Message text >Then there is a question I cannot understand. Why didn't they go all 2-seaters if they were so good?
Because a 2-seater was not enough fast to stalk and pursuit enemy plane. And, once reached the target, wouldn't be enough fast and nimble to reach its blind spot, or gain a superior position. Finally, the best way to put a gun on enemy target was mounting the gun in front of your nose and drive the whole plane toward the target. Observer gun was used for "defense", not for "offense"
>Training costs would be lower as well because the observer need not perform any pilot training.
Trainig in English RFC was costing nothing anyway : they asked you some question as "Do you like to ride horses?" and then put you on a plane. 50% of english rookies survived the training.
>Considering your modifications (with fired last turn bonus but without observer gunnery penalty), one Halberstadt Cl2a could fight 2 Nieuport 17 fairly easily.
I don't think that a CLII was an easy target anyway : it was a sort of "ground attack" plane, so it was sturdy and capable of fight allied fighters. Anyway single gun penalty and angulate position would make (in the game) enough to represent the "malus" gained from firing with a switching gun. Nieuport 17 come from late 1916 (to fight against Albatros DII), and CLII from middle 1917, a slight superiority is accettable.
Finally I am not asking that for my own : it is stated in the rules  |
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
