SE-5 Inadequacy

[kirkh]

The SE has a disadvantage in DP in that it has to roll twice for damage with each shot while other twin gun aircraft have to roll only once. The SE pilot has to roll a pair of sixes (which is a 1 in 36 chance) to gain max damage while other aircraft with two guns only have to roll one. Granted the two die rolls also make it harder to obtain minimum damage as well (meaning SE attacks are grouped more toward the middle), but it just seems odd that this statistical anomaly continues. I'm just wondering if anything has come out since the 7th edition that changes this. I know the single deck gun rule has been adopted that moves them up a column, but I'm looking to see if any rules regarding distribution of damage (equal across all possible results for most common aircraft except the SE) have been adopted either officially or as house rules.

[kevan]

If it weren't for the fact that the wing gun can fire a different burst, I would be all for rolling on the twin deck gun tables, but shifted down a column. Maybe add 1 damage if the Lewis fired a longer burst than the deck gun, subtract 1 damage for a shorter burst.

[kirkh]

I'm still trying to figure how a pilot in a dogfight would be able to consciously think about firing different bursts for different guns while he's also trying to fly the plane, line up his shot, check his tail for enemies, etc. To me what would seem logical would be to have both guns fire the same burst all the time.

[kevan]

Well, remember this is the same pilot who can adjust his Lewis gun in the middle of a dogfight to defend against top attacks. Next to that, firing different burst is nothing.

Since the topic came up in a separate thread, I've been trying to find examples of how pilots used the Lewis gun. From what I've read so far, only a few aces were able to switch drums or rotate the gun upwards in the middle of a fight. Most references seem to indicate that they thought it necessary to fly clear of the fight before doing either. There is mention of rotating it to meet a top attack, but the context would seem to be when planes are diving from above - in DP turns, seeing the diving planes the turn before their attack, rotating the gun that turn, and then defending the second turn when they arrive. I even read one account of an experienced pilot stating that he never took an extra drum with him, as it was just too difficult to change in a fight.

One thing about the Lewis is that it's retention seems to be tied to the fact that, although it was less accurate due to position and lack of stability, it could be much more damaging when it hit because the rate of fire isn't reduced by an interrupter. So I guess it averages out.

[Stephen]

kevan said:

Well, remember this is the same pilot who can adjust his Lewis gun in the middle of a dogfight to defend against top attacks. Next to that, firing different burst is nothing.

Any pilot could adjust his gun on the Foster mount during dogfight. That was routine as part of reloading (although some pilots chose not to). Using it to defend against top attacks was not routine and rarely occured.

Since the topic came up in a separate thread, I've been trying to find examples of how pilots used the Lewis gun. From what I've read so far, only a few aces were able to switch drums or rotate the gun upwards in the middle of a fight. Most references seem to indicate that they thought it necessary to fly clear of the fight before doing either.

Most pilots did try to get a break in the fight before changing the drum. This is already reflected in the game because reloading is mutually exclusive from firing. So the pilot continues to fly in the dogfight, but he does not aim his gun or attempt to fire... instead he takes a few seconds to reload the gun before continuing. That's already built into the rules and is not an issue.

I even read one account of an experienced pilot stating that he never took an extra drum with him, as it was just too difficult to change in a fight.

A number of pilots said it wasn't worth the time or effort and simply continued fighting with the Vickers until a natural break occurred. This, too, is already built into the game. In fact I fly the SE that way in DP all the time, so its shouldn't be an issue either.

[kirkh]

From my point of view though it doesn't come down so much to the peculiarities of the SE, it comes down to having to roll twice for damage. I think if two guns are being fired at the same target (regardless of their alignment on the aircraft) either every aircraft should have to roll for each gun, or they should all roll once for both guns.

[AP]

I actually really like the Se & two of my best pilots are in the SE5 & Nieuport 17. The flip side to it, is if you max out firing an INT burst, you can do 9 points of damage instead of 8 (5 on H & 4 on F). If you tail successfully that number bumps to 10, and if you are an experienced pilot it goes to 12!! So tailing with these aircraft can be quite deadly.
Once again, the game isnt about creating a 'fair and even playing field', rather its pitting your strengths against your opponents weaknesses.
I could see the logic in changing the amount of damage to 1 roll instead of two though...

[albpilot]

cubsfan4life said:

I actually really like the Se & two of my best pilots are in the SE5 & Nieuport 17. The flip side to it, is if you max out firing an INT burst, you can do 9 points of damage instead of 8 (5 on H & 4 on F). If you tail successfully that number bumps to 10, and if you are an experienced pilot it goes to 12!! So tailing with these aircraft can be quite deadly.
Once again, the game isnt about creating a 'fair and even playing field', rather its pitting your strengths against your opponents weaknesses.
I could see the logic in changing the amount of damage to 1 roll instead of two though...

I agree with you, I really like the SE-5a. I think it gets a bad rap because of the gun setup.

[kirkh]

I think it also gets a bad rap because of the design of the game. Based on what I've read (which I'm sure isn't as much as most of you guys) a large percentage of kills in WWI for SE's amounted to diving on an unsuspecting foe, putting enough bullets into him to send him down and then coming around for a second pass on someone else. They weren't dogfighters per-se. The dogfight where planes were twisting and turning and taking numerous shots to do appreciable damage was probably more the exception than the rule. In the SE's case, the penalty of having a Lewis with a limited ammo supply seems to be more of a penalty in DP than it was in real life. I wonder how many times a pilot emptied his Lewis in real life versus how often it happens in DP. Any WWI aviation game can't be designed so that the first shot does huge amounts of damage or else every game would be very short. Playability and reality have to be balanced to make the game fun. That's where I think the SE loses out. It's shortcomings are well accounted for, but it's pluses (such as the fact it was a very stable gun platform and was very pilot friendly) don't enter into the game.

[AP]

Well, the stability factor is lost in DP. No points there. BUT, a SE can get away from an Alb. An Alb cant get away from an SE. That is the big playability factor.
The number of guns many times seems to be the measure of a good aircraft, which leads into offense vs. defense, which comes down to personal preferance. Me personally, give me the plane that can get away any time it wants over the 4 gun beast that has to fight their way out... the ability to leave when you want/ NEED to should be weighed in just as heavily as the armament.

[kirkh]

Oh I agree the single most important quality for any fighter is speed because the faster aircraft is the one that chooses whether there will be a battle or not (see Voss vs. 56 Squadron). Problem is, in a game centered around dogfighting, that quality is not as vital as some others - unless one wants to run. In DP speed is useful for running away but isn't something that benefits ones offensive capability as much. If deflection and closure rates played a more significant role in DP, an SE pilot would be able to benefit from the hit-and-run tactics that were employed in real life. Speed would make them a tougher target to hit while also allowing them to close on an enemy faster.

[Stephen]

kirkh said:

Based on what I've read (which I'm sure isn't as much as most of you guys) a large percentage of kills in WWI for SE's amounted to diving on an unsuspecting foe, putting enough bullets into him to send him down and then coming around for a second pass on someone else.

Very well said. To anyone in any plane, that was the preferred mode of attack. Even Boelcke said that the last thing he wanted was a fair fight... the idea was to simply assassinate the opponent without giving him the slightest chance to defend himself. It was really a murder attempt rather than a fight. Doubly so for the SE and SPAD, whose flight characteristics facilitated such attacks as you correctly point out. Dogfights only occurred after murder attempts failed.

Sorry to ruin the romance. But if we portrayed war as it really is, it would make a lousy board game. ;D

[kirkh]

What's funny is I was just watching Flyboys the other day and one of the scenes in it is when the veteran tells the hotshot newcomer to make sure and constantly check behind him because the vast majority of guys that go down never see it coming. As Stephen said, the real air war wouldn't make for a very good game.

[alien01]

The difference between rolling twice and rolling once for damage is that with twin deck guns your probability of any particular number of damage from 3 - 8 is equal. With a Deck/Wing combo and two dice rolls its a bell curve. Your range changes from 3- 8 to 2 - 9, but it's not equal chances of each. Your odds of getting mid-range damage go up while the highs and lows are less likely. I haven't done the detail math but on the face of it it seems like it'll probably even out in the long run. In short, I don't see it as a problem.

[kirkh]

I think it is simply because it's different. It's treating one or two aircraft completely differently than all the others. The SE and the twin gun Nieuport 17) do their damage using the bell curve probability you describe (1 in 36 chance of doing max or min damage) , but all others have an equal chance to do all types of damage. The SE and Nieuport have less of a chance of dealing out significant damage than the rest, and that's what I think should be corrected. Sure, the average may work out over the long haul, but many times a couple big shots can win a battle. The SE has significantly less chance of obtaining those big shots. It has to take multiple shots, doing its 3 or 4 hits each time. The limited ammo supply for the Lewis exascerbates the problem by giving the SE pilot only a few chances to get that big shot before he has to either reload or try to carry on with only one gun. The chances of getting a "big shot" of say 7 or 8 hits (Table K) for the average two gun plane is 33% if he rolls a five or six. That same chance for an SE using Tables F and G is roughly 4 in 36 (a pair of 5's, a pair of 6's, or two 5 and 6 combinations) or 11%. I understand the SE 's gun arrangement was a penalty, but the game mechanics appear to penalize it even more.