Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 2:31:52 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Perhaps some of this information is hidden in the code, but exactly what do they do?

Say a Nate is attacking a P40E. The P40 has an armor of "1". So the 7.7mm guns of the Nate can't penetrate the armor-therefore there is no check against durability?

Is the durability essentially just a check against any round that gets through the armor?

Now the Air vs Experience: what do high or low ratings mean, specifically? I find that if my bombers have high experience and air they rarely take op losses. Is one of those more important in determining Op losses?

Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 2:46:27 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

People say Nates can penetrate armor 1.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/printable.asp?m=4114177

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 2

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 3:53:08 PM

Rusty1961

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

Yes, I've seen that. So exactly what does it do or how does it work?

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 3

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 5:46:26 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Armor protects engines and pilots. If the attacking aircraft guns can penetrate the armor there is a much better chance of damaging the engine or killing/wounding the pilot and bringing the aircraft down during the engagement. (the critical hit effect)

Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Pilot "Defensive" skill goes to avoiding attacks from fighters, bombers and AA. I assume this is maneuvering to dodge fire and to present defensive gunfire.

Pilot "Air" skill is about knowing your aircraft systems and characteristics. This would help with getting maximum performance during battle.

Pilot "Experience" is about airmanship, knowing how to overcome damage/storms/holes in the runway/etc. to keep the aircraft from being destroyed or written off.

All of these things seem to have some random die rolls involved in resolving what happens to the aircraft.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 4

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 5:53:57 PM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Armor implies protection for the crew and the fuel tanks. It is not armor in the sense of an envelope of protection around the entire aircraft. I proceed upon the assumption that the device's Penetration value minus the armor determines which "hit effects table" gets used. Hits that would normally hit the cockpit (pilot injury/pilot death/instrumentation failures) or fuel tanks (fuel leak / fuel fire/ fuel explosion) get ignored or have reduced effects when the difference is 0. However, those hits against the fuselage, wings, etc. score damage. When a hit occurs, Durability is a measure of how much of the devices' Effect can be absorbed before the aircraft becomes "damaged" or "destroyed".

(in reply to Rusty1961)

Post #: 5

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/11/2017 5:59:12 PM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Not Quite. Self Sealing tanks are in the armor rating:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPAE-Editor.pdf
Durability the ability of the aircraft to withstand damage and not be destroyed.

Armor represents whether the aircraft had protective armor and/or self-sealing fuel tanks in which
case it rates a rating of a 1. A few aircraft warrant a 2 or greater due to special design characteristics.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 6

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/13/2017 9:10:34 AM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Not Quite. Self Sealing tanks are in the armor rating:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPAE-Editor.pdf
Durability the ability of the aircraft to withstand damage and not be destroyed.

Armor represents whether the aircraft had protective armor and/or self-sealing fuel tanks in which
case it rates a rating of a 1. A few aircraft warrant a 2 or greater due to special design characteristics.

TYhank you for this, and to the OP for having raised the interesting topic.

BTW, what the armor of the IL 2, just as curiosity?

And, is the durability of the P 47, as an example of a particularly sturdy plane, sensibly higher than that of other single engined by average?

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 9/13/2017 3:38:29 PM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 7

RE: Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience - 9/13/2017 12:05:02 PM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

In real life a Nate could shoot down any aircraft that was unlucky enough to get caught in a stream of
rifle caliber bullets.
Every aircraft has parts that are vulnerable besides the pilot who while protected from behind and sometimes from
the front with armored glass was still exposed at many angles.
Hits in the oil or water radiators, magnetos and control lines could prevent an aircraft from reaching home.

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 8