Message text >>Why a Fokker pilot should die if he were successful on destroying the enemies and cleared the sky ? even staying 30 more turns to reach the victory? Why should he be killed ?
>>Because he ran out of fuel, and planes don't fly without. Period. If he's wise enough, he'll land in a field near his airfield, just damaging his landing gear. If he isn't, he'll land between shellholes and barbed wire, and the chips wil fall where they want.
That's a shame that you dind't considered "safe landing". If a pilot have NOBODY on his tail (having destroyed all foes) he can without problem safe land on a field, cause WWI fighter were quite perfect to glide without fuel (losing altitude naturally).
These are the consideration you are not... considering  :
-In the 1914-1918 France there was plenty of fields, in a larger percentuage than mountains (just the Ardennes), woods, trenches, villages, cities. So a fighter, gliding from 2000 metres, had all the time to choose a range of decent territory to try a safe-land.
-Blue Max didn't consider landing or take off, so we are wrong if we would insert it, and a damage for it.
>I see the point. It's unfair. But that's the way it is in real life.
Absolutely not : in the real life, a pilot with no fuel and no enemies on tail can quite simple (at least 1:1, but I am sure more) safe land on enemy or friendly territory. You know that even Baracca, fighting in a hill-mountain zone often land near his recent kill ?
>Once the Baron had his engine killed, crash landed and survived,
the Baron didn't crash landed due to engine failure. The Baron was hit in the head and had his head-bone slightly injured from a machine gun's bullets. That's why he crash landed in July 1917. AND, now that I am thinking, he din't crash land : he safe land, after being severly injured-loose conciouness-regain it-control the plane-and land, just tearing off some telegraph wires. Then he jump off the plane and faint.
>and he accounts of a pilot that got killed during take off by having a weel caught in a rabbit-hole.
and so are we going to insert a percentuage of flight accident on take-off or land ? What does it matter with Blue Max ? I read that biography Guglia, and Richtofen accounts for pilots that crash landed destroying the plane and they dint' had a scratch. Please verify that.
Then that poor pilot, had his back bone broken with a gear in the rabbit hole. That was fate. We aren't going to insert it in the game, I just accept it for dice roll, and it is enough.
double the fuel factor is simpliest and more accurate than any consideration about landing. So fokker will have their real superiority and the game turn will be about doubled, but
-match won't last 40 turn because before that a side will be totally destroyed or flee for damage
-Fokker will be better than now, and now their fuel last too early to show their superiority.
I won't talk about inserting a new rule like that Guglia. then if someone start to ask about limited ammo ? Or direction of the wind ? Or position of the sun and bonus/malus for attacks with the sun on the eyes or on your shoulders ?
why we shouldn't consider those tules too if someone will ask ?
>Blue Max is a simulative game, isn't it? All this makes it just more realistic and, IMO, more interesting.
I don't think like that: Blue Max lack a lot of features (like the one I just listed), so why insert just a simulation of treacherous landing ? Not too talk about time factor and third dimension.
>After, it is: "if I keep on, I will probably shoot him down,
but I'll have to crash-land on the way home, possibly killing myself"
Possibly is not surely, stayin 10 or more turn you are heavily damaged from a theoric malus that I didn't agree.
I prefer to fully use my Fokker or Spad XIII with doubled fuel. And break off the combat if I am low, as it happens. |
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
