joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 25, 2007 19:27:43 GMT -5
If they flew over rather than dove it might be a possability
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 25, 2007 19:33:22 GMT -5
Ok we've heard from everyside.
No it should not be allowed
Yes it should be allowed totally
Yes it should be allowed from the front three spaces only
And there have been supportable reasons for all three, there have also been good arguments against all three.
Now for the hard part; can we come to a consensus with all of our groups?
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on May 25, 2007 20:36:06 GMT -5
Hey guys, Ok I've read through the freeze framing post. It seems to me to come down to the same thing. realism VS. playability. I'm sure that pilots did rotate thier guns to try for the shot straight up, I'm just unconvinced about how effective it was. Ok that being said I do not see how the physics work unless you come in from the front three squares. I'll say right now before I start my argument that I am not an aviation historian. I find DP to be just a game I enjoy. So feel free to correct any assumptions I make about anything. Chuckles. Ok here we go. I'm quite sure that any surviving pilot did check his six on a regular basis. But that gun only rotates up 90 degrees. So in the 20 seconds that I dive on the attacking plane and fire upon it my opponant rotates his gun up. But I am still behind him. Unless he pulls back on the stick to rotate his firing platform (the plane) to a more advantagous angle he still can't shoot at me, I am out of his firing arc. I personally can not walk and chew gum at the same time. And for those of you who have met me you know this to be true. (Grins) This would be true if I came in from the side as well. Whereas if I came in from the front the gun rotates to track my movement and if I'm to the right or left of my target I see it being easier for him to adjust his firing platform to get me within his arc of fire. I believe it would be a freeze frame argument to declare a top attack a straight 90 degree angle. Actually I'm not even sure its possable. Don't think I've ever seen anything but an F14 fly staight up or straight down. Everybody please chiime in on this argument. I would like to see a game wide consensus. To borrow a phrase from AP, the physics is essentially irrelevant, IF YOU VIEW A TURN AS A FROZEN MOMENT IN A 20 SECOND TIME SPAN. To wit: A plane coming from above and behind in a diving attack that ends in a 50 ft top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the plane IN THE INSTANT of shooting. A plane climbing from low to the front and ending with a 50ft top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the target IN THE INTSTANT of shooting. A plane coming in from even altitute from either side and ending up with a 50' top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the target plane IN THE INSTANT of shooting. Any attempt to try to justify a poorly thought out rule on the basis of how the physics of the move work themselves out is a prima facia argument proving why the 'front 3' theory is full of holes because you can't have it both ways. Either the turn is a snapshot or its a continuous 20 seconds of movement. So, if we buy the theory that the 'front 3' is a valid rule because of the physics involved in the movement, then the IndySquadron rule for Obs defense should be expanded into the ability to fire at any one chosen plane at any time during the turn because 'it's a continuation of movement'. Anyone care to try to justify this some more?
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 26, 2007 4:53:14 GMT -5
[quote author=albpilot board=rules thread=1179958418 post=1180143366
To borrow a phrase from AP, the physics is essentially irrelevant, IF YOU VIEW A TURN AS A FROZEN MOMENT IN A 20 SECOND TIME SPAN. To wit:
A plane coming from above and behind in a diving attack that ends in a 50 ft top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the plane IN THE INSTANT of shooting. A plane climbing from low to the front and ending with a 50ft top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the target IN THE INTSTANT of shooting. A plane coming in from even altitute from either side and ending up with a 50' top shot is exactly 90 degrees above the target plane IN THE INSTANT of shooting.
Any attempt to try to justify a poorly thought out rule on the basis of how the physics of the move work themselves out is a prima facia argument proving why the 'front 3' theory is full of holes because you can't have it both ways. Either the turn is a snapshot or its a continuous 20 seconds of movement.
So, if we buy the theory that the 'front 3' is a valid rule because of the physics involved in the movement, then the IndySquadron rule for Obs defense should be expanded into the ability to fire at any one chosen plane at any time during the turn because 'it's a continuation of movement'.
Anyone care to try to justify this some more?[/quote] Obviously I succeeded not just tried as I believe that 90 degree straight up and down shot the stuff of myth and legend.
Well after having read both this and the death of freeze frame movement post, I'm guessing you guys have been at this argument awhile. Chuckles.
I'd like to find a consensus here. I believe Kevan (?) was the one that mentioned he could find no record of a pilot adjusting his gun on the fly. That it had to be set before hand.
Is anyone able to speak on this? I've never seen the mechanism involved.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2007 8:29:15 GMT -5
Can anyone point to a recorded example of a Lewis gun being rotated on the fly, in the middle of a fight? There are literally hundreds of examples of a Lewis gun being shifted down and back up on the upper wing Foster mount in the middle of a dogfight. Okay... history time... the original Lewis mounts on Nieuports were fixed. In order to reload, even during combat, the pilot had to literally unbuckle his belt and stand up in his seat to reach the empty drum and change it. This is a bad thing. So a guy named Foster invented a slide mount for the Lewis gun, in which a pin was pulled out of the slide to allow the gun to slide backwards where it was pointed upward within easy reach of the pilot. The drum, of course, was on the top of the Lewis gun and pointing the gun upward allowed far easier access to the drum. This was a good thing. So when the SE came out, it incorporated the Foster mount as standard equipment. So always remember this... yes, Lewis guns were reloaded during dogfights hundreds of times... that's precisely why the Foster mount was invented. It had nothing to do with shooting at an upward angle... that's not why the mount was invented. The Foster mount was invented to facilitate reloading. That said, some pilots chose not to reload the Lewis during combat, but instead continue to fight with only the Vickers. But we should remember that aerial guns were designed to fire straight ahead and the Foster mount was never designed as a shooting platform. It was later used as one in some rare circumstances, but it was not designed as such. So, yes, the gun would work as overhead defense, but no, it was not designed that way. Yes, the gun could be moved in twenty seconds to that position, but no, the task was not commonly performed for the sake of shooting. It stretches realism to allow defensive overhead shooting at all... the approach angle of the attacking plane is utterly irrelevant to the issue. Soooo... the most realistic rule would be to require one turn to change the gun position (we already require one turn to perform this exact same task when we reload, do we not?), then allow any upward defense firing from any angle. The most playable rule is to leave the 7th edition alone. Limiting defensive fire to specific angles of approach does not address the actual issues involved and assumes the wrong purpose and use for the creation of the Foster mount. It is a bad rule based on incorrect assumptions and a false premise and it should be permanently eliminated from the game in favor of either of the two options above.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2007 8:42:53 GMT -5
It also unnecessarily inhibits the effectiveness of an airplane that already has an inherent armament handicap against all of its contemporary opponents.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 26, 2007 10:00:29 GMT -5
Thanks Stephen always enjoy learning new stuff. Now you mention unneccessarily inhibiting the effectivenss of the plane. Thats if the one turn to readjust position suggestion is used correct?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2007 10:34:41 GMT -5
What I meant was...
Restricting an SE's defensive ability against top attacks is an unnecessary inhibition of its abilities, especially given the fact that the SE invariably competes against two-gun planes.
Taking one turn to adjust the Foster mount is also an inhibition, but a bit less so IMHO.
Since the Lewis position could easily be altered in less than twenty seconds, my suggestion for a rule would be to -
- allow upward defensive shots from any angle - require one turn to change the gun position, BUT... - permit the SE to change the Lewis position and still fire the Vickers in the same turn
A lot of armchair airplane enthusiasts will scream about that being "unrealistic," but the truth is that both tasks could be performed within the given time period without difficulty.
A lot of hardcore DP players will also fume at the idea simply because it doesn't fit into their pre-ordained paradigm, which is to restrict everyone everywhere to performing only one gun-related task per turn.
But if you want the truth, that is the best way to handle the rule.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on May 29, 2007 11:35:25 GMT -5
What's funny is that this is probably all because we heard tales years ago about Albert Ball swinging the Lewis down and shooting his enemies from below. With Stephen saying that instance was rare indeed, then maybe the top defense rule shouldn't be in place at all. On the other hand though, my favorite WWI aircraft is the SE and I'd hate to see anything change that would handicap it more than it already is.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 30, 2007 18:41:36 GMT -5
Hey guys,
Ok I'm back in signal so...
What I'm seeing here is that we should eliminate Top Defense. I believe that it was mentioned that TD is not alloweed in the 7th edition rules.
Lets hear from all the groups.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 30, 2007 19:00:07 GMT -5
Opposite... TD is allowed in 7th ed rules.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 30, 2007 20:32:10 GMT -5
Opposite... TD is allowed in 7th ed rules. Thanks Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on May 31, 2007 15:24:00 GMT -5
After mulling this over and checking a few books during free moments this week, I'm increasingly convinced that changing the elevation of the gun and firing on the same turn needs to at least be made difficult. Maybe1 in 6 chance for normal pilots, 2 in 6 for experienced, 3 in 6 for aces, which makes aiming and firing it comparable to the tricky drum change. Otherwise, it should take a full turn to elevate or lower the gun. I like the direction Stephen is headed with his suggested rule above, but I find it difficult to imagine a pilot maneuvring his plane into position, aiming, and firing the Vickers (especially long and interrupted bursts) while still finding time to adjust the Lewis. I say that with the caveat that I'm basing my comments on what I can dig up, which is probably very little in comparison to the resources Stephen has. I know these are trained combat pilots, but to use an (admittedly bizarre) analogy this would be like driving a car in a demolition derby while trying to flick mud off your windshield wipers and adjust your radio at the same time. Three things that most people can handle well individually, many people could do two of at the same time, but many fewer people could handle all three.
Once the Lewis is elevated, the pilot should be able to shoot upwards at will. And here's an idea completely out of left field - maybe they could even be allowed to go nose up/down at will for targetting the Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 31, 2007 15:27:42 GMT -5
You may target an opponent while level with your lewis. This was the most popular way for actual pilots to use the function. Albert Ball in particular became famous for flying up level underneath his target, swinging the lewis up and firing at point blank range.
|
|
|
Post by kevan on May 31, 2007 15:38:39 GMT -5
I just want to make sure that any new rules don't unnecessarily cripple the planes. It would be nice to include some realistic benefits to reflect its flexibility while also considering its limitations.
|
|