Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Any topic related to Ghost Skies or Cliffs of Dover

Moderator: Admin team

eriku777
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:25 pm

Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Postby eriku777 » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:19 am

It is my understanding that planes that are crash landed need to be repaired with repair kits based on the count of components that were destroyed. Given the large number of subsystems that can be destroyed this make it highly likely that heavily damaged planes will be "totaled" as they will be more expensive to repair than replace. This reduces the incentive for pilots to land damaged planes since they will not risk their lives to land. Since landing damaged planes can be as exciting as combat, it would be better if the repair kit cost calculation be capped at a value between 50 - 75 percent of the original plane cost (maybe a random multiplier modified by the number of components). Otherwise, people are just going lean towards bailing out over friendly lines rather than trying to save their planes. If this has already been done, my apologies for the un-necessary post.

-- Eric --

User avatar
3./JG51_Stecher
Lead Admin
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Postby 3./JG51_Stecher » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:59 pm

I'm not so much against the idea, as much as I wouldn't know how to get a cap to damaged systems, let alone scale it to a percentage of each plane's different cost. We can help make it make sense to bring the damaged plane back by keeping the cost of a repair kit down (it defaults to 1 anyway), compared to the higher cost of the plane. For different reasons, we were going to scale up the points which would make planes more expensive. This would help us achieve a ratio that preserves the incentive to get it back home more often than not.

Just as an example from tonight, I'm looking at a couple of planes that got shot up. One had 10 damaged systems, the other had 39. Well worth repairing, than replacing, as the aircraft cost will be easily above those amounts. However, I also remember from last week when I flew through a flak sector (200 guns), I came out of it with over 400 damaged systems. :lol: Even for expensive planes, that one is totaled.

So I think if we keep our cost scale so that planes are high enough, it will still make sense most of the time to bring it back and patch it up. Also, even if a plane is totaled (you won't know this before landing, and shouldn't just assume so), if you just bail out you are not only losing the plane. You will also lose all the fuel and ammo on board. If you bring it back in, you can at least salvage fuel and ammo from a totaled plane. Fuel and ammo are finite and specifically recorded, so they cost your team money to replace. Money that could be spent on more flak guns or tanks. Bailing out should only be a measure of last resort to save the pilot's life. Taking the lazy way out (because bailing doesn't have a time penalty) only hurts your team.
Hptm. Stecher, Staffelkapitän
3./Jagdgeschwader 51
www.jg51.com

Image

eriku777
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:25 pm

Re: Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Postby eriku777 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:39 pm

3./JG51_Stecher wrote:I'm not so much against the idea, as much as I wouldn't know how to get a cap to damaged systems, let alone scale it to a percentage of each plane's different cost. We can help make it make sense to bring the damaged plane back by keeping the cost of a repair kit down (it defaults to 1 anyway), compared to the higher cost of the plane. For different reasons, we were going to scale up the points which would make planes more expensive. This would help us achieve a ratio that preserves the incentive to get it back home more often than not.

Just as an example from tonight, I'm looking at a couple of planes that got shot up. One had 10 damaged systems, the other had 39. Well worth repairing, than replacing, as the aircraft cost will be easily above those amounts. However, I also remember from last week when I flew through a flak sector (200 guns), I came out of it with over 400 damaged systems. :lol: Even for expensive planes, that one is totaled.

So I think if we keep our cost scale so that planes are high enough, it will still make sense most of the time to bring it back and patch it up. Also, even if a plane is totaled (you won't know this before landing, and shouldn't just assume so), if you just bail out you are not only losing the plane. You will also lose all the fuel and ammo on board. If you bring it back in, you can at least salvage fuel and ammo from a totaled plane. Fuel and ammo are finite and specifically recorded, so they cost your team money to replace. Money that could be spent on more flak guns or tanks. Bailing out should only be a measure of last resort to save the pilot's life. Taking the lazy way out (because bailing doesn't have a time penalty) only hurts your team.


Thanks for the clarification. I am a little fuzzy on item costs. Is it easy to get at this info? How can one find the resource cost of an unloaded Blenheim, the cost a 100% fuel, and the cost of its ammo/ordenance (assuming max load of 4 250 bombs) ? I assume this is something the commanders will have access to. Being a bit of a data geek I am really interested in this stuff. Thanks for indulging me!

User avatar
3./JG51_Stecher
Lead Admin
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Postby 3./JG51_Stecher » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:28 pm

When we've got it all pinned down, it will be easily available on the new website (WIP). To give you some ballpark figures for what we've been thinking, planes will likely range from 300-500, with a repair kit maybe at 5. Bombs will probably be 25, and ammo at 0.05 per round. Fuel is available from refineries every mission. How much largely depends on how many of them are operational and at what capacity. Currently, you can load a max of 10,000kg of fuel to a column, plus 50kg for the column to use. Fuel, to be correct (I think), doesn't cost money. It's a matter of logistics.

Numbers may change. ;)
Hptm. Stecher, Staffelkapitän
3./Jagdgeschwader 51
www.jg51.com

Image

User avatar
3./JG51_Stecher
Lead Admin
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Campaign Damage Repair suggestion

Postby 3./JG51_Stecher » Mon May 23, 2016 9:33 am

As I was moving over threads from the old General Discussion, I saw this one and noticed that we have since address the issue raised in the first post. I explained it last September in one of the long running development threads, but I'll add it in here for completions sake.

After looking through the code we got a better understanding of how the campaign and how the game assigns the amount of damage. It appears the campaign just tracks the number of "damage points" that the game outputs for a plane. The weird thing is that there are three types of damage points and the game weighs them as the same value. The campaign simply tallied them straight across as "damaged systems". As best as we can tell, the game counts each piece of an airplane (aileron, rudder, wing tip, etc.) that is blown off of the main structure as one point. It counts each internal component (radiator, battery, gun, fuel line, etc) that is damaged/destroyed as one point. This all makes sense. But the third type is where it gets nuts. It also counts every single point of impact from a bullet or shrapnel as one point. This allows the damage point count to get incredibly high. It also explains how the in-game scoring system will sometimes only give you a tiny percentage of credit when you cut a guy in half or blow a wing off, which is obviously the killing blow. If someone else peppered him with machine gun even without doing anything critical, that guy gets the bulk of the credit because of all the individual hits, each one counting the same as cutting the wing off.

As I said, the original HR code just carries these damage points over into damaged systems, which can result in very high totals of repair kits needed. So understanding this better, and not wanting an inconsequential hole to count the same as a missing elevator or seized engine block, I changed two things in the code. First, I made a blown off part or destroyed internal component worth 50 damage points, and kept the bullet/shrapnel damage as 1. Then after totaling the damage points, I divide by 50 in order to get the initial amount of damaged systems. Essentially, it takes 50 bullet holes to equal the credit of actually damaging something or knocking something off. This number was arrived at by carefully shooting the same spot on an aircraft with the German 7.92mm and seeing when real damage was done to that area. It takes about 50 hits (we used the code to track this precisely) to do real damage to the surface metal which would understandably need to be replaced, rather than patched. This results in a much more appropriate balance between the repair kits needed to replace actual parts from all three types of damage. This also goes to prevent the frequent and annoying circumstances where people go through some flak and come out with 1 or 2 scratches, completely meaningless to the plane, but it would become unusable for the rest of the mission because of it being "damaged".

While the above change should keep the number of repair kits needed to a better amount, just in case you ever legitimately get THAT much damage, I went ahead and capped the amount of damaged systems at 36. A repair kit costs 5, and 5X36=180, which is the cost of the cheapest plane. Therefore, you will never have an aircraft totaled. It will always be cheaper to repair it than to replace it. So we won't have junkyards of planes clogging up the aircraft lists.
Hptm. Stecher, Staffelkapitän
3./Jagdgeschwader 51
www.jg51.com

Image


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron