joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on May 31, 2007 0:29:43 GMT -5
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 exacerbates 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. The Se5, may be treated as a unique plane in Dawn Patrol, but it is rather unique. Which is one of the things that makes DP enjoyable. We have Bi-motor planes, Tri-motor planes, Sea Planes, Pushers and Planes with forward observers. All are unique and all are treated differently. In my experience the Se5 is one of the most dangerous planes out there. It moves fast and flys mostly against Alba-trucks. It is a great plane to tail with and the ability to fire a different gun each turn allows you to fire every turn with minimal heat build up. Also while tailing or with an Ace/Exp pilot each gun is boosted a column or two. It may be a 1 in 36 chance to do max damage, but the median damage will be a point or two above K column damage. I find the double damage roll to be a plus. I don't think there is a better British plane out there to tail with. Each shot taken while tailing generates CRIT rolls. I tail with short shots knowing that the performance of the plane I'm tailing will steadily erode. I think that when the Ace list comes out the pilots with the higher percentage of kills will be flying the Se5/5a. (Note: Make that pilots that are double experienced or less)
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on May 31, 2007 8:53:20 GMT -5
That may be true, but in looking at the article "Dawn Patrols Deadliest Fighter" the SE comes off decidedly behind it's brethren (Camel, SPAD XIII, Fok DVII) and even behind the Nieuport 28 and single gun Pup and Sopwith Triplane. Give a real pilot a choice between a Nieuport 28 and an SE-5a and which one would they take? Give a DP pilot the same option and his choice may be very different.
|
|
|
Post by AP on May 31, 2007 10:20:13 GMT -5
Yes, a Camel & a SPADXIII are much more preferable late in the war, but it doesnt make the SE 'Inadequate'. It is an all around durable fighter, that ranks avg to above avg in ALL categories (speed, arm. & durability) In July 1917 it can hold its own as one of the best avail. aircraft, and I would argue it is the deadliest fighter. July 1918 would be a different story. I would definately take the SE over the Nieup28. The 28 is quick, but cant stay in a diving fight and cant take the damage that the SE can.... each fighter has its own 'quirks' until the summer of 1918 when you get the 'elite' class of fighters for both sides. The SE came out a year earlier so should not be expected to stand up with this class.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 31, 2007 16:02:40 GMT -5
I think the SE is okay as it is... not a superstar, but a solid mount so long as its left alone. That's another reason why I oppose the top defense restrictions. It can just hold its own in late war fights. Its not broke and it shouldn't be fixed.
And logic demands that if we outlaw top defense, it must be outlawed from any angle at all times. And that leaves a plane which was barely adequate now severely crippled.
So I say leave it alone.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 4, 2007 14:04:47 GMT -5
I keep hearing the Se5/5a is barely adequate or sub par. We will see when Rick Posts the Ace list. I really hope he has a section on kill percentage. I still believe that the pilots with the best kill percentage(under 24 missions will) will be in the Se5/5a.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Jun 4, 2007 14:10:39 GMT -5
Drat forgot to add.
Hey Stephen I looked up the Foster Mount and got an idea of how it works. Thanks. Also read up on Albert Ball. It is my understanding that he and his buddies prefered the wing gun mounted facing up and would fly straight and level going for bottom shots in a dogfight, Rather than rachet it up as needed to shoot
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 4, 2007 15:50:51 GMT -5
You almost have to see a Foster mount to get a grip on how it works. And not that many pilots flew around with it in the upward position anyway because it didn't do much good... in a dogfight airplanes spent most of their time in a banked position, not level, limiting the opportunities to fire up at anyone. It was best for use against two seaters.
|
|
Rex
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
|
Post by Rex on Jun 17, 2007 12:39:18 GMT -5
Another thing you have to take into account is convergence. Because the gun mounts are separated on the aircraft by a significant distance compared to the twin deck guns. The trajectories are different. The possibility exists that, depending on the alignment of the guns and the range to the target, it is possible that only one gun is getting good hits on the target while the other is missing at any given range.
In WW2 with wing mounted guns, pilots had the option of adjusting the gun convergence for their preference. In the P51 for example, the 6 guns could be spread to give 2 guns hitting each at 100 300 and 500 yards. Some pilots would converge all 6 guns at 300 yards for 1 big hit.. which means at other ranges, less guns would be hitting if any.
Because of this factor alone, I don't see a problem with rolling independently.
The development of the interrupter gear made deck mounted guns firing through the propeller easier to aim and thus more effective, as shown buy the so called "Fokker Scourge", early in the war.
-Rex
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 17, 2007 17:00:55 GMT -5
Good point. Common ranges for Lewis/Vickers convergence were 50-100-150 yards.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Jun 29, 2007 9:22:30 GMT -5
I understand everyones arguments, but to me it's a mathematics and probabilities issue more than it is an aircraft performance issue. To me it has to do with the variance in the ability to obtain either min or max damage. Even though we all understand the SE's idiosyncracies, it (and other wing/deck gun aircraft) shouldn't be singled out to have a special way to roll for damage. To me the simplest solution would be to have a separate damage chart for wing/deck gun armed aircraft. There should also be a separate damage chart for flexible guns and possibly twin flexible guns as well. Personally, I've always wondered why there isn't a separate chart for flexible guns as they were pretty common.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 29, 2007 10:31:30 GMT -5
Kirk, There are separate charts for wing/deck gun, thats why they are split now, in a relatively simple mannor. There are also separte rules for the flex guns- flex (either single or twin) are always on the deck chart down one table. The game has TONS of charts already, and sticking to these three really keeps it simple and flows well. The more charts the more 'unplayable' it can become.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 29, 2007 10:32:27 GMT -5
Back to the original feed of the SE being an inadequate aircraft, I think this campaign has proven that to be not true!! So far it has dominated
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 29, 2007 12:02:56 GMT -5
Dominated what? Therein lies the question.
Also, check the ARTICLES page on this site for an article titled "Dawn Patrol's Deadliest Fighter." Its a pretty broad study that places the SE next to last among 1918 twin gun fighters. The SE is no slouch, but it just holds its own in late war battles. Its speed and durability make it a good plane to survive in, but it is not a dominant killer by any means.
|
|
|
Post by AP on Jun 29, 2007 12:17:27 GMT -5
It has dominated the Sept 17' campaign vs. Albs. Early 1917 Albs will dominate, by late they are obsolete. Same for SE's until mid 1918. "Deadliest Fighter" is a relative term to the date the aircraft is in combat.
|
|
|
Post by kirkh on Jun 29, 2007 12:39:56 GMT -5
I agree with Stephen. What determined last nights game was my lucky 1, 1 pilot hit roll. That's not due to the effectiveness of the SE. It was dumb luck.
AP - I understand there are enough charts and I agree with you except if the SE has to roll separately for each gun then so should every other aircraft. Every twin deck gun plane should just roll twice on the single deck gun chart. That would reduce the number of charts even more and make things equal mathematically and probability-wise for all aircraft. In other words, IMHO DP should either have charts for all the various combinations so nobody with two guns has to roll twice or have three charts (deck gun, wing gun, flexible gun) and let everybody roll for each gun.
|
|