Ammo Belts Loadout/Exploit Dicussion
 

Eventually when the air wars start I believe the need to enforce certain loadouts to stop people exploting the ammo belts will have to come into effect.

So do you agree, don't get me wrong I love the ability to change the belts but we should not be able to load only mines shells unless they did that during the war... This should only apply to servers that are endeavouring to be realistic.

So what's your opinion, is this something that needs to be server set!

Not sure about hitorically correct ammo loadouts as this brings up the question of custom convergence settings too. There are already some very sophisticated set ups and guarded with utmost secrecy by the squads using them....(have heard talk but don't ask me - I don't know! ) The De-Wilde used by the RAF in BoB was a version of the type invented and manufactured in Switzerland but adapted for Mass Production. They were to be highly favoured by RAF pilots - just how many were actually used I do not Know but they were in use - how do you set something like this in a historically correct context?

In game, for Red fighters a 50/50 De-Wilde/0.303 Ball or AP seems to be the favoured mix but DM is the main problem in MP that needs to be sorted.

Some of the DM that works in SP to destroy or seriousley impact is not working in MP - e.g, igniting the Fuel Tank on a BF109 in SP kills the pilot and the plane - in MP they RTB.

Yes that is a problem, but you do run out of fuel when the fuel tank goes, when the fuel tank catches fire you do die quickly but when it explodes you don't even have a scratch!!! Lol

However I have never changed my spit ammo and have never had a blue aircraft catch fire!!!

The BF109 does ignite spectactularly but keeps on flying in MP.

Most Reds will tell you that the default ammo belt is not as good or effective as a custom one and most use a much lower convergence than default or that was historically correct/used.

I prefer to have the choice and no limits imposed as long as that ordinance was actually available.

100% agree.

like in 1946 ( not sure about COD ), mission makers were able to select either if the palyer could choose is ammo loadout ( could he carry bombs? was he forced to take off with a bomb? etc ) and fuel ( sometimes you were forced to take off with 100% others with jsut 25%. ). So i believe mission makers should be able to have an option "user can select personalized weapon loadout?" or give the user the choice to select between a couple of pre maid ammo loadouts.

its a complete different setting taking off in a all Mineshells + High penetration MG 109's or a 100% high penetration + incendiary spitfire, thant the default loudout.

Since the ATAG switched missions I have started flying E1 and just before the E4 was released I forgot i had setup the E1 with a few incindery rounds and now spits and hurris catch fire quite easily... I will be adding it to E4 :D

I would like for servers to restrict ammo type or amount but would object to not being able to set my own convergence. I don't know if one could be done without the other.

The problem is that the default load outs would have to be historically correct and, from my various sources, there were a variety used. Interestingly, Tracer + AP + reg Ball + De-wilde isn't available in the standard belt options for RAF fighters depite being a stock loadout according to some the sources I have.

When exactly this loadout was actually introduced is not mentioned - I see another set of arguments as per the 100 octane fuel debate.


Maybe you should have this as a voting Poll Krupi?

Yeah will do one now :D.

Plus this should be on the front page.

Just to better understand the "historicaly correct" meaning, who was deciding the kind of ammo to be loaded on the belt in real life?????

The ministry, the squadron commander, the wing commander, the pilot, etc. etc. ?

We put so much pressure to Maddox to make the ammo belt player-adjusted. I am speechless to see that now we go back to them to ask them to take the feature out.... LOL


~S~

A good question, I gather it was also decided upon supply.

That could lead to an even bigger importance in supply destroying/protecting during online wars, if your supplies are destroyed you lose your mine shells :P

I am not talking about removing the feature, but it would be nice to have historical setups for historical servers/ online wars. How is this enforced!!!! Perhaps you can't have more than X ammo type in belt?

I think players should be free to select their own ammo belts. The feed back you get on their effectiveness is vague enough that it will take a LOT of collecting data from your flights to determine which combination is most effective (especially since there are SO MANY different possible combinations).

If you want everyone on your server flying with completely historically accurate everything, then make sure you only open your server to people who are willing to play that way. Without doing that, how are you going to ensure people are historically accurate in their flight procedure? Fuel at take-off (I think 109s have a lot more time over England currently than they should?)? All that stuff. There are so many things being done on the servers that aren't 'historical'. Otherwise, you're not limiting the belts for historical accuracy. You're just limiting the belts to eliminate some perceived 'wrong' advantage.

Just like when you're flying, you've got to pick your battles. I don't think this is one.

I can assure you that when I'm being hit by a 109, I'm more bothered by the fact that I'm getting shot at all than by whatever bullets happen to be perforating me.

As I just said in the poll, I don't think it should be an issue. The info available on 'historical loadout' is woolly at best.

I'm sure you'll all have read this artical, but I'll post the link anyway.

'The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary.

Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)'


'The 20mm cannon did not entirely rely on the M-Geschoss. There was still a requirement for some tracer rounds, so lighter 117 g projectiles were developed (by fitting the 134 g HE-T with a light-alloy instead of brass fuze), loaded down to around 585 m/s (1,920 fps) to match the recoil characteristics of the M-Geschoss. The effectiveness of the M-Geschoss was somewhat reduced by the fast-acting fuze, which detonated instantly rather than inside the target's structure, although this was probably more of a problem against bombers than fighters. The British rated the M-Geschoss as about equal with the 20mm Hispano round, which contained much less HE but had a heavier shell fired at a higher velocity and could penetrate more deeply. Delayed-action fuzes for the German shells were introduced in 1941. AP shells were also developed later and were not available during the Battle of Britain.'

I also think that trying to introduce server limitations would be opening the proverbial can of worms, resulting in lengthy debates/arguments which simply reduce everyone's enjoyment. :)


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

Please never use the words "fairness and historical" together. They dont mix...

I was actually using a high number of incendiaries untill I switched to a historical load out. The historical load out was better than mine.

Yeah that was silly agreed..

The prob is that we hev a bunch of guys here and around that will do whatever they can to get the best result of what they get even tweaking their mount out of any credible realism.

Devs shld test teh variability of what they release and decide to add some limits of what you can get. 20% - 30% max - seems fair to me and "real enough".


Frankly when I see one spit or one 109 plinking an entire formation of bomber the time I climb 1000m toward them it makes me willing only one things : RTB and switch of that "Sim".

We all know that some individuals can't be corrected... but lines of codes could be ;)

Thats as much an issue with Damage Modelling. You can get similar results with stock ammo belts.




If you're allowing one player to down an entire formation then I suspect you need to get closer when escorting!
The problem is that only a few players can be arsed to escort bombers or prepared to engage in high altitude DF's - downing/escorting bombers is a mission objective on ATAG so expect them to go down. Preventing this is as much down to you as well as improved DM or ammo belt limitations!

Leave it as it is. It's not that big deal.
I found the E1 with only machine guns to work just as good as the E4 online, so i don't think it's such a big deal.
The nice advantage I see in being able to customize your loadout, is the ability to reduce the amount of tracers used. For example, we all know how silly the default loadout in hurricane looked. Now we can use a lot less tracers in the guns and this has good impact on frame rates. I use the dim red tracer instead of the default white one and it looks great.

Limiting the belts or removing the option to choose...just makes the game lack depth. as we all know, things may start bad, but they (altleast in 46) will eventually turn good.

Wouldnt you all love to see a P51 doing this for example? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuXXSmAGP9k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b3A4y7OfPk

(the 2 above use ammo used on the .50 cal BMG M2)

this for .50 ref:

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/i...g/50_ammo.html


i just want to remind you that you might get a wrong look on realism just by being used to something for a long time. (best expl. .50 cal...)

This point reminds me the joke with the engineer and the hammer (too lengthy for this thread).

There is nothing better than the smell of burning Wellington Tomcat,
http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/WellingtonBurningSmall.JPG
(just to prove that I do not load only M-Geschosse in my guns)
I loved this kill, one burning fuel tank, one leaking fuel tank and one smoking engine, three different smoke trails on the same wing :)

To have the right hammer is the easy part of the job, to know where to place it... ;)


The day I will have above 70% accuracy in my shooting, I will start worrying about the impact of my ammo belt mix.
For the time being I am only good for shooting bombers (five times the size of a fighter and, flying straight) so other things are my priority right now.



~S~

Ah, gotcha. That's why I left the '?' in there. I wasn't sure what was the case, but I had a suspicion (which turns out to be half true).

What you're saying goes exactly with what I was getting at. Historical operating procedure ended up limiting the 109s over England significantly in a way that absolutely impacted their effectiveness - but there is no evidence that people are playing it that way. So now people would have to talk about fuel limit restrictions on servers, etc. etc. etc. in order to accurately model the 'historical' situation.

It all gets very crazy very quickly if you go down that rabbit hole :P

If there are any 109 pilots out there who actually only take 50% fuel or less to simulate not having much fuel over England, then I tip my cap to them.

+1 pupo162.

I also think an option in FMB to force ammo belt or give the choice on different ammo belts is the best choice. There is still some freedom for the player and the mission maker can force belts if needed. And the actual system can still apply if the mission maker think it is not needed to force anything on belts.

I wonder if it is also already doable with scripts. Is it already done in long dynamic missions to give a job to bombers ?

C'mon guys no 109 pilot hve ever downed 3 bomber in a row even with that big mk108 !!!

We hve super high hit rate (what I monstrated some time ago) hence if the ammo belt is tweaked it get to the point of laughable results. I prey for a turn back toward more modest behavior !

Unfortunately, I am afraid a lot, (at the server I play most of the time) I suspect they do, what is the motivation of flying all the way back home when you can be nice and light dogfighting at 500m altitude [historically correct? Noooooo!] and there is no threat to spend the rest of the war at the prison camp in England (or in Canada)? LOL
(@Krupi: Just do not get the idea to start a new poll !!!!!!!!! :D)

For the Bf109-E4 the max allowable take off weight, if I remember well, means around 60% fuel.

Agree with you Wolverine, in any case they definitively do not do it in order "to simulate not having much fuel over England"...

~S~

PS. Tomcat, I have a better score: Yesterday in my E1, I killed the four bombardiers out of the five Blenheims en route to France... my aiming is crap; I was going for the pilots ROFL!
To be a bit more serious though, for the memoirs of German pilots I have read, they used to take a long time to get into position for the attack and got well out of range before initiating the next attack. In real life you only have one life and take no risks. In this game, if my plane gets hit or I die, there is always re-fly...
This explains the "un-historical" success rate.

:lol: cheeky gi...

I like this idea from the other thread.

Krupi, I swear to God, I take off 100Kg above the max limit 'cause I need the fuel waiting for ever being the only SOB circling at 4K waiting for something to come up there... :(

LOL i fly with 100% as well, don't know why as I usually am on the deck :confused:

That is one thing I like about the new ATAG mission. If you want a Spit1A or Hurri Rotol you have to start inland which means you can easily be at 10,000 feet by the time you get to the coast. I usually go up high and look for bombers which tend to attract other players too.

I like setting up my own belts.

Heh, yeah I kinda figured :P

To be honest I think this is just tinkering around the edges because a perfectly historical loadout will not be matched by a perfectly historical damage model. The damage model possibilities are too complex.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't mind if preset ammo loadouts are forced on us for a special mission as long as they were historically accurate, along with the availablility of Spitfire types, 100 octane, numbers of 109 E[types], 'N' series engines etc., i.e. a carefully researched day of the battle. I think the ammo load would have to be a download from the server and some kind of autoselect of the downloaded "mission_user" file containing the ammo details for all the aircraft in the mission. That would mean everyone logged in and waiting to go to avoid game lags and a firmly shut door to late entrants. It would also mean some additional coding by the devs (did I just hear the idea hit the floor with a thud?)

Another poster has given us statements about RAF loadouts during the BoB, possibly from this website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm
Even then there are two opinions for the use of DeWilde and the total loadout so the mission designer would have to decide precisely which battle day he was designing for. I think it will mean no "no tracer" loadouts though.

Meanwhile I will fly with my 4xAP, 2xDeWilde and 2xWhite Tracer (at least you know I'm behind you). I also don't understand why they bothered with plain Ball unless there was a supply (or cost?) issue.

Bottom line: given all the inevitable imperfections of a flight/combat sim I wouldn't want to see it on the every day servers.

I always take 100%

Maximum loiter time.

In a plane created in the mission (not in a spawn point), the ammo and fuel loads are locked to what the mission designer put on it. So if you want to fly a historic mission with historic ammo loads just make it coop style with all the planes already created in the mission.

There's no need to change anything.

Balls are actually quite nice in destroying control surfaces and from my pov, they are far more effective in this role than incendiaries. But when i see a default loadout, containing 90% ball (ok, might be exaggerated a bit) and i have to go against bombers, i question the wisdom of the developers, because quite frankly, crippling a bomber isn´t fun at all, especially with those sniper gunners. As far as i understand it, the loadout was actually suited to fit the missions need.