PDA

View Full Version : A modest proposal



horseback
03-31-2007, 11:34 PM
Woe unto ye, AI gunners! For thou hast all displayed marksmanship like unto that boasted by Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, who didst slay bears, mountain lions and the odd raccoon from over 800m with but a single shot, of which his comrades did say, "Davy doth tell the Tall Tales yet again, but as long as he buyeth the beer, we care not."

Ye buyeth not a single sixpack for the PLAYER, and He tires of thine unrealistic bull droppings! He careth not for 'scale' or other such specious arguments for lo, it is written in the Chronicles of the Aces that aircraft gunners were mere mortals with limited gunnery skills even within 100 meters' range, wherefore multipassenger aircraft were Easy Meat, and eagerly sought after in preference to their more dangerous single seat brethren.

Therefore, thou shouldst never kill the PLAYER or disable his engine from greater than 150 meters, nor even from within that range more than one out of three times, and thy reaction to his entry into thine cone of fire should henceforth be measured in a more human seconds rather than nanoseconds." -from Horseback's Ten Commandments for AI

It is no secret that I have always detested the AI defensive gunners in this sim. I find their accuracy and range absolutely unrealistic, especially at the edges of their firing arcs (which, by the way, are far too high and wide). I've worked on modern automated fire control systems, and none of them approach the AI gunners' deadliness. I find it thoroughly contrary to logic and the historical record in three major areas:

1. Range and accuracy

2. Damage Modeling

3. Firing at Inappropriate or Unreasonable Times

Range and accuracy speaks for itself. This is the sole means that the Mission builder differentiates between Ace, Veteran, Average, and Rookie levels of defensive gunners. Aces have reached out and touched this Player's aircraft from as much as 800m away, Rookies from about 650m.

While a real life ˜ace' defensive gunner aiming a flexible gun over ring and bead sights could hope to occasionally ˜tag' an enemy fighter closing on his level six o'clock position as far as 300m away, the farther off the axis of his aircraft's line of flight his target positioned itself, the harder it became to hit. The current standards are grossly unrealistic, and disastrous in a fighter-centric WWII combat flight sim.

Most fighter pilots' memoirs (especially if they spent any serious time opposing bombers) will have at least one account of attacking a bomber and obliterating the poor gunner before he could get his gun to bear. Simply put, it is much easier to aim an aircraft equipped with fixed guns and a reflector sight than it is to aim a flexibly mounted gun over ring and bead or some kind of mechanical sights, and it looks as though an average gunner's maximum accurate range was significantly less than the 2-300m most fighters set their convergences for.

Remember how the experts all remind you to center the ˜ball' in the turn and bank indicator when you shoot from the cockpit? If the ˜ball' isn't centered, your rounds will not track along your axis of flight, and will instead spread out to one side or the other of that line in a widely dispersed string.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EVERY shot a defensive gunner made to any angle other than a dead six or twelve o'clock level, was off axis, and he had to correct his shots not only for his target's relative motion, but also for his own aircraft's forward momentum.</span> Every shot was high deflection, and inaccurately judged bursts were scattered and ineffective.

How did they accurately aim at small fast fighters using mostly ring and bead sights? Answer: they COULDN'T, unless their target was so close and moving so slowly relative to them that their rounds didn't have a chance to disperse, which means less than 100m away at 250-350kph.

Add in the difficulties of standing, kneeling, or laying behind your gun in a moving aircraft, or sitting on a little stool or sling, wearing goggles that might be a bit foggy, at an open position exposed to the wind, engine noise, and a bunch of other guys in airplanes who want to kill you...yeah, sure they could easily hit a fighter on the nose from 600m away every time.

Now let us consider an AI gunner's reaction to counterfire, having established that he really couldn't hope to hit a fighter from half the average fighter pilot's convergence range.

AI gunners will blaze away accurately in the face of pinpoint counterfire, when a real human being would have been riddled with bullets or splinters of his own aircraft (or in my own case, huddled on his fuselage floor in the fetal position, screaming like a little girl). Most human beings will be killed or disabled by a single LMG round, especially when you consider that most of the guns mounted on fighters were high powered rifle caliber or better. Most gunners wounded were hit by bullets and aircraft splinters that penetrated the skin of the aircraft, not by rounds coming through the window.

As nearly as I can determine, it takes at least three clean hits in the exposed portions of the AI gunner's body to silence his gun. For all intents and purposes, the portions of his body hidden behind his gun or the skin of the aircraft are untouchable, which in the case of ˜tunnel' gunners or any other gunner visible only through a porthole or small window, makes them essentially invulnerable. Additionally, his gun is bulletproof too, making him even harder to silence.

Obviously, this is a simplified damage model dating back from Oleg's original concept for a single aircraft simulator, but it is profoundly galling to be pounding an Me 110G's wingroots and cockpit from a high four o'clock position in a P-38 300m away, hear a couple of thumps and see the HUD display "Fuel Leak" or "Machine Gun Disabled" EVERY STINKING TIME.

Finally, let's look at the most ludicrous AI gunner behavior: shooting (accurately) during hi G or negative G maneuvers. Seriously, what offline campaigner hasn't had his engine oil smeared across his windshield after flying too close to a recently de-winged enemy bomber?

If this has never happened to you, PM me immediately. Your extraordinary luck can be put to better use picking out my Lottery numbers.

I'm just going to ignore the whole issue of rapidly changing target deflection and so on, and cut right to the heart of the matter: Most gunners on bombers and attack aircraft were not strapped in. Remember what I said about standing, crouching, kneeling and laying down behind their guns? In most bombers, particularly in the early war period, that was the preferred method of serving your gun. A quick in-game survey of the most encountered gunners' positions can confirm this for you, if you doubt me.

But even the guy with a seated position wasn't exactly firmly strapped in. Look at the 110 gunner's seat, or the Stuka's. Looks like nothing so much as a backless lawn chair. Even if the belts more or less keep you in your seat, unless you have an amazing set of abs and a correspondingly well developed lower back, your upper torso is going to be flailing back and forth during the sideslips, rolls, negative G dips, climbs, dives and so on.

SBDs and Pe-3 type gunner positions were little better. In some Il-2s, the gunner sat on a wide strap stretched across the fuselage, but it was a pretty tight fit, and the gun breech probably helped hold him in.

Regardless, until we go to the self-contained turrets of the more modern bombers, the gunners tended to bounce around like dice in a cup during any sharp maneuver. If the gun went off during said maneuver, it was purely accidental.

Not in my wildest dreams do I believe that it is possible to remedy these flaws (and they ARE flaws) in the current game. I believe that they are a basic part of the original code, with roots in Oleg's original concept of a one airplane simulator featuring the Sturmovik. If they could have been fixed, they would have by now.

However, there's still hope for the Storm of War series. I'm hoping for something along the following lines:

1. Realistic accuracy from AI aircraft gunners, with a ˜cosmetic' defensive gunfire outside a Player selectable maximum effective range in both QMB and campaign setup menus. It is a criminal waste of RAM to compute ballistics for every round fired from every bomber in a multiple aircraft formation any farther than at most, two hundred meters. At the very least, accuracy and range should diminish rapidly the farther from a level 6 o'clock an attacking fighter approaches. Real life bomber formations depended upon sheer volume of fire rather than individual accuracy; the simple fact was that five or six guns blasting away in the general vicinity of an approaching fighter were far more likely to hit him than any single accomplished marksman.

2. A more reasonable DM for AI gunners. Accurate range and weight of fire advantages should be applied here. Since the likelihood of splinters and shrapnel from even near misses was very high, it would be appropriate to award a silenced gun to the Player when he puts a certain number of rounds into the gunner's ˜box', which would include the gun and the fuselage skin around him (unless it was meaningfully armored). A real person would be riddled with bullets and/or splinters of aluminum, and much more concerned with his own blood loss than aiming a suddenly much heavier machine gun.

3. No, zip, zero, nada, as in NOT ANY, defensive fire from maneuvering aircraft. A man trying to not be thrown out of his seat or off his feet has no time to aim and fire a machine gun. Defensive guns should be fired only when the aircraft is in straight and level flight. There should also be a significant dropoff in the return fire's effectiveness when the attacking fighter is hitting the gunner's aircraft. Just as the Player's aircraft jerks and bounces when he is being hit, so too should the AI target he's pounding with accurate fire. Being shot down or disabled by a single gun firing from a wildly maneuvering aircraft is a cruel joke at the far ends of chance, and should be treated that way in-game.

Now, I know that there are some self proclaimed ˜experts' who are going to tell me to learn how to fly, or use different tactics, because the AI gunners are perfectly reasonable, and you can shoot them down if you use off-angle, high speed, high difficulty attacks.

My carefully reasoned response is, Stick it in your ear. The name of the game for the offline player is immersion, and that means being able to use the tactics that were successfully used in real life. Guess what? The overwhelming majority of bomber/multiseat aircraft kills were achieved from within the 4 to 8 o'clock angles that are invariably fatal for the Player in this game, especially if he approaches closer than 300m of his intended victim, as the real life pilots usually did.

I look forward to the Storm of War series with great anticipation, and I have high hopes that since this series of combat flight simulators will not be based on a single ground attack aircraft, that the achievable standards of accuracy for the AI and human defensive gunners will be much lower, as they were for the real human beings who manned the guns on the real aircraft.

Having said that, I won't buy the BoB sim for a few weeks after it has been released so that I can get a clear idea if what I think is the greatest flaw in the current simulator has been avoided.

I'll be damned if I'm going to spend forty or fifty dollars on a combat flight sim that makes the Me 110 or the Boulton Paul Defiant the deadliest fighter in the air.

cheers

horseback

Treetop64
03-31-2007, 11:40 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Oleg and crew need to read this. The best rundown on AI gunners I've ever read. I share your sentiments especially on the last two sentences.

HotelBushranger
03-31-2007, 11:53 PM
Great post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FlatSpinMan
04-01-2007, 12:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Akronnick
04-01-2007, 12:59 AM
Here, Here!

I'd be satisfied if they just made the AI gunners on my targets as ineffective as the AI gunners in my back seat

FritzGryphon
04-01-2007, 01:35 AM
How many tracks does one have to make of shooting down Ace B-17s with 109s, heck P-11s, without being killed. No matter, they aren't watched.

As for firing off-boresight; the AI gunners can't hit anything that is off boresight. I am not being hyberbolic; nothing. You can park your pretty little FW 200 yards off a B-29's beam, and every single bullet that the gunners fire at you will drift past your tail. The gunners in IL-2 have 0 capacity to adjust for relative airflow drift.

The Defiant was remarkably effective at shooting at aircraft when it was first introduced. Do you know why the Defiant's lost such an ability? Pilots stopped attacking them from the rear.

I have made this track recently, I do hope you watch it. Late Spitfire versus 4 Ace B-29.

http://student.vfs.com/~3d62kelly/spitvsb29.zip (http://student.vfs.com/%7E3d62kelly/spitvsb29.zip)

Reasonably, a person should expect to be killed immediately in such a situation. You'll see I shot down 3 of them, and then for the last one, performed a rear attack, with the expected result.

I will not say that the gunners are perfect, and some of your points are valid, and can be improved on. The assumption that offends me is that the gunners too good generally, and that bombers are too hard to down generally. By no means is it difficult to get wildy excessive kill rates against bombers even when a fighter is by itself, which was never the case in large engagements between fighters and bombers, and yet is tested countless times in this game. By people, of course, who were shot down and are angry.

Anyone still not aware from historical information should know this. If you attack a bomber formation on your own, of any kind (though less so for early bombers and more so for late ones) you are more likely to be shot down than you are to get 5 kills. More likely. Not less Likely. More likely. By the end of the war, fighters would lose twice what they shot down, even when they use proper massed group tactics, that most sim players never do. The track I have posted should be tantamount to suicide on my part, with no kills.

Any belief of the contrary is false, and borne of the assumption that the player-driven vehicle in a sim should always be able to destroy any other vehicle in the sim with no risk, regardless of actual probabilities. Like Akronnick, you'll only understand how much the gunners suck when you're in the bomber getting it's wing shot off.

Or possibly, watch a Staffel of FWs with MK108s eat a box of B-17s without losing a single fighter.

rnzoli
04-01-2007, 01:42 AM
Flying as a bomber sometimes, this proposal is quite ambitious: "let's make all bombers a sitting duck for fighters".

I wonder how the hard-core bombers accept that all fighters MUST BE ALLOWED TO CLOSE IN UP TO 200 METERS WITHOUT ANY RISK OF GETTING HIT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in the naming of "more RAM usage efficiency" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't think the would like this.

I generally see the point in better DM for AI gunners, also reducing their accruacy due to vibration, or when their plane makes wild manouvers, or when they are seriously wounded.

Nevertheless, in that case I ask for a better DM for human fighter pilots as well, since there is a too big gap between flying along happily or suddenly getting PK'd. I think it should be more easy to get seriously wounded, but also some PK should also result in being wounded instead. So more serious wounds and less PK's for the humans, including the attacking fighter pilots.

Regarding the angle-off adjustments, you are completely wrong, anyone with sufficient practice can make good leads on incoming fighters in the rear zone. A 10-year old buy can man the rear gunners and make more deadly kills than the average AI in this game, I have seen that with my own eyes, and yes, it was hard to believe, but it's a fact.

BfHeFwMe
04-01-2007, 02:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

If BoB has the same gunnery for AI, how does anyone think it can possibly fly. You can't cover up a flaw of this magnitude with several 100 bomber formations inbound. Imagine squadrons of 12 on the intercepts as historical, every last plane in the RAF would be down in the first clash, or first day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It has to have changed, or BoB simply can't work as advertised. It's all about bombers, so not much leeway.

lowfighter
04-01-2007, 03:14 AM
Could someone post some numbers of bomber losses versus fighter losses (fighter losses due to bomber fire) including the total number of fighters and bombers involved? Like numbers for BoB air battles?
Not that this would be sufficient to draw any conclusions, there are many factors to consider in reasoning about the numbers. Still it might be a starting point.

tigertalon
04-01-2007, 03:39 AM
No clue bout BOB, but german single engined fighters got a k/d ratio around 1v1 when confronted with 4 engined heavy USAF bombers without fighter escort (Schweinfurt raid for example).

djetz
04-01-2007, 04:10 AM
I have a funny feeling that if anyone in real life had switched from fighters to bombers, he'd have said exactly the same thing:

"Why are my air gunners so bad while the enemy's are so good?"

Rather than being a fault, I believe that this feature makes the game a bit more true to life.

Really, does anyone actually believe that the AI gunners in planes that are being flown by a player is different to the AI gunners in AI controlled planes? I'm 100% certain it's exactly the same. An AI gunner is an AI gunner. Yours or theirs.

If you don't evade/shoot/evade/shoot, the AI gunners will kill you. Just like in real life. I usually find that they're quite bad shots, and have no idea how to lead a target. If you consistently fly right into their bullets, I humbly suggest you try evading and maybe practice target leading and deflection shooting.

Matz0r
04-01-2007, 05:05 AM
"Why are my air gunners so bad while the enemy's are so good?"

I've been wondering that myself! It seems that the average careless guy online can park his P-40 50m behind my betty and proceed to methodically disassemble my aircraft without being massacred by the AI gods. Yet when I am barreling down on a betty in a P-38 at 425 mph, both my engines are on fire before I'm within firing range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
04-01-2007, 05:35 AM
I agree with the first post. AI gunners can really go ultra-mad sometimes. I will never engage a B25 in a late Me109 for example, why? It's simply too much risk, OK maybe I will try to make a high speed, high angle head-on pass but I've been PK'ed, smoked, lost controls etc. too many times even making attacks like that. Is that realistic?
Is the folowing situation realistic?; BF110 in a very tight turn, me in a Tempest at 760kmh making a 90degree!!! pass, what happens is I hear one(1) feckin hit on my plane, I'm heavly wounded and I can't pull up anymore(as when you wounded the elevator becomes concrete suddenly) thus crashing into the ground, I mean come on, and that's only the last frustrating example I had, there was many, many more where I made careful planned high speed very high angle passes and got pwned by our very realistic gunners, to tell you the truth I'm better of parking on their six and shoot from far away...

rnzoli
04-01-2007, 06:17 AM
Is the folowing situation realistic?; BF110 in a very tight turn Just an observeation, AI controlled aircraft don't make very tight turns, so if this happened online, can you be sure that it wasn't the human player, who hopped into the gunner seat and gave you a lucky burst? Some of the human gunners I met with were lethally experienced, much better than the AI.

MEGILE
04-01-2007, 06:21 AM
When the game can support a bomber stream of 200 B-17s... then make the gunners half blind 90 year olds.

Until that day.. keep them ace.

M_Gunz
04-01-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EVERY shot a defensive gunner made to any angle other than a dead six or twelve o'clock level, was off axis, and he had to correct his shots not only for his target's relative motion, but also for his own aircraft's forward momentum.</span> Every shot was high deflection, and inaccurately judged bursts were scattered and ineffective.


If you say so then I guess these guys were just jerking off. (http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/11_Training.htm)

Brain32
04-01-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is the folowing situation realistic?; BF110 in a very tight turn Just an observeation, AI controlled aircraft don't make very tight turns, so if this happened online, can you be sure that it wasn't the human player, who hopped into the gunner seat and gave you a lucky burst? Some of the human gunners I met with were lethally experienced, much better than the AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well yes it was online, and yes it's true that often people who manage their own f+defensive guns can be very lethal, I manage my own guns too and I managed to down quite a few fighters, however if you think you can hit a plane at that angle and speed then you never tried it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
If it really was a human, that guy then had and lost every single chance to win the lottery in his life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And there were quite a few too.
I mean look I have no problems carefully attacking bombers, I've learned my lesson, you will not see me making a HO pass and then looping on his six parking there, I even fly along side them out of range to get in opportunity to attack it again from 2(11) in a head on and from above. After several inccidents like the one decribed above I only have one tactics, in certain planes I don't even bother attacking bombers, I just call in for Tempest/FW190A9(if those types are available) give him the grid and a heading of the bomber and that's it, if I'm in one of those planes I simply fire from long to very long range(Tempest vs ju88) or direct HO pass only(A9 vs B25) that's it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DooDaH2007
04-01-2007, 08:08 AM
I have no idea about what is historically accurate or not, but attacking bombers from behind is suicide as I think it should be, because of small relative speed differences...

Anyone who watches the track FritzGryphon posted here, will see that even four B29 bombers flying in formation, with it's uncanny load of AI gunners, can be taken out of the sky one at a time, even in a spitfire...

So historically correct or not, it's a matter of adapting and changing tactics accordingly...

If the AI gunners are proven to be too accurate, then instead of changing the code to a big degree, maybe it would be much more simple to decrease their rate of fire to compensate...
(Taking into account that we are moving towards the very last patch and nothing major will be changed)

Please take into account that I am a newbie, so flaming me for my newbie oppinion will not prove anything... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
04-01-2007, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EVERY shot a defensive gunner made to any angle other than a dead six or twelve o'clock level, was off axis, and he had to correct his shots not only for his target's relative motion, but also for his own aircraft's forward momentum.</span> Every shot was high deflection, and inaccurately judged bursts were scattered and ineffective.


If you say so then I guess these guys were just jerking off. (http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/11_Training.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pretty much.

Was there another air force in the world that dedicated as many resources (and as much PR) to their aerial gunners' training as the USAAF?Ignoring for the moment that these were gunners who reached the war VERY late in the game in the most advanced heavy daylight bombers of the war, just how effective were they in the absence of escort fighters?

Answer: Not very. Large, relatively clumsy zerstorer types like the Me 110, Me 410 and the Ju 88C/G were able to stand off at ranges between 200 and 600 meters and tear them up. Losing your escort and having the LW, even in its death throes during the winter of 1944/45, show up was a death sentence.

I repeat: individual multiseat aircraft were EASY MEAT for single seaters, and defensive gunners were irrelevent up to 75m away 95% of the time. These gunners were not wiggling a mouse to aim, they were manhandling a heavy piece of machinery that often vibrated like a friggin' jackhammer when they pulled the trigger.

cheers

horseback

horseback
04-01-2007, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Why are my air gunners so bad while the enemy's are so good?"

I've been wondering that myself! It seems that the average careless guy online can park his P-40 50m behind my betty and proceed to methodically disassemble my aircraft without being massacred by the AI gods. Yet when I am barreling down on a betty in a P-38 at 425 mph, both my engines are on fire before I'm within firing range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is a very clear difference between 'pure' AI and how effective the AI gunner(s) on your bomber is.

There is also a clear difference between how effective 'friendly' AI and 'enemy' AI are. How many times do you have to go into an offline combat and have your 'Ace' and 'Veteran' wingmen chopped to pieces by the 'Average' AI on the other side before you figure that out?

In the current patch, all the friendly Aces and Veterans are good for is finishing off the aircraft the Player has damaged or set on fire, but that's another arguement for another thread.

cheers

horseback

horseback
04-01-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
No clue bout BOB, but german single engined fighters got a k/d ratio around 1v1 when confronted with 4 engined heavy USAF bombers without fighter escort (Schweinfurt raid for example). WHAT??? Schweinfurt was a disaster for the 8th AF. Sixty B-17s missing, 5 crashed in England, 12 written off, and 121 more suffering battle damage of varying degrees. 600 men missing, 48 casualties in the returning aircraft, and the Germans recorded less than 20 aircraft and pilots lost that day FOR THE WHOLE WESTERN FRONT.

The 8th AF gunners' claims were a joke throughout the allied air forces. If they had been remotely accurate, Hitler would have completely run out of fighters and pilots no later than October of 1943. The gunners' claims to actual kills ratio was astronomical in every air force.

cheers

horseback

Jungmann
04-01-2007, 10:23 AM
Agree with Horseback.

His point is that AI bomber gunnery is unrealistic in accuracy and range. He could bolster his argument by reference to Air Force Manual #20, Restriced, May 1944 revision, GUNNER'S INFORMATION FILE. Pages S-7 through S-31 describe the free gunner's obtaining a firing solution--the proper deflection--on an attacking fighter. The manual tries to make it sound easy enough, but reading between the lines, it's obvioiusly incredibly difficult.

Put on hold all of Horseback's valid observations--that the gunner's aircraft may be making evading maneuvers, and that the gunner is in the position of being shot at, both of which may throw off his aim, especially the latter. Get down to the simple geometry of the firing solution.

First of all, the gunner's airplane is moving at a certain speed. This speed determines how much the path of bullets will be bent by the vector of the forward motion of the bomber. A gunner must have a clear sense of airspeed to compensate his aim, and with no indicator at his position, he's reduced to guessing.

Second, the problem of range. The radian measurements of the sight rings, on an iron sight or a projected reflector sight reticle, can help determine range when the target's wingspan is known, but considering the incoming fighter's range is constantly changing as it makes its attack, this range estimation--and the amount of deflection to ascribe to it--is just a guess on the gunner's part as well.

And this calculation is made more complicated by the fact that most stern attacks on bombers--by fighters on both sides of whe war--were flown on what were called pursuit curves. These were high side or low side attacks, where the fighter curved in on the target and the pilot laid off a changing set of deflections as he swung in on the bomber from one side or another.
Pilots on both sides were taught to fly these pursuit curve attacks as a way of bearing wing guns on the target for the longest possible time while remaining a difficult target to hit, because of the constantly changing aspect to a bomber's flexible guns. A lot of German gun camera attacks on Allied bombers shows them directly on their target's six o'clock, banging away, but many show the curving approach that has got them there.

And if that's not enough, the bomber's gunner must often aim counter-intuitively. For example, a tail gunner, or a waist gunner shooting towards the rear, has to always lay his gunsight's pipper somewhere between the incoming fighter and his aircraft's tail, in order to compensate for his plane's motion. But a nose gunner in a bomber has to always lay his pipper OUTSIDE the target in the case of a fighter making a head-on attack, for the same reason.

There is no need to question the skill and bravery of Allied gunners--they did the best they could with what they had. But few of them--with all their training--could master the complicated firing solution of bomber flexible gunnery. Most fighter kills were the result of tightly-flown bomber boxes, and multiple guns putting out so much steel that the attacking fighters simply ran into it.

Whew. And after all that, would I like to see improvements in BOB bomber AI? Sure, but probably by making the bomber DMs tougher. After all, the attacking fighter's firing solution problem is also much more complicated than the game presents--but don't get me started.

Hope this is useful.

horseback
04-01-2007, 10:43 AM
I want to clarify a few points here.

First, my suggestions apply to any FUTURE simulations, not the current one. Oleg originally conceived of this as a single aircraft (Il-2 Sturmovik) sim for a primarily Russian market, and any accurate representation of the difficulties a real Sturmovik gunner faced would have made the game far too difficult and frustrating to be marketable (and possibly treasonous, given the near legendary status the Sturmovik has in the former Soviet Union). I believe that the ubergunners' coding is too intrinsic to the game engine to be 'fixed' at this point. As I stated in the original post, if it could be fixed, it would have been by now.

Second, I feel that far too many of our 'experts' forget or never learned the physical difficulties of the real men who served those guns, their lack of preparation and training, or the fact that they were human. I've had the opportunity to climb into a number of bombers and attack aircraft of that era, and sit or stand at the gunner's stations, many of which were open to the air. The pilots' accomodations were luxury suites compared to the majority of the aircrew; why most of them had actual chairs with seat belts to sit in!

Guess where the enlisted aircrew in a B-17 sat or crouched for most of the flight, including takeoffs and landings? It's hard enough to be effective in a fighter plane, but it was infinitely harder in every way to be effective as an aerial gunner, especially under those conditions.

Third, there's the issue of how players at the gunners' stations can acheive near AI levels of accuracy. Sure, if you have literally dozens of no stress opportunities to learn how to judge your shots. The real gunners had no such opportunities, especially when we're talking about the early war bombers and attack aircraft. They just slapped some poor enlisted shmoe in there after some cursory training in the care and feeding of his gun and paid him a few bucks extra in flight pay (if he was lucky).

Some air forces might go so far as to give him some 'aerial gunnery' training in the form of shooting at a target sleeve towed in formation to his aircraft on a couple of occasions before sending him to a combat unit, but that hardly compares to the skills one develops moving a mouse around several dozen times to shoot down a collection of pixels.

Finally, my proposal for allowing the offline Player the option of limiting the tracking of AI gunner rounds probably should have been supplemented by a simple random formula that increases the probability of the gunners damaging the Player's aircraft on the basis of how many gunners/aircraft shooting at him, and how close he is to the formation. That probability, would of course be divided among the attacking fighters...

As I stated earlier, formations depended on the sheer volume of fire from their gunners, not individual accuracy, and my greatest complaint is the unGodly accuracy of single and small formation gunners.

I might note also that certain aircraft seem to boast far more effective gunners than others, notably the Me 110, the Stuka, the early modified Sturmoviks, and the Pe 2/3 (especially those verdammt tunnel gunners, shooting at angles where they couldn't possibly see the attacker, much less hit him on purpose!).

As for FritzGryphon's claim that he can fly untouched with regularity, well, maybe he can, but the bastages tag me almost every time, regardless of speed or angle of attack, long before I get to my normal convergence range of 200m.

It should also be noted here that sometimes you MUST attack at less than ideal angles or speeds in order to break up the formation before it reaches its target. If you're flying a Soviet campaign, 9 out of 10 times you will find yourself clawing for altitude when the German bombers are spotted, and unlike the actual LW formations, these guys try to evade and or climb away, which adds to the horse**** factor.

And believe me when I say it, I know horse**** when I see it.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
04-01-2007, 10:50 AM
Some air forces might go so far as to give him some 'aerial gunnery' training in the form of shooting at a target sleeve towed in formation to his aircraft on a couple of occasions before sending him to a combat unit, but that hardly compares to the skills one develops moving a mouse around several dozen times to shoot down a collection of pixels. Hopefully the 'gunner' will be able to use his his joystick, instead of a mouse, in the BoB game.

Btw, airgunners, when in training, were lucky to get even a 5% hit ratio on the target drogue.

Blutarski2004
04-01-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Why are my air gunners so bad while the enemy's are so good?"

I've been wondering that myself! It seems that the average careless guy online can park his P-40 50m behind my betty and proceed to methodically disassemble my aircraft without being massacred by the AI gods. Yet when I am barreling down on a betty in a P-38 at 425 mph, both my engines are on fire before I'm within firing range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Easy! IL2 adopted the Betty defensive fire code from CFS2

..... ;-] .....

BfHeFwMe
04-01-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EVERY shot a defensive gunner made to any angle other than a dead six or twelve o'clock level, was off axis, and he had to correct his shots not only for his target's relative motion, but also for his own aircraft's forward momentum.</span> Every shot was high deflection, and inaccurately judged bursts were scattered and ineffective.


If you say so then I guess these guys were just jerking off. (http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/11_Training.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm, your own link proves his point.

http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/tech/Deflection/LineOfFire.jpg

horseback
04-01-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Flying as a bomber sometimes, this proposal is quite ambitious: "let's make all bombers a sitting duck for fighters".

I wonder how the hard-core bombers accept that all fighters MUST BE ALLOWED TO CLOSE IN UP TO 200 METERS WITHOUT ANY RISK OF GETTING HIT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in the naming of "more RAM usage efficiency" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't think the would like this. I wouldn't, either, but since I was by context, refering to offline campaigns, it would hardly be likely to affect co-ops or other online endeavors. On the other hand, I could make a compelling arguement for it being much more realistic.
Regarding the angle-off adjustments, you are completely wrong, anyone with sufficient practice can make good leads on incoming fighters in the rear zone. A 10-year old buy can man the rear gunners and make more deadly kills than the average AI in this game, I have seen that with my own eyes, and yes, it was hard to believe, but it's a fact. I don't doubt that at all, but as I have repeatedly made clear in this and countless other threads, your ten year old example is moving a mouse around on a pad, not muscling a 15-20kg machine gun around on a bouncing wobbling aircraft with pieces of steel, aluminum and shattered perspex whistling past his ears.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the real life gunners never got anything like the amount of practice that your ten year old example gets.

This game has a very simplified model for aiming the defensive guns. The gun doesn't vibrate or shudder, it never jams, the barrel never overheats, the AI pilot flies a perfectly smooth, no wobble, no bounce flightpath, and the gunner is not subject to windblast, G forces, or the cold of Siberian winters or high altitude. I would contend that it takes significantly less skill than the real thing, and it is far out of proportion to the in-game difficulty of actually flying a WWII combat aircraft.

From an immersion standpoint, a Player fighter pilot facing your ten year old mouse-gunner or his AI counterpart is at a huge and unrealistic disadvantage, and should have the chance to choose whether he wants to play the offline campaign that way.

cheers

horseback

amilaninia
04-01-2007, 06:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

amilaninia
04-01-2007, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rnzoli:
Flying as a bomber sometimes, this proposal is quite ambitious: "let's make all bombers a sitting duck for fighters".

I wonder how the hard-core bombers accept that all fighters MUST BE ALLOWED TO CLOSE IN UP TO 200 METERS WITHOUT ANY RISK OF GETTING HIT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in the naming of "more RAM usage efficiency" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't think the would like this.
-------------------------------------------------
Hard-core bombers are sitting ducks anyway. For as long as a bomber or two seater plane has a human pilot,his or her AI gunners are as vulnerable to the enemy fire, as is the player him or herself (getting killed or injured).They also tend to either spend all their ammo before the enemy is even within their weapon's range,or just can't get a clear shot at the enemy.

I found U2VS particularly the toughest AI two seater of all,unless you have a heavily armed fighter(with four 20mm or 30 mm cannons)and attack him from 1 o'clock low,otherwise (in a MG armed fighter)you either get killed,or your plane turn into a fireball before you finish your pass,and that is with AI's first burst.Interestingly, AI field of fire doesn't include it's aircraft's underbelly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

jensenpark
04-01-2007, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Why are my air gunners so bad while the enemy's are so good?"

I've been wondering that myself! It seems that the average careless guy online can park his P-40 50m behind my betty and proceed to methodically disassemble my aircraft without being massacred by the AI gods. Yet when I am barreling down on a betty in a P-38 at 425 mph, both my engines are on fire before I'm within firing range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! You're living my IL2 life. I wonder the same bloody thing. Why are my AI gunners so useless every time? Somehow I'm loading up on noob AI gunners each time I fly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Huxley_S
04-01-2007, 07:28 PM
Somehow I'm loading up on noob AI gunners each time I fly.

Stop sharing your Rum with them... mmmm... Rum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

DKoor
04-01-2007, 07:47 PM
I'm the guy who managed to down 25 ACE B-17 in the same sortie with as much realism as possible in game, and I still say: gunners are way too overmodeled!
They simply don't represent reality nowhere even close...

All those "learn to shoot" etc. type of posts are just trolling around, so pay no attention.

The only way out of this situation with IL-2 is to set all gunners to rookie in your campaigns, that way you'll have it somewhere within tolerable margins.

BTW here's the track:
25 B-17 shot down with Me-262 on realistic settings (http://www.esnips.com/doc/ed27e945-b26b-446a-841f-8ad3dc0c28ab/KunaMe262-vs-25xB17G-405)

DooDaH2007
04-01-2007, 09:40 PM
I'm the guy who managed to down 25 ACE B-17 in the same sortie with as much realism as possible in game, and I still say: gunners are way too overmodeled!


I would love to see that track...

My record stands with four B17 bombers or three B29 bombers in a spitfire (and landing safely)... My first attempts at zoom&boom...


So one should not listen to me...
A friend and me just had a landing contest (who could land and take off again most times, without crashing)
And after an hour, our record was 4 times...

sight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


EDIT: I am in total awe of that track...
How can one aim so steady..?

leitmotiv
04-01-2007, 10:44 PM
Apropos of horseback's consummately well-argued thesis (in contrast to 99% of the controversial posts on this forum)---who could possibly disagree? I have been killed at medium range by an He 111 mid-upper gunner while attacking from 6 o'clock in a Hurricane I too many times. The gunners which frustrate me the most are Bf 110C gunners which unerringly smack me while the airplane is pulling Gs or maneuvering. The only way to deal with Maddox AI gunners is to high side them or any high deflection approach. High deflection undoes their fire completely. I think BOB2 has the right calculations for hand-held gunners. They don't hit you often but if you play dumb, you may die.

My most memorable heavy bomber clout was three B-17Gs, all in a loose vee, which I attacked with with one MK108 burst. The burst exploded the section leader and concussed his two wingmen to pieces. I was chuffed.

horseback
04-01-2007, 11:03 PM
Here's a theory for why your backseat AI gunner is so ineffective compared to the 'pure' AI defensive gunners: the live pilot is not predictable. In a pure AI piloted aircraft, the game knows exactly what is going to happen, where everything is, and when it will happen.

A live pilot is a wildcard; the game reacts to his actions, which are invariably less perfect than the game's AI piloting, throwing the gunnery routine's timing 'off' that critical little bit, spoiling a significant percentage of its targeting solutions.

Or, it could be that the game is just out to get(screw) you, the Player...

cheers

horseback

lowfighter
04-01-2007, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Here's a theory for why your backseat AI gunner is so ineffective compared to the 'pure' AI defensive gunners: the live pilot is not predictable. In a pure AI piloted aircraft, the game knows exactly what is going to happen, where everything is, and when it will happen.

A live pilot is a wildcard; the game reacts to his actions, which are invariably less perfect than the game's AI piloting, throwing the gunnery routine's timing 'off' that critical little bit, spoiling a significant percentage of its targeting solutions.

Or, it could be that the game is just out to get(screw) you, the Player...

cheers

horseback


We can kind of test that, Horseback, in the case of a bomber flying straight. Set a mission with one bomber piloted by human attacked by say 4 AI fighters. Hit the autopilot right at beginning and record the result of the battle, number of fighters damaged, shot down, your plane shot down and when shot down etc. Restart mission and don't hit autopilot but just try to fly the bomber straight and level. Repeat a couple of times and record the results. Possibly repeat with different AI levels and different fighter types. See if the success of the bomber gunners is different and how much different in the 2 cases. The test can't prove or disprove your theory, but rather can give a hint.

A bomber is big and if it fluctuates a bit around the level flight it will not really hinder the fighter to hit him. A fighter is small, and the small level flight fluctuations of the bomber can perhaps affect more the hit percentage of the bomber gunners.

rnzoli
04-02-2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
it would hardly be likely to affect co-ops
This is why I am posting here. I am afraid that it would greatly affect co-operative missions, including dynamic campaigns and online wars. AI routines are the same offline or online. Essentially, if you ask Oleg to make all bombers an easy meat, that will make all bombers a certain deatch sentence to fly, so there is no point to make any of the bombers flyable, because nobody would ever fly them. It's not a problem for you, I know. But keep in mind that it can be a problem for others, so to avoid fighting over this issue, the best is to look for solutions that is acceptable for both.


Originally posted by horseback:
As I pointed out in my earlier post, the real life gunners never got anything like the amount of practice that your ten year old example gets.
True for yourself as well, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I mean, with the blessing of the refly button and the in-game simplifications, the human virtual fighter pilots are also more experienced in gunnery, than many of the real pilots out there. So the argument is valid for both sides.



Originally posted by horseback:
I would contend that it takes significantly less skill than the real thing, and it is far out of proportion to the in-game difficulty of actually flying a WWII combat aircraft. True to the human-controlled virtual fighter pilots as well.


Originally posted by horseback:
From an immersion standpoint, a Player fighter pilot facing your ten year old mouse-gunner or his AI counterpart is at a huge and unrealistic disadvantage, and should have the chance to choose whether he wants to play the offline campaign that way.
My point is that you, as a fighter pilot, are at an even greater disadvantage when a human gunner is facing you, so instead of trying to further dumb down the AI, the correct solution would take care of modelling the defensive guns in such way, that it would take more skills to achieve kills, both for the human gunners as well as AI gunners. At least in offline, or in co-ops, you can take their level to rookie, which is producing more or less acceptable results.


Originally posted by horseback:
This game has a very simplified model for aiming the defensive guns.
And that exactly my point. Simplifying (dumbing) it further down will make it even more unrealistic, not the opposite. To make it more realistic, the missing modelling aspects are needed, such as

- gun weight (including their momentum when swinging them around)

- effects of airframe vibration on bullet dispersion (especially for damaged bombers, which can't fly as smooth as healty ones)

- DM effects on gunners - higher probability of wounds, blackouts, and their detrimental effect on aiming.

Please note my point: I agree that there is a need to refine the gunner modelling, however, I think the approach of "AI are overmodelled, make them dumber and less effective, make them sitting ducks" is totally wrong, because it would contradict what this sim stands for: serious challenges, which you can get around with a lot of practice. Instead, I suggest increasing the challenges on the gunners' side as well, instead of administratively prohibiting gunners to aim at all.

Although I may stir the pond a little bit, here is what I truly think:

It's absolutely NOT TRUE that the AI is overmodelled. In fact, they are seriously UNDER-MODELLED, most notably in the effects that negatively influence their aiming (and for AI fighters) their fighting abilities. The lack of that modelling causes their over-performance in some areas, while they are still dumb and stupid in other areas.

Therefore I can only support increasing the accuracy of the gunner modelling, both AI and human, meaning more challenges to them, but not administrative, unresolvable barries.

DKoor
04-02-2007, 04:29 AM
Me too, I support increase in accuracy and toughness overall, but I guess that 99% other players (n00bs) wont really agree to be sniped out from 700m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I'm in... for Godlike accuracy - they should be a lot tougher so that I can't shot down more than one or two, certainly not 20 per sortie as it is at this moment.

But I'm pretty sure it would be 100% impossible for them to make a bomber that I can't down no matter how hard they try.

Bo-ring http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

rnzoli
04-02-2007, 05:02 AM
LOL, I meant to increase the accuracy of modelling (so as to include the shooting accuracy problems in RL), not the gunner's shooting accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I rather clarify this before horseback turns red from anger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I should have used the term "fidelity of modelling".

M_Gunz
04-02-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EVERY shot a defensive gunner made to any angle other than a dead six or twelve o'clock level, was off axis, and he had to correct his shots not only for his target's relative motion, but also for his own aircraft's forward momentum.</span> Every shot was high deflection, and inaccurately judged bursts were scattered and ineffective.


If you say so then I guess these guys were just jerking off. (http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/11_Training.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm, your own link proves his point.

http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/tech/Deflection/LineOfFire.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why they were taught to correct for the effect, as other diagrams on the same page
show. But then I didn't go selectively blind. Nor do I discount the ability to see tracers
and correct fire but then I've done that IRL.

I don't say that IRL the gunners were snipers at all. Or that 30 to 50 cal fire should be
able to give me a headshot on the first round through FW-190 armorglass windshield either,
which has happened to me more than once in game. I get around it by not flying a steady
line in rear chase and don't get caught by many golden BB's but that may just be my luck.

I sure as H don't go off the deep end and exaggerate RL conditions either.

Schweinfurt... one of those raids went very badly as timed bombs were dropped by some planes
that caught others at low level. There was also the usual heavy numbers of AA which Germany
had sited at and on the way to every oil refinery but lets just concentrate on the fighter
intercepts as if they did all the getting. And for completeness sake, do not go by the words
of LW pilots that dreaded attacking bomber boxes more than facing enemy fighters because that
would not make the picture of totally ineffective gunners the concrete-solid case I seem to
be reading here, not at all.

IOW, even though in game I do find the bomber gunners to be tough I sure don't find them as
unbeatable unless perhaps my survival should be a gimmie? I look at the case horseback
presents and find it to be strongly slanted as well. Fact is what I did learn from one WWII
bomber crewman was that those door guns had a load of scatter, the width of a boxcar at not
too many 100 yards during training. They shook while firing. Not so great for effect when
you hit but more chance of getting hits.

I just wish that the case presented could be a bit more real, a lot less slanted. If a
fighter stands off well over 500m away and shoots 20mm then is that totally out of range of
50 cal fire? Not if he stays relatively steady.

I've seen this same 'issue' brought up before and I have also seen tracks on AEP showing
fighters downing bombers without being hit by the gunners at all. The trick is in how you
do it as the tracks showed. The posts said one thing and the tracks showed another.

Oh well. Dumb the gunners down then see how many players can take down 5+ bombers per sortie.

luftluuver
04-02-2007, 06:14 AM
Schweinfurt... one of those raids went very badly as timed bombs were dropped by some planes
that caught others at low level. There was also the usual heavy numbers of AA which Germany
had sited at and on the way to every oil refinery but lets just concentrate on the fighter
intercepts as if they did all the getting. Sure you got the place name correct. A little bird tells me the place name for what you describe begins with a 'P'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stanford-ukded
04-02-2007, 08:57 AM
Pagham, 2 miles from Bognor Regis?

M_Gunz
04-02-2007, 11:45 AM
There was timed bombs and low level action at Ploesti, yes.
And not much later it was back running.

There were TWO raids at Schweinfurt and one went really bad.

Both sites had incredible numbers of AAA.

horseback
04-02-2007, 01:12 PM
Schweinfurt was a major ball-bearing manufacturing center, and the site of two major setbacks for the 8th Bomber Command in August and October of 1943.

The August raid pretty much put an end to any illusions on the part of the USAAF that the bombers could venture out past the range of the escort fighters, but the October raid was an attempt to fool the Germans by diverting them with a feint in the other direction by an earlier bombing raid. As I remember from my reading of The Mighty Eighth last year, the diversion raid was either delayed or the Germans missed it for some reason.

In any case, once the P-47 escorts turned back, the LW was ready & waiting for the bombers on their way to Schweinfurt, and a slaughter took place. The heavy twin engined fighters broke up the bomber boxes with rocket and heavy cannon fire, and the single engined fighters mopped up the scattered pairs and singles with impunity.

As I recall, the American losses were close to one third after all the written off aircraft were lumped in with the ones who never returned.

It is quite revealing that US Army infantry losses in the ETO did not surpass AAF bomber crew losses until the Battle of the Bulge...

cheers

horseback

horseback
04-02-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
AI routines are the same offline or online. Essentially, if you ask Oleg to make all bombers an easy meat, that will make all bombers a certain deatch sentence to fly, so there is no point to make any of the bombers flyable, because nobody would ever fly them. It's not a problem for you, I know. But keep in mind that it can be a problem for others, so to avoid fighting over this issue, the best is to look for solutions that is acceptable for both. If we are both talking about the upcoming simulation, we cannot be sure how the AI will be coded. My suggestion was for a Player selectable maximum range for the AI defensive gunners. In the current version of IL-2, rounds 'cease to exist' after about 1000m. If the Player (or Players, in the case of a coop or online server) wants to go with AI gunners having a max range of 1000m or a more realistic range, it would be no skin off my nose. I simply want to be able to choose for myself whether I want an 'even playing field' where there was none, or try to recreate a historically accurate situation. As I posted earlier, tight formations should still be fairly dangerous to approach; it's the individual and pairs of multiseaters that should be safe for the single engined fighter to attack with a high degree of confidence.

However, the current situation, which turns the fighter vs bomber equation on its historical head, is unacceptable to me and most offliners with a smidgen of WWII air war knowlege.

I mean, with the blessing of the refly button and the in-game simplifications, the human virtual fighter pilots are also more experienced in gunnery, than many of the real pilots out there. So the argument is valid for both sides. Not in my opinion. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The task of the aerial gunner was infinitely more difficult than that of a fighter pilot.</span> He was firing off-axis in two dimensions with no computer to compensate over open sights with a single, often light caliber machine gun to shoot down (okay let's be honest here. His job was really to 'dissuade' the fighters from coming too close and making effective attacks) and aircraft aiming at him with multiple heavy guns and a calibrated reflector sight approaching at pretty high speeds and a constantly varying range and bearing.

The current game's modeling of the gunner's task is vastly more simplified than the virtual fighter pilot's.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
From an immersion standpoint, a Player fighter pilot facing your ten year old mouse-gunner or his AI counterpart is at a huge and unrealistic disadvantage, and should have the chance to choose whether he wants to play the offline campaign that way.
My point is that you, as a fighter pilot, are at an even greater disadvantage when a human gunner is facing you, so instead of trying to further dumb down the AI, the correct solution would take care of modelling the defensive guns in such way, that it would take more skills to achieve kills, both for the human gunners as well as AI gunners. At least in offline, or in co-ops, you can take their level to rookie, which is producing more or less acceptable results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My point from the beginning has been that the so-called 'Rookie' level is more than three times as effective as the best a human being in a real life gunner's place could possibly do, and seriously challenges the capabilities of modern gunfire control systems. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The reason I am looking for change in the system is that the current system is heavily weighted against the fighter attacking one or two AI multiseaters with defensive gunners.</span> I want a means of redressing that imbalance. It is unbelievably frustrating to get taken out by a popgun fired from an aircraft rolling into a split S 300m away five out of every seven times.

Again, this is about immersion and realistic tactics, not 'playing games'.

I'm divorced. I don't want to play stupid games any more.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
This game has a very simplified model for aiming the defensive guns.
And that's exactly my point. Simplifying (dumbing) it further down will make it even more unrealistic, not the opposite. To make it more realistic, the missing modelling aspects are needed, such as

- gun weight (including their momentum when swinging them around)

- effects of airframe vibration on bullet dispersion (especially for damaged bombers, which can't fly as smooth as healty ones)

- DM effects on gunners - higher probability of wounds, blackouts, and their detrimental effect on aiming.

Please note my point: I agree that there is a need to refine the gunner modelling, however, I think the approach of "AI are overmodelled, make them dumber and less effective, make them sitting ducks" is totally wrong, because it would contradict what this sim stands for: serious challenges, which you can get around with a lot of practice. Instead, I suggest increasing the challenges on the gunners' side as well, instead of administratively prohibiting gunners to aim at all.

Although I may stir the pond a little bit, here is what I truly think:

It's absolutely NOT TRUE that the AI is overmodelled. In fact, they are seriously UNDER-MODELLED, most notably in the effects that negatively influence their aiming (and for AI fighters) their fighting abilities. The lack of that modelling causes their over-performance in some areas, while they are still dumb and stupid in other areas.

Therefore I can only support increasing the accuracy of the gunner modelling, both AI and human, meaning more challenges to them, but not administrative, unresolvable barriers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, I'll accept that the process of defensive gunnery is undermodelled, if you'll accept that the RESULTS are grossly overmodelled. I'm not looking for sitting ducks, I just don't want to BE one. Instead of being a target for aircraft that were historically 98 pound weaklings, I'd just like to kick a little sand in that Stuka's face for a change.

If you really want a realistic defensive gunnery model, then maybe we should look at segregating AI bombers from human crewed bombers, and require all the positions on a human piloted bomber to be manned by human players. Let's see how well a human wiggling that mouse can aim when there's another goof like him in the pilot's seat jerking him off his target just as he's lining it up for the kill.

cheers

horseback

lowfighter
04-03-2007, 12:07 AM
Fly a B25 set to average against say 4 average weakly armed and vulnerable fighter planes like Ki-43 (to make fight last longer). Hit autopilot and go to the tail gunner or the upper gunner. Hit auto again to let the AI man that gun. Do it a couple of times to see the pattern. Tell me what you see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
There are a couple of things happening or NOT happening there which are worth seeing with own eyes.

DKoor
04-03-2007, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Again, this is about immersion and realistic tactics, not 'playing games'.

I'm divorced. I don't want to play stupid games any more. I have to disagree there.
If you have said "this should be about immersion and realistic tactics, not playing games" I'd agree on that.
But this whole game and so many things in it are mocked up to the point of a joke.
Game? This is a game, and resembles reality in very low amount. But it can be noted that this game had the potential to resemble reality very well - even with current limitations.

Everything is there, totally obvious for all who like to see it and there is 0% reason for arguing.