Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Plane armour

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Plane armour Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Plane armour - 11/21/2012 4:09:13 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline 		Q - Is it there to protect the plane or more to save pilots?

Thanks Cav
Post #: 1
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 4:46:33 PM   
msieving1

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline 		Mostly to protect the pilot, though some armor may be provided to protect sensitive systems, like the radiator. Self-sealing fuel tanks were effective in protect the fuel system from rifle caliber bullets, but weren't much use against cannon fire.

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 2
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 5:18:58 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline 		And in the game - does it save pilots or planes or both?

(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 3
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 5:23:39 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		In game it protects the plane against destruction.

WitP does not simulate a shot down plane through pilot kill. You always either damage or destroy the plane, and this is where
armor factors in.

To my best knowledge it also does not affect OP losses through bad landings, not that it should.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 4
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 5:28:20 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 571
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		When B-17s would come back from missions riddled with bullet holes, the mechanics/engineers would reinforce areas of the plane that did NOT suffer any damage.

Think about it ...

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 5
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 5:34:10 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline 		In combat over your own base and planes are shot down you recover more pilots...so the games suggests
So armour it is suggested only rduces the chance of a plane being shot down not pilot recovery or survival?

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 6
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 5:36:45 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline 		Once shot down the chance of pilot survival is the same?
A shot down plane is therfore never because the pilot took a 20mm canon shell? Planes are not shot down because pilots are killed in air to air its because their engine or wing etc was lost?

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 7
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 6:44:46 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6211
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		However, a plane that is "not" shot down may still suffer a wounded pilot.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 8
RE: Plane armour - 11/21/2012 7:37:52 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1326
Joined: 10/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Once shot down the chance of pilot survival is the same?
A shot down plane is therfore never because the pilot took a 20mm canon shell? Planes are not shot down because pilots are killed in air to air its because their engine or wing etc was lost?


I don't think the game is modeled that deeply. It is a percentage game. If your flying over your own territory you recover your pilots so you don't get (many) MIA pilots. Same if you have a lot of submarines present near a hex you are attacking with for example carrier borne aircraft.

It is as simple as:

If you lose a lot of planes over enemy territory you lose most pilots (KIA, MIA and temp WIA)
If you lose a few planes over enemy territory you lose some pilots (KIA MIA and temp WIA)
If you lose a lot of planes over friendly territory you lose some pilots (KIA, temp WIA)
If you lose a few planes over friendly territory you lose few pilots (up to 0 KIA, temp WIA)

MIA pilots have a small chance to return to duty within a certain timespan, WIA pilots have a chance to lose experience.

The lower the durability, armour of the aircraft, the higher the chance it gets destroyed instead of damaged.

I wouldn't make it more complicated then this when thinking of committing or not...


< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/21/2012 7:39:57 PM >

_____________________________





(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 9
RE: Plane armour - 11/22/2012 7:52:09 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4432
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		+1

I think you have it succinctly summarized.  Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 10
RE: Plane armour - 11/22/2012 8:07:03 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Yes, you pretty much nailed it down.

Only part I am not so sure about is if submarines (or other units present) "near a hex" have any influence.

I think for game engine calculations the OP-loss/plane-destruction either happens over the base of origin or the hex where
the combat took place (meaning target hex or hex where the plane was vectored to). Air missions are point to point. Contrary to naval
warfare I don´t think hex properties on the way to target have an influence.

This still doesn´t makes your statement about submarines wrong, it could well be that unit presence still flows into the calculations,
but maybe only as far as the target hex is concerned, and not sourrounding hexes?

I am aware I am nitpicking. This could just be interesting for sub deployment patterns in the face of carrier battles for example.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 11
RE: Plane armour - 11/22/2012 12:19:25 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
aside from the mechanics in AE,

armor was meant to protect the pilot
typically the "stanag 1" protected against 7.7mm rounds,
with bulletproof glass and armored pilot seat, weighed about 100kg

self-sealing tanks are not only meant to stop fuel leaking (allowing the fighter to return to base)

BUT

most importantly, prevent a flaming inferno from erupting from the fuel tanks

weight of self-sealing fuel tanks was a function of their size, and proportional to the fuel capacity

some SSF tanks added more than 500kg of extra weight (P-47 for example)

range will be reduced to about 2/3 of a non-ssf tank for the same weight / volume

hence why zero had long range and wildcat short range

also why japanese planes erupted into a fireball while luftwaffe ones didn't (look at gun camera footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sNmbzQA9M


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 12
RE: Plane armour - 11/22/2012 12:28:49 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		interesting to note that by around 1940, everyone thought that speed was the number 1 variable

fighters like the Mig-1 and He 100 were expected to be the norm

strange how armor and extra fuel crept their way into fighter design


playing my pbem game (that doesn't allow AC research, but allows some field mods)
and the opponent has created a lethal P-39A with short range, less guns, and no armor
(403 mph with 115kg/m2 wing loading)

i'm hitting back with my short-range A6M2 (366mph, 85kg/m2), and Ki-44

typically the increase in weight of armor is negligible for a large fighter (like F6F, P-47, etc)

but horrible for smaller fighters that are sensitive to weight

for example the ridiculous A6M5c *shudders*

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/22/2012 12:30:46 PM >

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Plane armour Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.442