With NO labels used, an aircraft of fighter size should be drawn as a single pixel (grey...hard to see) at a distance of 4 to 5 miles WHEN FULLY ZOOMED OUT

...

1. Claims should not automatically be "assigned" to the player, if that makes sense. Instead, every debriefing should ask "Do you want to submit a claim", or have somewhere to indicate that you have claims that you would like to make. This should be after every mission, no matter what happened during it or if the game detected a victory by the player or not. The player then fills out his claim for whatever they believed they accomplished during the mission. If the player files a claim but the game did not register a kill, the probability of confirmation is very very low. As it is now, the "claims" page tells you exactly how many kills you really have, when it should really be left up to the player to decide if they scored a kill or not.

2. Claims should not be so specific in the aircraft types. Without labels, it's pretty much impossible to tell if you shot down an Se5a or an Se5a Viper. The claims possible should be based on what it is possible to visually ascertain during combat, such as "one seater", "two seater", "Albatros", "SPAD", "Nieuport", "Pfalz", "Camel", "Se5", "Strutter", etc. Then, after confirmation, the game would sometimes fill in the aircraft type details like it currently does with the pilot name and enemy squadron.

3. You should not be able to see the exact number of bullet hits you have. That is information that would be unavailable to the real pilots. You should be able to see your number of bullets expended, and maybe the ratio of bullets per kill, but not overall hit accuracy...

I would like to request the following changes to the debriefing/claims process. Right now, you get too much information, and it takes away the uncertainty and immersion to see that you did shoot that guy down in the debriefing even though you didn't see him crash.

1. Claims should not automatically be "assigned" to the player, if that makes sense. Instead, every debriefing should ask "Do you want to submit a claim", or have somewhere to indicate that you have claims that you would like to make. This should be after every mission, no matter what happened during it or if the game detected a victory by the player or not. The player then fills out his claim for whatever they believed they accomplished during the mission. If the player files a claim but the game did not register a kill, the probability of confirmation is very very low. As it is now, the "claims" page tells you exactly how many kills you really have, when it should really be left up to the player to decide if they scored a kill or not.

2. Claims should not be so specific in the aircraft types. Without labels, it's pretty much impossible to tell if you shot down an Se5a or an Se5a Viper. The claims possible should be based on what it is possible to visually ascertain during combat, such as "one seater", "two seater", "Albatros", "SPAD", "Nieuport", "Pfalz", "Camel", "Se5", "Strutter", etc. Then, after confirmation, the game would sometimes fill in the aircraft type details like it currently does with the pilot name and enemy squadron.

3. You should not be able to see the exact number of bullet hits you have. That is information that would be unavailable to the real pilots. You should be able to see your number of bullets expended, and maybe the ratio of bullets per kill, but not overall hit accuracy.

I hope these changes wouldn't be too difficult to implement and that they are worth consideration. In my recent campaign I've had to "stop myself" from filling out a claim form because I didn't really see the enemy crash, or know he crashed until the debriefing told me I had X number of claims to fill out.

thanks

Regarding 2. it is already like that. As I have mentioned several times in the past one can often get victories confirmed although wrong AC. I never care if that was a Alb DV-200hp or Alb DVa or whatever. I just choose Alb DV and that's it. Also I received confirmation for downing a Camel once, but since it wasn't in the dropdown I chose Sopwith Pup because I considered the Camel being too new at the front to be well known at that time. Often enough I was credited with victories although not exactly the right aircraft, as it was in real. So point 2 is no problem but already in actually. If the description is good enough and the witness and circumstances explained well enough, chances are high to be credited with "wrong" ac.

Regarding 2. it is already like that. As I have mentioned several times in the past one can often get victories confirmed although wrong AC. I never care if that was a Alb DV-200hp or Alb DVa or whatever. I just choose Alb DV and that's it. Also I received confirmation for downing a Camel once, but since it wasn't in the dropdown I chose Sopwith Pup because I considered the Camel being too new at the front to be well known at that time. Often enough I was credited with victories although not exactly the right aircraft, as it was in real. So point 2 is no problem but already in actually. If the description is good enough and the witness and circumstances explained well enough, chances are high to be credited with "wrong" ac.

Being able to reduce the ammunition load to 0% as in OFF - in WOFF 20% seems to be the lowest you can go.

B.

Would it be possible to convert some of the French MS units to Recce/Art.Obs./Bomber units for 1915?

At the moment, you cannot enlist for a French bomber career until 1916, although historically the MS Parasol was used by the French as well as the British for recon and Art.Obs. duties, and the MS units were therefore sort of transitional I think, with a mix of fighter and recon duties? Maybe they could be mixed Fighter/Recon units in WOFF, and could transition to fully fighter units when they get the single seat scouts like the N11?

Just seems a pity to have so many French Parasol units in 1915 for WOFF, and all of them fighter units

B.