part of the game. Introducing random failures will do just the same across the board of the arena. How many of you will be tempted to take a tank, drive an interminable period of time and find later that the gun doesn't work on 25% of the time? The same for a "perk" plane or vehicle. You save for the "perk" then takeoff to find you have no guns, or the fuel gauge malfunctions and you are deadstick far from a friendly field.
Those that want random failures have an option. Get a die, 6 sided is fine, and roll it after take off. If it comes up a 1 or a 6 you can't fire your guns. Here is the kicker, you cannot roll the die until you are about to engage in combat. Then you will have the "thrill of equipment failure" and won't have a negative impact on the rest of us who do not think that this idea has any merit.
Mav
-
I vote yes
SaludoX
-
No.
First and foremost because of the real reason gunjams began to be talked about, neutering Hispano equipped aircraft artificially and second because asking for gunjams is too broad of a request. Narrow down the implementation and purpose.
And why isn't anyone asking for other common issues like weak landing gear, engine failures, engine fires ... etc, etc on the planes that commonly had those?
-Westy
-
Yes
-
YES!
NO! If its random
YES! If its based to extreme overheating and/or high-g manouver shooting. Also freezing above 20k should be modeled in that case.
And I'm slowly sliding to the 'conspiracy' group.. The allied planes do seem a bit uber compared to the axis ones.. It's obvious also from the overprotective attitude some players have for the planes.. 'It is my God given right to fly Aemerican built uber plane Gawd Damn it (said with John Wayne accent and accompanied with a spatter)'
-
No!
Good post, Maverick...right on the money.
Andy
-
I have to say if g-forces cause jams YES
random NO
i have read a lot of material on guns and have stated like others that i have read a lot about hispano's being prone to jams in hi g turns...I have read much about Mg 151 20mm being very reliable and i had assumed, until i read a small quote in a new book 'fw190 aces of the russian front', that the 30mm was just as reliable, however this is what i have read..
'In the fw190 aerobatics were a pleasure!.Structurally,it was distinctly superior to the messerschmitt,especially in dives.The radial engine of the fw190A was also more resistant to enemy fire.Firepower,which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all german fighters.The central cannon of the messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat.The 109's 30mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns-I lost at least 6 kills this way.'
Hauptmann Heinz Lange 3./JG51 (70 kills)
Ive posted this to show that im not 'out to get hispanos'.I just want their present domination as the weapon of choice to be more realistic.If guns are prone to jamming it should be modeled.
hazed 3./JG2
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
random NO
caused by excessive firing and spraying? Mabye
also PLEASE get rid of "time limitations" on WEP and instead make us live with the consequences! (ie overheat)
-
NO
I have enough problems trying to shoot down a plane let alone the thought of my guns jamming just as I do get him in my sights! If the other pilot is in my sights he should manouvre out of them rather than hope that my guns are going to jam. This could open a whole can of worms.... be tyre punctures, pilot fatigue, crappy fuel, random engine failiures next....
regards
Nexx
-
BTW Good post Hangtime and Maverick - the die roll actually is a very good idea!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Nexx
-
No to random failures.
Yes to overheating.
-
<Looks both ways, suprised no one has picked the obvious answer>
Gunjam is a putz!
<G,D,R>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
56th FG 63rd FS (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
Lake City
-lakc-
-
No...
The internet provides enough "equipment failure". It's a good idea though! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
random NO
too long a burst and they jam sure
too many Gees and they jam, perhaps
AKskurj
-
I couldnt think of anything more annoying.
-NO-
-
Ok, so it appears that.... gunjams for people of spanish extraction only then?
lazs
-
no
Barrel melt/overheat, yes.
eskimo
-
I would like to see gun jams for a historical arena. It probably dont make sense for a gamers arena...such as the main. Also I would like to see gun overheating/jamming due to continuous fire.
Jarbo
-
Guys,
This is only a poll. I do not think any reason you give here is not given in a couple of post of the zillion threads about Hispano/CHogs/Luftwobble cannons/Allied conspiracy we have had already. It is only a way to know the actual numbers. So ease your brain, and try to answer a simple yes/no.
btw, I think the random/spray&pray/High G specification does add value. But no further than that.
Cheers, and thanks for your replies.
Pepe
-
Yes for overheating
no for random failures
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
(http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/glasses.htm)
-
Definetely YESSSS
Plz HTC, include a GOOD REABILITY MODEL of each plane and forget all about the PERK thing, that reminds me of Quake. counter Strike or any other arcade accition games.
WE LIKE AH BECAUSE IT LOOKS REALISTIC. THE MORE REALISTIC IT IS, THE MORE WE LIKE IT.
Got the idea?
GADGET
------------------
101 Escuadrón de Combate Virtual (http://www.geocities.com/~ala-10/101-Escuadron/101.htm)
-
So we are allowed to vote wether GJ can play this game or...?
// fats