Quote:
Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar
Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.
|
Okay, thank you for the reply!
Hmm... We'll, I was thinking about situations which are primarily the fault of players:
- The structural failures in the Il-2 3m were a result of prolonged firing of the NS-37 (typically in a dive).
- Gun jams could also happen as a result of gun overheating, high-g maneuvers or flying too low. So, how you fly matters.
On the other hand some types of guns were notoriously prone to jamming. This didn't typically lead to the lost of a plane, but it did sometimes force pilots to abort attacks. In most cases it lowered effectiveness by causing one (our of several) guns to become unavailable before it had fired off all of its rounds.
The ShKAS had "48 ways of jamming". The Mk-101 and Mk-108 were also notoriously prone to jamming (one of their downsides vs. the Mk-103). The BK-5 was rarely able to fire off all of its ammunition.
However, these guns could and did prove to be extremely effective weapons. They just weren't 100% reliable and every few missions a pilot would carry some of his ammunition home.
So, it is really just a random factor effecting overall firepower.
If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?