I had a question out of curiosity.

I recently, shot down an aircraft that the tac view labelled "DIII (160)".

Having never seen the "160" before, I wondered if this was the indication of the regular DIII or a DIII OAW as opposed to the DIII Early. Anyway, I entered the claim as a DIII OAW since it seemed sandwiched between the Early and no notation DIII. The claim was rejected.

While I know there are all sorts of reasons that a claim might be rejected, I wondered if I hadn't claimed the wrong type of DIII.

So, to the questions:

1. Does the claim screen nomenclature match that of the tac view?

2. If not, then what does a DIII (160) translate to? For that matter how about the OAW version?

3. Will a claim be rejected for a minor claim error like this? That seems a bit hair splitting.

4. In light of whatever the first three answers are and especially for those who play "full real" without a tac view, what are the main visual identifiers of each type?

The intel view in April 1917 shows DIIs IIIs, and III Earlys being present, so there is definitely the opportunity to misidentify your adversary.

Thanks for the discussion!

Deacon

That was an early DIII you shot down.
Radiator position is the give away on ID...DIII early has it centered over the cockpit. Later models all have it to the right of center.

I've had claims confirmed where all I put was 'single seat scout', so I don't think your claim was rejected because you misidentified the enemy plane. MudWasp is correct, the DIII (160) is the Early variant of the Alb. DIII.

I think a miss ID being rejected is more likley to occur on "Normal" than the lesser settings of Easy or Easiest.

The current "Easy" is the old "Normal" in regards to debriefing info.
Never played easiest, methinks it's all auto log booked as enemy aircraft, if I remember an old thread subject correctly.

You'd have a heck of a time telling a DIII and a DIII OAW apart without labels on.

The centered radiator on the early DIII is how to tell it apart from the others without labels on.

That's good to know from the recce point of view.

I do find it interesting that there are three entries for the DIII...I think it's alone in that. If all DIIIs are the same for claim purposes, I wonder why the claim screen breaks them out like that.

So, let's see:

-A DIII(160) is a DIII EARLY
-There are also just plain old DIII EARLYs
-A DIII EARLY has a centered radiator, a DIII and DIII OAW has it to the right.
-The common wisdom is that accidentally picking the wrong variant should not result in a rejected claim.

Anything else for the common database?

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen. It's good to know how this stuff works.

A while back and in a different campaign, I downed a FE 2. I mistakenly put in a claim for a Bristol F2b. The claim was confirmed.

There is also the Problem, that the Alb3 (OAW) isn't available any more in the Claim Form of early 1918, but there still are a lot of them in the Air...

Yes I will be curious how my claims go in my current "full real" playing style.
Alb DII's stand right out with the square wing tips.
Alb DIII's types I have been guessing on the exact model based on the date of the shoot down. I am up on radiator placement but that detail is not always so clear in the heat of the moment.
When the DV comes into play I guess I will be going with "Single Seater" and hope for the best.

The main thing I miss at "full real" is looking at all the cool Alb paint jobs. They sure are pretty in the blue sky and were fun to look at. In fact I have been flying at "No HA" for the Germans in my RFC careers as my thought was all the beautiful paint jobs were being wasted in a "cockpit only view" but I may change that up to see.

Nietzsche, then just use the generic choices single seat scout whatever. Just describe it in the notes. Read some real claims and go from there. Micro analysing the process too much will spoil it completely.

There we go!
The voice of authority. "Single Seater" it is.

Duke why do you not have the Skins at full real?

If it's due to Aces not actually dying I don't really think that effects the game and makes it easier..plus for me losing the skins is o big a price to pay..I'd rather see historical looking planes than worry about Aces. I see the planes alot more than I do an Ace that may have already been shot down.

SO the Easy setting is the old realistic setting? Maybe that's why I see alot more claims rejected than previously..infact I never had a claim rejected in previous pre 2.08 versions unless I picked a flight member not actually flying by mistake.

It was more OCD'ness on my part thinking if I can't see them (in detail) then just the squadron paint job (from there being no HA's) is good enough from the cockpit view.
But now that the weather is getting nicer (spring time in game) I am seeing a little better so may go back to "Stock HA's" all around.
Hopefully this is not the start of a "slow slide" back to cinematic WOFF! This has been tough - WOFF sure is pretty!

Mudwasp not sure what you mean easy is old normal? I don't remember us making claims "harder" ?

NP Duke,
Nietzsche, if we can allow OAWs in 1918 we will.

Honestly Pol I never had a rejected pre 2.08 unless I had picked a witness who wasn't in my flight by mistake..now I'd say it's getting to the point more are rejected than confirmed. Not a complaint just an observation..I'm sure kills where rejected in real life in which they case they did have the right to complain as they where actually putting their lives at risk rather than not get a good score rate in a game.

I still feel we need to be able to have ground troops as a witness esp if near the front line during combat as I'm sure a fair few confirmed kills where verified by ground troops as I expect the other flight members where to busy.

That would be nice, because you get a Picture of the Type of Aircraft you shot in your Files. Nice to see, what you have been fighting against over the time. If you just Type "Single Seater", you have no Idea what it was a week later or so...

I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a check box for automatic confirmation on the claim screen. Obviously it would be an honour thing, but the idea would be to allow the player to override the normal confirmation procedure for the extremely obvious cases, such as where the EA falls on your own friendly field and you're the only friendly that shot at him.

Poor OBD!
This is not to chap anyone here, and I have complained loudly in the past, but it seems they can't just make everyone happy with the Claim System.

Having been through many years of it and in several forms it seems to me they have enough options that all should be satisfied. This is not to say the claim logic on "Normal" couldn't use a tweak but with it, "Easier" (which I have started to now use), and "Easiest" there should certainly be something useable for everyone at this point.

EDIT: Oh...and thanks for the kick in the arse Wodin. HA's are back in play. Love alternate ideas and opinions as I reevaluate constantly.

No probs. Really the skins are just to lovely and important\historical and something you see ALOT of compared to the odd time you may come across an Ace you shot down..who could have survived in some circumstances anyway. For me and it's just my opinion it's a no brainer.

As for the claims I'm not complaining..as again it is realistic..just like to see even more realism with ground troop witness possibilities.

Oh I hear you.
That and AA batteries were also "big confirmers" for the pilots.
And please. No one say they are currently in the mix!
I think the claim system is as good as it's going to get for a while and its fine, not perfect, but serviceable till OBD gets really bored with nothing else to do.