usvi: What's wrong with the current damage system?
It's not there's something wrong with the current DM
per se, but rather the design perspective behind it is getting pretty old and outdated.
When we gather the bits and pieces of info concerning the current DM, the consensus seems to be that AH DM models around 64 individual 'parts' of the plane which have a certain 'limit' to its durability until some type of damage is dealt, and then the part 'fails'. Ofcourse this is a great achievement when you compare AH to the old days when the very first generation of online combat sim planes had maybe 7~8 'parts'... but the problem is that some time ago, the so-called
'IL-2 effect' opened a whole new can of worms by introducing new perspective in how DM can be depicted in games.
Now, for the record, I haven't flown 1C's IL-2 series for quite some time now and my experiences are limited to just before the introduction of the '1946' expansion pack.. but what I do know is IL-2 opened up many possibilities to how gunnery and damage is portrayed in games, and to my knowledge, it was the first of its kind that really distinguished the differing mechanisms of structural failure according to type of ammunition used to hit the target. Maybe there were other games that showed similar characteristics, or maybe the current IL-2 versions have gone out of whack, I dunno about that. But what I do know is around the time I was investing my free time in both IL-2 and AH2, IL-2 was the first combat sim that really made 'sense' in regards to what we've always read in the history books.
The 'problem' with the 'old' type of DM (at least, according to what we can perceive) is that it deals damage in a 'all or nothing' concept in a pretty rigid manner. For example, when you receive certain amount of hits to (let's say) your wing structure, one moment it may be fine, and then the next moment it suddenly falls off.
As long as the total amount of damage done does not exceed the 'limit', or 'hitpoint' (although it is unclear if this is how AH2 truly handles the situation) of that particular structure, it retains its functionality to the maximum. There is no performance penalty - no intermediate process until failure. It is either "100% functional" or "total failure' - which, is pretty drastic in the outcome.
What this means, is for example, when you get shot from the behind and you receive damage to your vertical stabilizer and rudders, in reality there are varying degrees of damage.... which may range from the rudder/stabs being tattered a little bit, to the controls being nuked, to the worst case scenario which involves a catastrophical failure which simply/totally removes the vertical stab in entirety, in which case the plane is doomed to crash. In AH2, there is only 'perfect function' to 'total failure'.
Another perceived problem, is that AH2 DM seems pretty basic.
Now, I have no attention of offending HT or Pyro - what I am merely describing, is how most players perceive what happens during a clandestine encounter with a barrage of bullets.
What I mean by this is.. let's consider a situation where you are shot by a barrage of 50cal bullets to your inner wing near the wing root. Now in real life, there are many inner smalle, parts in that particular region, including extensions of rods/wires that are linked to your control column. These mechanical devices control the ailerons that are located on the farside of the wing. If a barrage of armour-piercing 50cal rounds severs or shatters those vital control systems, you may lose control of your aileron on that side of the wing. In AH2, at least according to empiricial evidence, the only way you lose your ailerion seems to be when you simply receive direct shots to the aileron, in which case the aileron simply falls off, instead of showing varying degrees of damage which may more gradually and subtley effect your flight.
The third perceived problem of the current DM, is that it does not seem to model differing 'qualities' of hit. According to HT AH does model differing amounts of damage according to speed and range, but I haven't seen any evidence that it models differing types of damage according to angle or location.
A bullet may be able to penetrate many things, but just as well, the angle of the strike may result in very limited 'glancing' or 'nicked' blows which may not do much more damage then make a deep groove.. or in some cases, just scratch the surface and simply bounce off.
Now, although it is unlikely, let's imagine an instance where bullets may strike very edge of the wing. In reality, getting a barrage of strikes to the very end of the wingtip may not be very dangerous at all - but in AH, it will break off your whole wingtip section in a large chunk.. even if the ammunition you used does not have potent High Explosive characteristics.
Many years ago, IL-2, quite surprisingly, modelled this into the game. By using some of the in-game functions you could visually analyze the path of your bullets fired&hit.. and I've personally verified some of the bullets showing a path which suggested the bullet hit the target, but due to improper angle, glanced and bounced off the surface! (I remember testing this with 30cal armed Hurricane shooting at an unarmed AI IL-2)
I've even personally experienced a situation where I've shot a Sptfire from a top angle at very, very close range.. inside 10m I believe... with a MK108 30mm cannon. Normally, this should have blown off the wing completely, but due to the angle and circumstances, the MK108 30mm shell simply penetrated the Spitfire wing at that broad angle, and detonated mid-air at the otherside.. which allowed the Spitfire to survive..! In AH2, a hit is a hit, and there are 'quality' issues in how it hits.
The final problem, is that the current AH style DM does not show the distinct differences between ammunition types, including its pros and cons.
HMG armed planes, most notably 50cal armed US planes, use heavy machine guns which fire projectiles at high velocities with great accuracy. The trade-off is that these guns are potentially much weaker than 'cannon' type guns which fire high explosive ammunitions - which is basically a mini-grenade fired from a automated weapon.
Therefore, to compensate for the relative lack of power, most US planes are armed with quite a lot of MGs - six 50cals on the P-51D, eight 50cals on the P-47 and etc..
However, despite the seemingly high firepower, the lack in pure firepower persisted in reality, and this manifested in a particular manner when compared to cannon armed planes.
The most common reason behind being shotdown by HMG fire in reality, was that it induced critical internal damage. Either the controlling mechanisms would be nuked and the pilot of the target plane was forced to bail, or the pilot himself was dead and simply the plane crashed. In many cases the critical failure would be a densely smoking engine, or just as likely heavy fire. In the usual case a 50cal plane rarely caused catastrophical structural failures which would simply snap off a wing, sever the entire rear fuselage, or blowing up the enemy plane as a whole. These instances certainly did happen in real life, but certainly not as much as the dreaded fires it would cause.
On the other hand, cannon armed planes basically fired mini-grenades at the enemy plane, which would detonate on the plane surface and simply rip off entire chunks of the plane. These type of guns and ammunitions would knock out whole wings or tails.
Currently in AH, these differences in ammunition types are not much distinguished as in real life. It is common to expect long-range shots from a 50cal armed plane chasing you from behind, and receiving stikes on vital surfaces which would then, simply fall off.
However, it was very much different in IL-2, to the point that some pilots would claim 50cals were nerfed in the game. This, in my opinion, is very much false. It may seem like the 190 flying in front of your P-51 soaks up too much damage, but quite often being in the 190's seat, I, on the receiving end of the game, would experience a situation where those 50cals hit my 190 and killed so much internal stuff that my plane was nigh uncontrollable. My virtual pilot is wounded, and his response is slow.. the aileron/elevator control rods/cables are busted and the plane maneuvers like it has no flight surfaces at all.. the engine is hit and wheezing and gasping, the oilpan is busted and my frontal vision is impaired... the only thing left to do, if it were in real life, would be to attempt to bail at a safe speed and altitude.
The only reason I still tried to land the plane, is because it was a game, and I didn't feel the imminent fear of death.
IMO, if this kind of DM difference is modelled according to ammunition, it would bring out a whole new level of combat in AH. I expect the 50cal armed planes would suffer quite a hit in kill rates, and probably those pilots would whine for about a month, until they finally adapt. Long range kills and spray/pray kills would definately decrease, and in turn cannon armed planes would be much more appreciated - even those with non-hizooka/tater armed planes.
