Claim forms

[Stiffy 1]

Ive not had much luck getting any info from people about what they put on claim forms, seems like people want to keep it secret?

 

but why? Surely a pilot would be taught how to fill in a claim form... so can someone give me some hints? Otherwise I may just switch it off as at the moment it is really reducing realism.

 

Here is an example of how i have been doing it with absolutely no luck.

 

11/4/1916 16h36 Flanders St-Omer Airfield Attack Flying: Airco DH2. On this day claims: 1 Roland CII . Shot down at noon near Droglandt at low altitude 12pm 1202 hours. Witnessed by: Jack Milne Status : Pending .

 

 

In reality this would have been accepted, very rare for a pilot witness to be called a liar so clearly the game engine is ignoring them due to some error in keywords perhaps? This feature has great potential but without the knowledge of how to fill it in it is really just a random guessing game rather than a simulation of a real procedure.

 

As soon as I know how to word them they will make a great game feature!

 

 

[Ryan H 0]

16/12/1916 12h47 Flanders Pronville Balloon Busting Flying: Albatros DII. On this day claims: 1 Nieuport 17 . Enemy craft destroyed. At 1:03 p.m. flying a balloon bursting mission we encountered a squadron of Niewport 17 craft attacking a fellow Jasta 2 airman. I engaged the nearest pilot in heavy fog and fired into his fuselage and elevators/rudder. The enemy pilot lost control and dove towards the ground. This happened at an altitude of 3769 feet, and a speed of 115 mph. Location: Latitude, 17'11, Longitude, 2'16. Witnessed by: Hans-Werner Koch, Max-Burkart von Cranz. Status : Confirmed

 

Thats what a typical claim for me looks like. A short description of what happened, and where you shot the enemy craft. Try to avoid generalizations like: he, plane, etc; instead of "he" I use "enemy pilot" or something similar, and instead of "plane" or "aircraft" I use "enemy craft" or "allied craft". Just make sure that the person who reads the report will know what happened to whom without any question. I include the exact time, written like 1:04 p.m. , I also always include the latitude/longitude nearest the enemy crafts wreckage, written like it is above: Latitude, 44'12, Longitude, 7'89 (example). The first sentence in my claims is always: "Enemy craft destroyed", or if I'm claiming more than 1: "Multiple enemy craft destroyed." . I always include the speed and altitude at which you deal the final blow/disengage the enemy pilot. AND NEVER EVER USE A SEMICOLON!!!

 

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions, good luck!

 

(P.S.) Out of 27 claims, 25 are confirmed using this method. I had to go into workshop and make sure I dint accidently click "easy claims/promotions"

[Stiffy 1]

Ok thats great!

 

How are you getting such accurate readings on altitude and time... I dont really want to use a head up display for realism so rely on the visual guages... I assume there must be some leniancy on exact acuracy?... again a real claim form wouldnt want altitude to the foot and time to the exact minute.... As for exact longitude and lattitude of wreckage, i'm sure a pilot wouldnt know that, which is why aprox possition reletive to a landmark would be much more authentic, shame if game doesnt register that though.

 

I didn't realise you could cite multiple witnesses with a comma either. Hopefully I should get some more claims! Thanks for the help!

[Wels 2]

Hello, and welcome

 

never use a semikolon (;), use time in the format 8:56 (not 8.56), and add a pm, or am. Add keywords like "observed spinning and out of control", or "observed crashing" with the location where this happened (near Lille). Then type in the names of the witnesses at the upper portion of the claim report, who are your squadron mates who flew with you (check the names before starting in the mission description), or add something like "observed by aerodrome crew" or whatever.

 

 

This is from someone else, but i forgot the name (sorry!)

 

" ....

To help out with kill claims:

Mention aircraft type: i.e. "Nieuport 11" or "Sopwith Camel"

I also seem to get better results using the following words:

 

ammunition

machine gun

crashed

engaged

expended

front

seen

witnessed

altitude (list the altitude as well, example: "1000 feet of the deck"

flight

squad

tree-top

flames

out of control

direction, example: "North of the front lines"

followed

jumped

fought

 

Usually two sentences with many of the above words and my wingman properly listed puts me in the 68-80 value for my pending score.

Example: "Was jumped by a flight of Nieuports west of the front. Fought them from 5000 feet altitude down to the tree tops. After expending 200 rounds ammo into the enemy a/c, one was seen to crash out of control on our side of the lines." Something like this gets me about three quartes of my kills confirmed.I think you can get extra points toward credit if you list the aircraft type, squadron, and location of the kill. I also like to say "shot down in flames" and "observed crash". Don't know if it helps, but my last pilot, the late Maj Willie Maykett, had 12 of 14 claims confirmed

 

..."

 

 

Hope this gives you a hint,

greetings,

Catfish

 

P.S. if you pause the game you can hit the "Z" (or "y" in english keyboards ??) you can read your current altitude and time at the upper left screen. Looking at the map ("m") you know where you are (near Lille, above arodrome, over the coast etc.)

Hitting those keys a second time makes them vanish again.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Wels

[Ryan H 0]

How are you getting such accurate readings on altitude and time... I dont really want to use a head up display for realism so rely on the visual guages... I assume there must be some leniancy on exact acuracy?... again a real claim form wouldnt want altitude to the foot and time to the exact minute.... As for exact longitude and lattitude of wreckage, i'm sure a pilot wouldnt know that, which is why aprox possition reletive to a landmark would be much more authentic, shame if game doesnt register that though.

 

I fly with the hud off but when I make a kill, I pause, hit 'Z' and copy down that info. I suppose if your not willing to do that, you could use towns or aerodromes as landmarks, I enclude in my reports "enemy craft wreckage located about 2 miles south of Douai" or something to that effect just for extra insurance. As for altitude, I feel its important to have, and I think some planes had altimiters right? If not, I guess you'd just have to estimate or try to go without it. Good luck!

[Olham 164]

Stiffy, you don't need much detail, really.

I just got a bunch of ten confirmations, I had been waiting for quite some time.

As long as they are not rejected and still "pending", they may still come in.

 

I'm writing them like this now:

 

On patrol at [mission patrol area], we where engaged by a flight of 4 Sopwith Triplanes from RNAS-9 at medium altitude.

I fired several bursts into one craft, until it crashed at 13:24 h, N of Lens. Then I chased a second craft and hit it so hard,

that the left wings came off, and it crashed at 13:27 h, nort east of Lens.

 

You can write them even shorter, but I want it a bit immersive.

 

VERY IMPORTANT: write ALL your wingmen's names into the witness line; and when you flew with A-flight,

write also the A-flight members down there. In combat, you can't check, who exactly was near you at the kill -

so with this method, he is among the names. It's "legal", cause you cannot, like in real life, ask them later,

who saw your kills. The pilots in WW1 could.

[Ironhat 0]

Now that i have some experience in OFF i'm starting to use the claims form. I've just read all of this thread and the suggestions posted are very helpful.

 

I think the odds of a pilot knowing who saw his killing shots might be pretty slim in many situations. Unless my flight out numbers the enemy the other pilots will be pretty busy within their own fights and looking around for the enemy. Wingman should seem to be the most logical one to see my kill but then who knows how good he is at doing his job or if he is in a fight as well. Listing all in my flight plus members of A flight just seems like wasted play time to me.

 

Also sometimes the program just doesn't get it right it would seem. On a recent flight i shot down a Alb DV flown by an ace xxxxxx Blum ( i think his name was). I wrote all this down. I had also killed 2 Alb III. The report gave a warning when i was ready to submit it. I took the DV off and it accepted it. I saw the lower right wing come off, noted the AC name, reported it crashed. I'm not sure if any of the flight saw the kill. Even if its not witnessed i would think the entire claim should not be auto rejected.

 

I also find having to pause the game and take notes of all the details disruptive to game play. Surely a pilot in real life was lucky to have even 1/4 of his kills confirmed if they were that strict in real life. No gun cameras in those days.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Stiffy, this has been a topic of great discussion in these forums, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no real rhyme or reason to the process. The suggestions given are all excellent and using them may increase your odds of having claims accepted. However, I have tracked this in my own campaigns and despite my best efforts to list aircraft type, times, alts, locations, witnesses, etc, it still is a random factor and you can check that yourself by looking at the numbers that follow the pending claims in your pilot claims file. Generally speaking, if the number is 60 or less your claim is going to be denied. Also, in RL in the British Air Service in WWI, you needed ground confirmation of a kill. An eye witness in the form of one of your wings was not enough and your claim would be denied by HQ. This is why the British aces ended up with far fewer confirmed kills than their Central Powers counterparts, whose word was accepted as proof enough.

 

.

[Ironhat 0]

Seems it lists kills/promotions if you check easy or normal claims forms, but only kills if you click easy claims ?

If i've have this correct that means if i use easy claims and the game progam says i'm getting X number of kills i have no chance for promotion ? If so that makes no sense to me, after all its the game progam saying i got the claim.

[+Polovski 458]

It isn't just random RAF_Louvert by a long shot, there is reason and code to handle it. However as always we say please just add some obvious details just like anyone given a form to fill in. You would think then note.. where you were, what height, what location were you going/near, what happened, what did you do, what did you hit, what did it look like, where did it crash etc, use your noggin! :)

 

If a craft is rejected, as per the other discussions, it can be for many reasons. It was another type (early late, more powerful etc etc) someone else got a critical hit - maybe AA, wingman, friendly fire whatever, PLUS fog of war, perhaps another pilot claimed it, maybe the AA gunner did etc, use your imagination and all is well.

 

This subject has been discussed several times in the past, lots of past threads with examples and tips. If you go so far to work out which key words make it give you nearly 100% claims why bother using it (even so there will be some randomness added of course).

 

Papers lost, mis-identification, Fog of war again blah.

 

Do you want to "beat the game" or play realistically as best we can give it's software?

 

Each person decides, and hence the workshop options.

[Ironhat 0]

Anybody can have a kill on his Log Sheet, and NO claims are ever rejectted

 

But a confirmed kill the hard way, ain't so easy

 

The hard way is the way it was in Real Life. MvR is credited with 80 Kills, but he might've had 120 if they All Counted

 

Ok i understand it was hard to get a confirmed kill in real life but that doesn't answer the question. If i don't use one of the 2 claims form options and let the program credit my kills my pilot will NOT get promoted ?

[+Polovski 458]

Yes he will, the easy options make it EASIER to get promotion too.

[Ironhat 0]

Yes he will, the easy options make it EASIER to get promotion too.

 

Thank you very much, that makes me feel a lot better.

[Creaghorn 10]

.

 

Also, in RL in the British Air Service in WWI, you needed ground confirmation of a kill. An eye witness in the form of one of your wings was not enough and your claim would be denied by HQ. This is why the British aces ended up with far fewer confirmed kills than their Central Powers counterparts, whose word was accepted as proof enough.

 

.

 

sorry old chap, but i can't agree. easiest claimform was for the french. you didn't even had to tell the type of AC you have shot down. the german claimsystem was pretty much like we have it here in BHAH. you had to write a report as precise as you can with the witnesses and then it wasn't in your hands anymore. the witnesses also wrote an own report to confirm and support your kill, or not. in the beginning kills behind enemy lines didn't even count as kill. later wreckage had to be seen as a proof. and compared to the brits, there was only one pilot credited for one kill. no word (cough cough) was accepted as (cough billy cough) proof enough (bishop cough cough).

the brits had shared kills wich counted as full kills. two camels chase down a single albatros, both put bullets into him and every one of them got credited with a kill, though only one wreckage. ther germans also didn't have stuff like "out of control" etc. wreckage had to be found or witnessed, otherwise no confirmation.

americans had to write a report and only groundwitnesses counted because airman might have supported each other with false claims.

maybe to have different claimforms when flying for different countries in p8 lol?

anyway. i believe the toughest confirmations had the germans and americans, and i'm glad in BHAH we have the german way of claiming

Edited February 9, 2010 by Creaghorn

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well then Pol and Creaghorn, it appears I stand corrected on two counts. I was under the impression that there was a randomness factor to the whole claims process in OFF. And, from what I've read in the past, it seemed the Germans accepted claims more or less on the word of their officers and did not rely as heavily on physical confirmation as the Brits or Americans did. And BTW, the Brits relied VERY heavily on physical confirmation of a kill. It was really only Bishop that I recall being awarded kills simply on his "word", and he was a whole 'nother character.

 

.

[Siggi 10]

Two examples from my log, confirmed and rejected:

 

27/;11/;1916 ;14h;19 ;Flanders ;Furnes ;Patrol Friendly Front Lines ; Flying: Nieuport 17 (Lewis). On this day claims: ;1 ;Halb DII . ;Engaged by flight of Halb DIIs from altitude while flying patrol low over the lines, fired into one which was observed to go down in flames and crash on our side of the lines approx two miles NE of Etrun aerodrome.. Witnessed by: Anthony Bownes. Status : Confirmed ;

 

19/;1/;1917 ;10h;46 ;Flanders ;Furnes ;Balloon Defense ; Flying: Sopwith Triplane. On this day claims: ;1 ;Roland CII . ;Engaged a flight of Rolands at 2000ft and shot one down in the near vicinity of Boiry St Martin, seen to crash and break up.. Witnessed by: Anthony Bowne, Chris Pennant, Quentin Cooper Status : Rejected ;

[Ironhat 0]

Yesterday i flew a balloon destroy mission in a EIII. The mission briefing said we were to destroy enemy balloons. I had claims forms unchecked, ie the game counted my kills.

Flew to the main OB via the last waypoint and killed it, then flew around the area and killed 2 more. Wingman and rest of the flight were directed to attack these and were in position to see the kills, no EA within 8 miles of the area were up.

After the mission summary gave the usual grats on successful mission you may have killed a OB etc. A claims form has been submitted for you etc. Pilot rooster menu shows 1 kill and 1 claim.

So it seems you don't alway get credit for all the kills you make, and see with your eyes it was a kill, when the game does this as well. Maybe they use a system where it simulates some kills not being confirmed when set to no claims forms.

[themightysrc 5]

I'm a little mystified by all of this.

 

Possibly, it's because I'm such a crap pilot that I rarely get to make a claim - it usually comes as something of a shock to me if that screen pops out at me - but I suspect that my mindset now when flying in OFF doesn't actually have very much to do with racking up kills. My aim as a pilot is to simply survive by not doing anything stupid - well, too stupid - and fulfilling the mission brief. Admittedly, this means that I frequently avoid combat when I might otherwise dive in, but it also means that I'm now getting pilots that last longer. I still get engaged in dogfights, but the aim of those for me is to survive and hopefully to pick off any enemy aircraft that stray into my path long enough to actually get hit by me.

 

Am I a rubbish pilot? Yes, undoubtedly - just ask any of the MP players as to how bad I actually am. Do I now end up with pilots with relatively few claims, fewer kills but greater longevity? Yes, I do; and that seems to me to be more or less historically accurate.

 

Our appreciation of WWI pilots is sometimes heavily coloured by the histories of the aces and great pilots - not a surprise, since it presses a lot of buttons with most of us - but I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that in the actual conflict, the number of kills confirmed counted far, far less in the eyes of serving pilots than the morale, efficiency and espirit of the squadrons in which they served, and that they mostly yearned for leave, an end to the war and survival.

 

So, forget about getting claims just so: as Pol says, they might be rejected for all sorts of reasons unrelated to how you fill them in. Concentrate on survival.

[Creaghorn 10]

I'm a little mystified by all of this.

 

Possibly, it's because I'm such a crap pilot that I rarely get to make a claim - it usually comes as something of a shock to me if that screen pops out at me - but I suspect that my mindset now when flying in OFF doesn't actually have very much to do with racking up kills. My aim as a pilot is to simply survive by not doing anything stupid - well, too stupid - and fulfilling the mission brief. Admittedly, this means that I frequently avoid combat when I might otherwise dive in, but it also means that I'm now getting pilots that last longer. I still get engaged in dogfights, but the aim of those for me is to survive and hopefully to pick off any enemy aircraft that stray into my path long enough to actually get hit by me.

 

Am I a rubbish pilot? Yes, undoubtedly - just ask any of the MP players as to how bad I actually am. Do I now end up with pilots with relatively few claims, fewer kills but greater longevity? Yes, I do; and that seems to me to be more or less historically accurate.

 

Our appreciation of WWI pilots is sometimes heavily coloured by the histories of the aces and great pilots - not a surprise, since it presses a lot of buttons with most of us - but I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that in the actual conflict, the number of kills confirmed counted far, far less in the eyes of serving pilots than the morale, efficiency and espirit of the squadrons in which they served, and that they mostly yearned for leave, an end to the war and survival.

 

So, forget about getting claims just so: as Pol says, they might be rejected for all sorts of reasons unrelated to how you fill them in. Concentrate on survival.

 

well said. are you a rubbish pilot? if you survive long with view kills, then definitely not. then you are a good pilot as it should be.

if you die quickly without many kills, you are a rubbish pilot.

if you have some kills, and also die fast, then you are a more decent rubbish pilot.

if you have few or none kills but survive quite long, than you are a good pilot and historically correct.

if you have kills to get ace status and survive long, then you are a superb pilot. the absolute smallest percentage.

 

just a note, about 3-5% of the pilots were responsible for about 40% of all kills. beeing an ace and live long is the hunter type like MvR etc.. not frank luke.

the germans were wondering what the difference was between the 3% and the rest (character, smartness, attitude etc.). they even tried to make some psychological profile and tests to only pick out the 3% characters out and make only them scout pilots.

[+Polovski 458]

As the guys above explain you cannot expect all of the kills you believe are yours will be awarded. That's the point of a "claims" system you have to make a claim. It matters not that you are 100% sure you got it - it is what the department dealing with your claim thinks, combined with the other zillion variables in a war as I mentioned. Maybe one day we'll have you drive out in the Ford and find your kill to take a tail piece home ;)

 

Also yep as Uncleal says only mission balloons are credited as kills, other random ones are ground targets - it is what it is at the moment.

[Dej 17]

Conjecture, of course, but I've noticed (or think I have) that phrases along the lines of 'n miles XX of Y' like those in Siggi's examples boost the percentage quite a bit. I had very few claims rejected on my combat reports which were a lot like Siggi's but with the addition of how many rounds I'd fired (guesstimate) and the markings of the enemy craft. Terms á la mode or in character seemed to help too, e.g. 'machine, not 'aircraft' or 'HA' not 'EA' (if you're on the Entente side). Having said that, none of my pilots ever lived long enough for really high scores.

 

However, when all is said and done, this is one area where the devs drop hints but remain inscrutable... and I like it like that

[catch 81]

one day we'll have you drive out in the Ford and find your kill to take a tail piece home ;)

 

 

Jesus ! Keep it down Pol You'll be giving them ideas