Ammo Belts Loadout/Exploit Poll
 

This poll is in reference to the discussion started in this thread...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...688#post377688

So should it be left alone or should the server admins be given the option.

Mods: Please don't move this to another section where it will not be viewed!!!

S!

Server to enforce historical setups if the server is running a historical mission setup or event etc. Otherwise I do not care really..if a player want's to make a Sissyfire of Doom with belting only the most lethal ammo then let him..I can do the same to my Bf109 or Me110..

Usually I use the default settings, so "i don't care".
In reality, how it was regulated? Do you have any info about this? If we rigidly dictates the setting, will it be "historically accurate", or just exaggerate things?

I voted for 'leave it alone'.

There's quite enough argument generated by 'Spit II/not Spit II' and now 'E4/not E4', without the server dictating loadouts.

If we take this to it's end point, so that all machine guns have ball ammo only and no cannons are allowed, what's next?

The server dictates fuel load I presume, so that everyone takes off with full tanks?

The bombers only get a certain bomb loadout?

I know I'm exaggerating here, but I have problems with being dictated to by server rules restricting what's available in the game.

If it's there, let's use it (albeit limited with the Spit II and also E4 in my view). It's part and parcel of 'playing the game', or 'simulating reality' (whichever), so if an individual's skill with loadout management gives him an advantage, so be it. That's as it should be. ;)


Edit: Krups, your link goes to the main page for me, where is the discussion? Cheers. :)

Updated the link Dutch thanks for the heads up.

I find it quite interesting that people want a game as accurate as possible but then want to load there aircraft up with full with limited supplies of de Wilde and mine shells :rolleyes:

This poll is simply asking MG to put another important aspect of the game in the sever runners hand if they want to, I don't see why anybody would be against it.

:grin:

I confess, I use 50/50 De Wilde and AP, at 150m convergence, but I'm no more successful with that than with the default loadout as far as I can recall.:rolleyes:

I just have a pathological aversion to being dictated to, and if someone can, they probably will. And then the arguments start. ;)

Leave it alone. The impression I'm having that this would cross that nebulous border between realism and excessive control. You can no more tell players what tactics they use so I don't think you should tell them which belting they have to use. That topic is far too diverse to begin with and comes with a general lack of solid information. Were there "official" loadouts? If so who decided what went in there?

I agree to a degree, but who knows what giving the option to the server runners would lead to?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=11

And we are already bickering over the FM models of aircraft that are largely based on assumptions IMO.

I simply believe it's a non-issue. No need to overload the engine with more options,especially one which wouldn't see much if any use at all.

There isn't a particular round that is more lethal regards the Allied fighters , they all have advantages and disadvantages - you need a mix. Currently, a player can mix the belt itself with a, b, and c or mix the guns to be exclusively a, b, or c. Add to that I don't use or like Tracers - waste of a valuable round for me. Custom Convergence settings has more effect than ordinance compostion/type - where do you draw the line with this proposal for server set historical weapons accuracy?

The side that will probably suffer most is the side with the better options regards destructive capablity and, from what I can tell, that side will be Blue.

+1
in my view its the same with the german planes as well.
different ammo different damage.
so i think we should let the choice to the players.
in the end, its more about the flying skill than the type of ammunition.

I voted no let it alone. I allso typed in the message in an other therd, but it was deleted, becarse somebody wanted the quistion to stay for the dev??

I think we should be careful not in our igor, to make it as realistic as possible doing so many restrictions that the fun goes by Nor must we always be panicky fear that their neighbor is cheating.

I would like to make my belt for eather I want to go dogfight or engage ground targets. therefore you should make your belt to the mission - just like they did.

With restrictions, I can easily imagine that there will be ammontion to dogfights only and no one should be forced to it all the time, then the dynamics disappears.

Fair enough I will back down!

I know when I am beat, you raised valid points.

S!

I moved it as there's no discussion in the Questions and request thread.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28979

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. I don't think it's 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.

Why load the server admins with even more unnecesary problems?

One more thing. Remember the Eastern front is on the way. I want to be able to load more AP round when those Il-2's and delta wood i-16's are around. :lol:

I appreciate your honesty, wisdom and open mind Krupi!

~S~

well, im not sure why this is tending to the "leave it alone".


As with many things thsi sim is related to "options". One may choose to take a bomb i ntheir sortie. one may chosoe to take incendiarys, and another may choose to fly half a fuel depot. this is nice, i like it, but there is a time and a place for everithing.

But then again, options make the game somewhat arcadish to an extreme. as a radical example, let me just say some people think all planes should be availabe to all teams. thats ok in a all dogfight server like Grijos. but who would want to fly in Repka if such choices were available?


my point is, there will be a time where we , players who seek realism, will want it to be there, and we will not want it to be spoiled by someone who wants to simple pick the best combo.

i believe mission builders should have the option to "limit fuel, limit ammo, limit bombs etc" so more complex and realsitic scenarios could be created.

Hipothecly, if i flew a SEOW campaign i would like to see enforced a 100% fuel take off + "you can only chosoe this 2 possible ammo loadouts."

Im not saying this should be aplied to every ocasion, i jsut want the option for it ot be there, so if the need comes its there. Putting it on dogfight air quake servers would be a overuse of this feature, and most people are looking in that scenario.


well, that said, cheers.

The ammo load can be changed freely when it's the player who creates the plane in a spawn point, but when it's a plane created in the mission, the ammo and fuel load it's locked to whatever the mission designer put on it.

In an online war the planes could be created in the mission with the ammo and fuel that the campaign sees appropiate (this could be done in a SEOW style campaign, or even in a real time war), and also the campaign could force the player to fly a specific plane.

So I think that the option is already there Pupo. We only need time untill someone makes an online war with all this.

Rgr KG26_Alpha

You are right. Wrong place - my apology.

Salute JG52Krupi

Hope it will work out for the best for all of us.

there is also competitions like USL, who are based on dogfight servers. that wouldnt work there. but you are right to an extend, and to be fair in a USL scenario squads will vouch for pre-assigned rules.

Prediction: "Leave it alone" landslide.

Of course, if people have to choose between historical accuratesse and easier success, what do you think will win?

I think it was left up to the pilot in the luftwaffe.

Judging by the current state of the sim, the developers can barely put together a working game.

What makes you think adding this option won't just introduce another broken, buggy feature that will crash our games or cause disconnects?

This is a GAME, remember. The more options the better.
I remember very well the long painful threads of whining, on UBIzoo about the ammo belting for certain aircraft. No need to go through all that mess again.
There's no magic bullet anyway. A mix of rounds works better in most cases. If you get a 109 behind shooting at you and hitting, it won't be much difference anyway what he shoots you with. The E1 with 4x7.92mm can kill a plane just as easy as the E4 with cannons.
Who is then going to decide on what kind of loadouts people should use? Do you put this extra work on the host? What about ground attack sorties? Most aircraft used different belting for different purposes anyway.

Be glad we have the otions available to us, so we don't have to cry to developers or hosts to make this changes.

Jaws

I have magic bullets and silver ones in my ammo belt. :)

+1000

+2000


Good to see that I am not the only one who remembers what a long discussion that one was.
My last post here, sorry for trolling.

~S~

just to make it clear. if the host doenst want to, he could just make it "players choice/ no limitations".

And regardign "who should decide waht beltings to have", my answer is, the mission maker.

Are you sure all mission makers know exactly the historical ammo loadout for every gun in every plane we have?

I grew up in Transilvania. I'll stay the heck away from you!!!! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...aws/iiiiik.gif

Loadouts should not be enforced, they should be restricted.

Specifically speaking about belts, there should be an option for mission designer to specify max allowed percentage of every bullet type in loudout (taking into account all guns on plane), and a fallback belt (in case user belt violates the limits). I.e.:

Steel AP - 100%
Tracer - 100%
Tungsten AP - 30%
Fallback belt: [Steel AP, Steel AP, Steel AP, Tracer]

That way various custom belts could be made, and spraying of rare things like Tungsten could be prevented.

+1

no. but i dont think this feature would be implemented in every mission either. And this could be use not only to force uber realsitic beltings, but it could ban uber unrealsitic ones, like 100% incendiary.

Acctually my "uber incendiary" E1 setup was nor far off from what was actually used apparently, so I have now changed it. My E4 has had a historically correct cannon belt for months now :D and just updated the machine gun belt :D

Loadout belts may not be prohibited, restricted or enforced ! they should simply work as set in the game and it's rarely the point !:(

That is our opinion as well. More options can't be a bad thing can it....in IL2 things were removed rather than giving us an option instead. I oftened wondered if that was so they didn't upset those people who wanted to be classed as 'Full Real'.

it wouldnt bother me if they were not enforced as there is quite allot to sort out first but i do think we should use the same belt set ups as the real pilots did

Because when we said the head shake in the cockpit was a bit too much it was not toned down, it was removed.

The historical cockpit instruments were removed from the hurri and spit when four ppl complained!!!

exactly my feelings.

Well the poll speaks for itself.

I do not really care. Once I am being shot at it really does not matter much what kind of ammo hits me. The trick is to avoid that in the first place.

i say leave it alone cause y is it a exploit that's utter nonsense.

you could have your guns set how ever you wanted in your aircraft,

take that out and all the other stuff that makes this sim what it is

might as well go back to il2 1946.

that's what we will be left with is a over glorified 1946, thats y i voted


LEAVE IT ALONE

I presume you are referring to the early release which had large needle bounce issues if so then your statement is incorrect.

The FACTS are it was removed after talking to current Warbird pilots and engineers regarding the needle bounce. They all said it just doesnt happen.

If it wasn't the needle bounce issue then what exactly are you referring to ?

Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up Ivan I stand corrected.

Thanks

If you use simple spawn areas the player has all the freedom, if you use the coop-system the loadout is predefined. So it is already implemented and Banks`script should do it. ;)

if your going to limit stuff y dont you make the kiddy rules that are in most servers in IL-2 1946

cant shoot me i got my lights on

cant shoot me i got my landing gear down

my motor is stoped cant shoot me

even though you shot me up so bad i had to land in a feald you cant shoot me im on the ground

cant get to close to base i ban you

and so on and so on :rolleyes:


what a bunch of nonsense makes me so nauseous i could puke

did you even read other peoples posts or are you just trolling?

Pegasus is right though...

Not really it just sounds like he hasn't found the right server... No ones fault but his.

If you don't like a servers rules don't play on that server.

I've gone with "Allow it" because I would be happy to have it in a properly researched historical battle for a special mission.

I wouldn't want it for every day servers and I think people would vote with their feet if it was introduced there.

My gut feeling is the the devs won't bother with it, at least not until the have some free time which is a long way off.

To be honest, I don't care either way. Just because someone has loaded his guns with the best ammo out there doesn't mean that he's any good. True, he might get lucky, but meh. He can still be shot down regardless.

Your vote is alright for me as long as I can be allowed to disagreee.

We are free to choose server. The servers are free to choose limitations.


I want the right to have the servers to have the ability to enforce realisme.

Personally I think a smaller map should enforce a smaller fuelload to enforce a healthy engine management if pilots want loiter time.

It would also be nice for a server to be able to restrict the user of De Wilde ammo. Not completely but just to reflect a the limit availability during the first part of the battle of Britten.

I see a lot of oppotunities to prolong gameplay and enhanced realisme.

I don't see what the issue is, as a server option. Let the server admin use it if they want to, or not.

It should be easy to implement, and would allow for some custom scenarios.

I think it's good for the game to have a mix of servers for people to play on - some like it more realistic, and some more arcadish.

I don't want to get stuck with a load of clay rounds in my Spit while the 109's get exploding rounds. I have had to go through each aircraft and set up Tracer-Ball-Incin-AP on the outside Guns and AP-Ball-Incin on all the others and this set-up works and isn't entirely wrong. If a Server want's to enforce something to keep load-outs from being abused fine, but I want fair warning and a list of what is allowable.

I find out almost on a nightly basis that even though I think I have the best load out it doesn't do any good when someone is on my rear-end shooting at me first LOL

Is ball ammo better than AP in game in any way? Isn't it more efficient to have AP-AP-Inc.?

IRL cost of AP was higher I assume.

That's not the point, this is a sim. This simulator simulates the battle of England, and therefore I would like to see historical load-outs. It's great for experimenting and all that, and do what you like with it, but not on my server. If I had a server, I would want to lock a certain belting for every player to make it a full real server ( at least as far as we can be realistic in this game ).

So what 'certain belting' would you give each specific aircraft to make it 'full real' in your view?
For sake of argument, let's say it's 30 red and 30 blue, fighters only.
Please let me know, gun by gun, bullet by bullet.

But how many of each specific mark of aircraft available in the game would you allocate to each side for a given specific date during the Battle of Britain out of the same 60? This would of course have a significant impact on ammo loadouts also.

Please quote your sources of reference for making both the ammo loadouts and ratio of aircraft available 'full real' for a given date during the Battle.

I'll be particularly interested in your 'full real' ammo loadouts for the Italian aircraft involved in the Battle of Britain. Although the dates are somewhat limited for these.

Your final comment in parentheses says it all. This cannot be a 'full real' sim of the Battle of Britain, it can only be a game due to the restrictions of our computers and the number of players available.
Command and Control is somewhat limited also.

This whole loadout discussion isn't about 'full reality' or 'sims', it's about whether blue team has an advantage over red team, or vice versa, in a game.

I'd still be interested in your loadouts however.

;)

In various video clips I've seen the armourers making up the belts for the fighters, basically it's a couple of blokes sitting at a desk with a machine, they have a hopper of links and a chute they feed the bullets into. They pull the leaver and the round is added to the belt.

Now what woiuld be interesting would be knowing what the procedure was for varying the make up of the belts. Was it just a matter of getting someone with sufficient rank to go down and ask them to put together a belt with a certain sequence? Or did it require a request to the Air Ministry or some other board like that?

How much freedom did they have at squadron level with things like belting configurations and convergences? As proffessional pilots did they sit around over cocktails discussing thier belting and having a go the next day?

I assume if they had supply issues of any particular round they'd have to use an alternative sequence, who was responsible and what was the procedure for choosing it?

In the British loadout sections we have a range of unusual rounds like the MKI and MKVI ball ammo. These rounds run about 500fps slower than most of the other rounds on the list. Would you really want to have these rounds in a belt with the H/V rounds? They'ld have completely different ballistics and would throw your convergense right out the window.

Cheers!

At a guess, I'd say the armaments officer told the C/O what was available in the stores, and they agreed a mix which best matched the experiences of the Squadron at that time.

Then when a new delivery arrived, they'd have another meeting. If they had time that is, although it's doubtful they'd discuss it over cocktails. 'No shop talk in the Mess, Old Boy!'. ;)

No doubt there were some Air Ministry guidelines (there usually were, for better or worse) given the research done by Sorley and his successors, but as with 'Fighting Area Attacks', the Squadrons would soon develop their own approach.

But of course I'm guessing. Nothing 'full real sim' about that. Or is there? :)

No matter how it will turn out for sever choice Im VERY pleased to see ATAG is against it and will do full real the historic way, where you can make your belt at the type of sorties you are going to fly. They did that in real life, depending if they are going to attack a convoy or you simple fly a cap protecting your area. Thanks for that ATAG. Alway a great server to fly on.

I think its a bit sad to see how sombody will try to limmit people to fly diffrent cind of sorties and make it more arcade. But the sad part is, they are using the arguments like its more historical and realistic. Its certainly not the case. They changes ammo belts depending of there mission. And so should you.

@Skoshi Tiger: You are right

They did discuss thier belting and make there crew put in the ammo belt for the next sortie.


~S~

Still think that your not looking at this the right way no one said that a single load out would be enforced, whose to say that the server limits you to one historical loadout i.e. you could have a few historical loadouts from which to choose from and therefore choose the historical one for the type of mission you are planning on going on!!

I believe that the rounds, which were limited then, should be limited on a "full real" server also.

That would be, afaik, the "Hartkern" (Tungsten) and the "Beobachtungsgeschoss" on the german side and the "DeWilde" on the british side.

All other rounds were more or less unlimited available, afaik.

So except for the limited ammo everything should be free chooseable, imo.

Thanks mate!

But I must point out that the opinions I express on this forum are my own, and not necessarily the opinions of ATAG as a group, or any of it's other members!

Cheers!

Not to be offensive, but I think im looking at it the right way. But thats subjective, of course :D
Do this mean, that evrey server have to research in correct historical loadout at all type of sorties /aircraft / time(year) to please some few? Sorry I dont see it happen the right way. I think we will se severs come to some standard ammo belt for dogfight, accuse the server owner to favor one side or some ammo are mission / should not been there. Basig it will never be historical nor realistic that way. We just ask for more troble and accuseing. Do we realy need more of this?

Cut the next demant be that players have correct callnames / correct historical skinns and then force the swastika on? Sorry I did not ment this for serious - I just could not resist. Sorry sorry sorry......... Will newer ever happen again ... promise ;)

Basig is. I simply can not follow the habbit to controll all, which does not even exist in reality. They had options and therefore in my opinion, it should be left as it is.

~S~

Rgr that Dutch.

One can only hope they have the same view of the subject. But now we will see. I hope Dev know best and keep continue their development. Perhaps it will be released several functions in the cockpit, such as arm gun correctly use of Magnito and so on in CEM settings.

~S~

The big thing I see with this is the question "what is historical?" - something that cannot really be answered with any degree of certainty for either side in question.
Sure some documents and "first hand" reports do float around for people to read and interpret however there is no set "belts were made like THIS XYZ" etc.

The main thing is the issue of supply: The beltings were not factory made with set patterns, they were made at individual unit level by the staffel and Gruppe armourers for the luftwaffe and at the squadron and airfield level by the RAF armourers. Even now ammo belts are normally put together at unit level: hell I had to arse about belting up row after row of 5.56 for the minimi with a mix of ball and tracer with no "you must do it this way" guidance given.

With regards to the way belts were made up during the war; my interpretation through seeing the few clips available and reading wartime diaries is that the belts were indeed put together by armourers sitting around a table with the belting machines and boxes of ammo by type, (tracer/ball/etc.) and they had a rough guidline of how to mix them up with specific beltings made up when the pilots knew in advance their mission type, I also believe that the crew chief for each aircraft liased with the armourers for the belts whenever pilots requested certain types of ammo if possible and supplies were readily available - as such having the loadout system as it stands at present without the restrictions proposed does have a certain standing if being historically correct.

Obviously if supplies are low or there are no "type XYZ" available then that is something that could be factored in - but with this where do you stop? of sorry, you can't fly your aircraft today as the last time you flew on this server you crash landed and your aicraft still ahs two days to go before it is repaired? or even stopping people using custom convergence distance?

Now, as for my oppinion in game, I personally do not like seeing E4's taking whole belts of minengeschoss since I doubt that was a widely used belting option or the Brits having full beltings of DeWilde ammo - although in reality belts like that were probably used at some point either by request/ lack of other ammo type or any other wartime reason. - It's not as if we have access to wide reams of day to day beltings or a fully detailed supply chain for each type of ammo - we can barely piece together full information on aircraft supply or even camo scheme regulations (for the Luftwaffe as the RAF ones were a little more standardised) let alone something as small as ammunition types and availability.

I have to agree with Red and Dutch on this one, pushing for something on the basis of "realism" when it doesn't have enough supporting evidence isn't the right path on this one and will likely serve to only further alienate people and provide more fuel for red/blue bias whiners.
V

concur.

I believe that the user should be limited to ONLY ONE round type in their belt, FOR ALL guns, and that one round is to be ONE round of my choice for ALL players (including me cuz im not a hypocrite)


that round is the observer round....

ENJOY

otherwise i think it would be best to at least START with historical belting and go from there....