Ammo Belts Loadout/Exploit Dicussion

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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. ?


~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

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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~

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?

[bw_wolverine]

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

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

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

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!

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.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

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..

[TomcatViP]

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

[SEE]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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".

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

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

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!

[Jaws2002]

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.

[Comrade Jordan]

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...)