Mk108 vs Mk103 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Turner -> Mk108 vs Mk103 (9/14/2010 5:25:09 PM)

Hello

The Mk108 has a value of accuracy of 18 while the Mk103 has 13. Someone must have confused them since the 108 was the shorter barreled low-velocity 30 mm cannon whereas the 103 had a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity. Thus the 103 should be the one with the better accuracy.

Playing through my first campaign vs the AI in BTR. Currently in turn 95 of the '43 campaign. The first two months I spent rearranging production to get rid of all the weak 109s in favor of the better armed and armored 190. As it currently stands the allies have lost 7796 a/c and the LW 3192.
There are some planes and variations I'd like to see added to the game but overall am very impressed with this title. Seems to be some data/performance related bugs though (as above) and there's room to improve the UI but simply put it's a great game.

Thanks for all the fun. [:)]



Thales99 -> RE: Mk108 vs Mk103 (9/14/2010 8:48:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Turner

Hello

The Mk108 has a value of accuracy of 18 while the Mk103 has 13. Someone must have confused them since the 108 was the shorter barreled low-velocity 30 mm cannon whereas the 103 had a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity. Thus the 103 should be the one with the better accuracy.



True, but don't forget that the MK108 had a much higher rate of fire than the MK103. Since there are no separate ROF ratings included for weapons, this has probably been factored into the accuracy rating. The game's individual weapon parameters have to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, in-game ratings for weapon range increase with caliber, even though a .50 cal Browning certainly had a higher effective range than a 30 mm MK108. On the other hand, the gun value rating seems to understate the power of large caliber weapons.

However, we don't know how these weapon parameters influence the calculations in game. The result might be closer to reality than we think.



Turner -> RE: Mk108 vs Mk103 (9/15/2010 1:04:47 AM)

Yeah that's true, didn't think of the rof to be factored into accuracy. Accuracy is a very relative thing though depending on which pilot you speak with. A talented pilot will naturally favor large caliber weapons (cannons) while the average or less skilled will favor smaller caliber weapons with higher rate of fire.

If pilot skill is a factor in the true accuracy calculations ingame then yes, this might be closer to reality than we think. For a skilled pilot will be vastly more effective with cannons than with MGs. MGs are good when you consider the overall combat effectiveness of the weapon all planes and pilots considered. In that respect MGs would be more effective overall than cannons, because average or less skilled pilots will be more effective with MGs than cannons and average pilots are more numerous than skilled ones.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Mk108 vs Mk103 (9/16/2010 3:28:01 PM)

I agree with you, and overall, I never liked the "numbers" on any of the weapons, I wanted to change the system (say, double or triple the number range, to try and get a better damage set up) but Harley didn't want to make major changes here, as it worked, and there is much more that is linked to each number then you would think

that said, I have changed the108 on the FW 190A8/R8, to double the Acc and range lowered to 1000, but that is more to reflex the tactic's the plane was used for

I will look into the 103, that was a good long range weapon



Turner -> RE: Mk108 vs Mk103 (9/17/2010 10:54:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I will look into the 103, that was a good long range weapon




Yes it was! Thanks for paying attention to this.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.078125