[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Mr.X

Engines should be less reliable. Back in the day, sudden engine failures were quite common.

This feature has been requested before.

During WW2, most aircraft systems were less reliable than they are today. Even so, most planes could go hundreds or thousands of hours without problems. There were exceptions, however. For example, by modern standards most heavy bombers were "hangar queens."

For game purposes, you've got two reason why including reliability options are good, and two as to why they're bad.

Good:

* Realism.

* Gives server hosts and mission builders much more control over mission design, especially if aircraft can start the mission with damage, or if system failures or specific sorts of damage can be triggered.

Bad:

* Massive amounts of work for something that only happens rarely in real life. Even for relatively simple modeling for mission-critical systems like engines, radios and intercoms, it would take huge amounts of coding, plus huge amounts of historical research to determine what reasonable levels of failure for various systems might be.

* Unwelcome by many players with little impact on the game. Many players, and the less historically minded dogfight server hosts, will just turn the system failure option off. All but the most realism-obsessed and masochistic offline players will just quit the mission and refly it if they encounter a system failure.

A compromise might be found in a well-done campaign generator which takes serviceability rates for various planes into account when determining the number of flyable planes available. This can be modified by things like poor supply lines, damage to the airfield and harsh conditions.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

Every now and then guns get jammed: the belt link breaks, the gun freezes, the barrel overheats, etc.

About a year ago, I posted a thread where I showed that it's pretty much impossible for a WW2 era aircraft's guns to get overheated to the point that they fail for the simple reason that they didn't carry enough ammo to cause serious overheating. The worst case is that you shoot off all your ammo in on long burst and that damages the barrel enough that it needs to be replaced when you get back on the ground.

Gun jams for fixed guns, particularly if you shoot while pulling high-Gs or flying inverted, are already possible in the game.

That said, there's still plenty of room for improvements to gun jams in the game.

* Flexible guns should be able to jam (this might have been fixed in 4.13).

* Fixed and Flexible guns should have the possibility of freezing at high altitudes/cold temperatures. The chance of this happening should be based on map, altitude and crew quality. Unlike a regular jam, frozen guns will unjam themselves once the plane returns to a warmer temperature environment.

* Turrets should have the possibility of freezing at high altitudes, based on the same factors as above.

* Turrets should have the possibility of jamming, limiting or stopping the turret's ability to turn or the guns ability to elevate/depress, based on random failure or battle damage. Many turrets were also electrically powered, so they could stop working if there was an electrical failure, or an engine failure for the engines which drove the generators.

* It should be possible to attempt to clear jams in flexible guns using immediate action. There should also be a small chance of being able to clear a jam in flexible guns by charging/cocking them.

* There should be an option that requires players to arm/charge their weapons before they can be fired/released. It was a common rookie mistake to forget to arm your guns before you went into combat!

Originally Posted by Mr.X

The ability to choose bullet type

This is a commonly requested feature, for the reasons you mentioned. I believe that it would be relatively simple to add this option to the game, but there are some problems.

First, there need to be restrictions on ammo availability. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep players from loading their guns entirely with highly effective but rare(r) ammo types (e.g., minengeschoss). This means that there would need to be an option for server hosts and mission/campaign builders to limit the percentage of certain bullets in a belting.

Second, there needs to be a way to allow players to choose different ammo types at the beginning or end of the belt. For example, some units used tracers at the end of the belt to indicate when they were low on ammo.

Third, there might need to be restrictions on availability of certain ammo types based on year.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

Sometimes, pylons (hardpoints or stores) fail to eject a droptank or a bomb or to fire a rocket.

This has the same benefits and drawbacks as other types of systems failures.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

What would happen if you fired a rocket or dropped a bomb but it would be armed and remained in the wing, then after the rocket fuel was burned, it would explode?

To prevent exactly this sort of problem, most ordinance had impact fuses, or fuses which were only activated after they were released. If you're carrying explosives on your airplane, you want to be very careful that they only hurt the bad guys!

A more typical problem was ordinance that failed to release, or failed to detonate.

* Dud torpedoes are already modeled in the game (particularly the early versions of the US Mk XIII).

* Dud bombs or rockets could be modeled, but they should be very rare. I don't think it would be that hard to add this option to the game.

* There should be a long delay/practice option for all ordinance in the game. Not particularly satisfying in terms of visual effects, but a bit of realism for bomber pilots who want to drop mines or delayed fuse bombs.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

Fw 190 Mistel with a weapon loadout of the Ju88...

This has been in the game for a long time, it's just not available as an option in the QMB. What's missing are other proposed Mistel combinations, like Bf-109G + Ju-88.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

It would also be nice to have a way to limit the MAX fuel and ammo taken by pilots to simulate changing war conditions.

It's already possible to limit fuel quantity in the QMB and FMB. Limiting fuel due to other factors should be a function of a campaign generation program.

* Adding the option of taking a less than full loadout of ammo is a good idea, since it allows mission builders and server hosts more flexibility, like setting up scenarios where one or both sides have partial ammo loads due to shortages or prior combat.

Originally Posted by Mr.X

Adding two Jeeps for the Allies and two others for the Axis.

IL2 models aircraft physics very realistically, but ground vehicle physics very simply. Creating physics models which allow ground vehicles to handle with the same realism as an aircraft would require a whole new sim.

Scouting enemy airfields with a jeep is unrealistic because of the major aspect of WW2 that IL2 mission builders mostly ignore - front lines manned by thousands of trigger happy infantrymen.

What would be more reasonable would be to have ground-based stationary positions.

* AAA - Prevents "camping" in multiplayer. All that would be needed is a "crew station" for the relevant guns (or searchlights).

* Radar Ground Control - A stationary radar screen "cockpit" and a radio within a building. Allows intercepts and vectoring of planes in multiplayer. Particularly helpful for night fighter scenarios.

* Forward Air Control - A stationary camera attached to a radio. Allows visual intercepts and vectoring of planes in multiplayer, as well as airfield control and forward air control for airstrikes.

There was a really great Command and Control mod developed for 4.10 which included lots of cool FAC options. Sadly, it was "broken" by later patches and never updated. I'd love to see an official version of it.