Guest Mike Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Dan I've been unable to get e-mail through to you from either home or work for hte last 20 or so hours, so I'm posting this here instead. Are you considering bringing ammunition into the game at all? I've been doing some reading on WW2 a/c and I've found a few things that made me think of it. Eg the Fw190A4 had 250 rounds per gun for it's wing root 20mm cannon - but only 55 rpg for the outer wing cannon (and 1000 for the 2 fuselage mounted MG's IIRC) - so I would imagine that the 2 outer wing guns would often be restricted to use against targets that needed more effort to be shot down - eg bombers. Another case was the 20mm cannon in the Spitfire wings - early ones retained the drum feed (Mk Vb) - which limited them to 60 rounds, and also had to be turned on it's side. When a belt feed was introduced (Mk VC onwards) they carried 120 rounds per gun. The A6 Zero had a similar transformation - the A6M2's only had 60 rounds per 20mm, the A6M5's had 125 and their type 2 cannon were faster firing and had a higher muzzle velocity - altogether far more effective. So I wonder if a future enhancement might be to limit some of the firepower for some planes - perhaps have an "out of ammo" card for some of their armament that has limited ammo and change the characteristics appropriately, or allow only a limited number of shots with part of the armament & allow the player to choose when to use them. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html has coments on some a/c armaments including info on ammo carried I also found the following series of linked pages. They have bucketloads of info on armaments and effectiveness: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html - this page is very similar to that above, but has different comments http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html - more notes on individual fighter armament similar to the 1st link above http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html - discussion on fighter armour - arguably unarmoured fighters should be even more vulnerable than the A6M's are now, and early war German and British fighters were unarmoured too...... http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-de.html - bomber armamanet and effectiveness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I just thought of a truly evil plan - have an "out of amo" card, but give it effect only when played - except yuo canot discard it ..... force a player to choose betwen carrying a dud card or lossing a bit of firepower. no doubt karma would ensure I would be the first person to encounter this predicament!! :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbert Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 What if you made an "out of ammo" card that you could play as a reaction card to an "IMS" or "OOS" card? It would be like playing a "No Response" (so you would take the damage), except that it would cause your opponent to have a -1 Burst for the rest of the game or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ouch - that'd be nasty too, and probably simpler. Would you limit it to a/c that have low ammo loads compared with "normal" for some of their weapons - as another point of difference? That's the general Idea I have - then the effect would be to take just some of hteweapons out of hte equation - eg an A6M2 Zero might lose it's 20mm cannon be left with just it's 2 machinegiuns, but it would have no effect on an A6M5 with double the load of 20mm shells. Similarly it wouldn't affect the Mosquito, which had 400 (FOUR HUNDRED!!) rounds per 20mm cannon, and 1000 per machinegun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartbert Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 If "Out of Ammo" was going to be a card that is dependent on the type of aircraft, it almost seems like you would have to move towards "custom decks". That is, instead of aircraft drawing from a common deck, each aircraft gets its own deck which reflects the attributes of that aircraft. I've always thought that this could be another interesting way of differentiating aircraft. For example, aircraft with high turn rates might have more Tight Turn cards in their decks. Aircraft that were poor at diving might have fewer Vertical Roll cards in their decks. You might even come up with new cards, such as a "Boom and Zoom" card that allows an aircraft to dive a level, fire once, and then return to its starting altitude. This is all "blue sky" stuff right now, though. But I suppose if there were enough player interest in a particular idea, we could at least look at the effort involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I very much like the Boom and Zoom idea. The idea of a custom deck designed for each aircraft would certainly help differentiating aircraft, but I can only imagine the amount of work involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Funnily enough I had an idea for different decks for shooting depending upon the number and calibre of guns on an aircraft.... I started with what shoudl hte shooting deck look like with 2 rifle calibre machine guns, then 1 rc and 1 hmg, then 2 hmg's, then 1 20mm + 1 rc mg, ...and so on. So far I'm only up to 4 hmg's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pthomas Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 how about a very rare JAM:1 or JAM:2 card that you could play as a reaction.....your opponent would lose firepower for that many turns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Jamming wasn't common - except that some a/c did experience it. Apparently the poor ol' Buffalo had a probem with the .50's it carried - no one really knows why but htey speculated the mouints and firing mechanisms were for .30's. Anyway - the Brits substituted .303's for them in some a/c. Some other guns may have had a reputatoin for jamming too maybe - it could be part of some custom decks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO in favor of decks specific to planes. I also am in favor of skills specific to each plane. I think that maybe when you bring Jets into the mix this will help balance it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakespeed Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 The early 20mm versions of the Spits (like the late Mk.I/Mk.II "C" wing types) had belt-fed ammo that had a tendency in combat to kink up and "jam" during violent maneuvers until they switched to the drum-fed versions. IIRC that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 no - other way around!! The early versions had hte drums, and only 60 rounds, up until hte Mk Vb - then the "C" wing was introduced with a belt feed and 120 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakespeed Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I was pretty sure the "bulge" on the wings of the Spitfire was due to the drum, but maybe this was due to something else on the cannon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 The bulge was because the cannon were placed on their sides to improve their reliability. I have read different comments I think that the belt feed was introduced on the Mk VC or the Mk IIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts