He-177 readiness

Preuss · Post by **Preuss** » Thu May 02, 2002 8:54 am

I'm curious. The He-177 had a lot of trouble with engine fires, due to it's doubled engines...the Avro Manchester had the same thing....but I digress...
What I'd like to know is if the He-177 is wired to get a readiness penalty because of her problematic engines.
Not that I'm trying to make things better for Ivan....I'm just curious;)

Best Wishes,

Gary

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu May 02, 2002 9:05 am

Originally posted by Preuss
I'm curious. The He-177 had a lot of trouble with engine fires, due to it's doubled engines...the Avro Manchester had the same thing....but I digress...
What I'd like to know is if the He-177 is wired to get a readiness penalty because of her problematic engines.
Not that I'm trying to make things better for Ivan....I'm just curious;)

Best Wishes,

Gary

Hi Gary,

There is no equipment readiness in the game (or reliability) although its addition was discussed. However, to balance it some in the next release the cost of the He177 will be increased to 12 or so, which will make it approximately twice as expensive as the regular bombers, and so half as common for the same effort.

Preuss · Post by **Preuss** » Thu May 02, 2002 9:17 am

Thanks, Rick

Semper Fi.....ex-Marine?

...Little yellow bird with a little yellow bill...landed on my window sill....

....no...I really don't miss 5am PT

Best wishes,

Gary

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu May 02, 2002 7:48 pm

Hi Gary,

You are right, for a little while I was a grunt until I messed my shoulder up

. Spent time at Pendleton and Quantico, over 20 years ago now. Sounds like you have been there yourself.

Take care!

Preuss · Post by **Preuss** » Fri May 03, 2002 4:58 am

Hi, Rick
I was in 5/10 and 1/12 LeJeune and Hawaii respectively...as well as some other less glamorous places....damaging my ears by firing howitzers...until some 10 years ago. Still miss the easy cameraderie.

Nice to meet you:)

Best Wishes,

Gary

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Fri May 03, 2002 6:06 am

Hi Gary,

A cannon cocker, good, that was what I was aiming for until my shoulder ended things. Lived at Kaneohe (?) when I was kid 35 years ago. I spent a little time on the Pelilieu also.

And now you are down under. You have definitely gotten around, must be pretty good.

Good to meet you also - To The Corps

Possum · Post by **Possum** » Fri May 03, 2002 7:04 am

You can have item costs in excess of 9!!!!!
Yes!!!!
Please, can it really be true?
Is it the next verson, or is it avaliable now in WIR 3.2?

Preuss · Post by **Preuss** » Fri May 03, 2002 9:40 am

Hi, Rick
Yep, I was a K-bay. A beautiful place. Too bad many of the islanders didn't care for us....never mess with Mexican Federales, Japanese Police, or the HPD....LOL
Went to the Stumps once for CAX...was the most fun I ever had on field op....loved waking with scorpions, horned toads, and unexploded mortar shells next to my mummy bag.

Oorahhhh!!!

sorry...bit of a flashback...

Gary

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri May 03, 2002 7:38 pm

Originally posted by Possum
You can have item costs in excess of 9!!!!!
Yes!!!!
Please, can it really be true?
Is it the next verson, or is it avaliable now in WIR 3.2?

Yes, in the next version. Rick is busy using this feature to rebalance things in the scenarios. He-177 planes for example are going to be more expensive than 9. A couple of other things a scenario designer might want to know: Divisions can be "deleted" by setting their delay to 255. In long campaigns ('41-'45) a delay of 255 isn't enough to keep it out of the game. This was done for 3.2 but isn't in the readme.
Arnaud has also made the first steps towards removing the light/med/heavy classification of tanks and TDs. I don't know how much of this will be in the next versions; the removal of all restrictions may take several releases. No more annoying restrictions!

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon May 13, 2002 9:49 am

I think the unreliability of the He-177 engines is represented by the short range of the plane in WIR (19, should otherwise be 50 or so). Makes sense, no He-177 would make it that far without its engines catching fire - but it might just make it back after a short trip...

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon May 13, 2002 4:59 pm

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan
I think the unreliability of the He-177 engines is represented by the short range of the plane in WIR (19, should otherwise be 50 or so). Makes sense, no He-177 would make it that far without its engines catching fire - but it might just make it back after a short trip...

From what I've read, it seems the engines could fail at any time, even during takeoff, so a reduced range doesn't accurately reflect the problem either.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon May 13, 2002 5:19 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

From what I've read, it seems the engines could fail at any time, even during takeoff, so a reduced range doesn't accurately reflect the problem either.

Yes, this is true. The WIR engine does not allow an accurate representation of the problem.

But one of the major sources of fire hazard came from leaking oil dripping on and accumulating close to white hot piping, so a longer trip would increase the danger of catastrophic engine malfunction.

On the other hand think of it this way - if you had to fly a plane were the engines were prone to catch fire at ANY time - would you fly long trips or short?

He-177 readiness

He-177 readiness

Re: He-177 readiness