PDA

View Full Version : Val reargunner



jugent
08-01-2005, 03:24 AM
Dismount the Val (D3A1) reargunner (AI). I think he is blind.
I have been flying the Val for a long time and the Dauntless for a shorter time.

The reargunner (AI) of the Dauntless (SBD) is lethal to the Zero, but the Vals reargunner must be intoxicated.

I know that the Zero and the Val is built of ricepaper and bamboo-sticks and that the Dauntless is made of aluminium and steel and got more firepower.
Take a look at japaneese- and american cars of today and compare.
Statistics Val 23 sorties on Zekes vs Wildcats wich resulted in that I get shoot down.
Ive meet F2:s, I-16:s I-153 and P-40 and no one has been shoot down by the reargunner!!!!
For the Dauntless, there more common that I get at least one Zero for every time I get killed.
I havnt saved any tracks of this but I can say that every time I am attacked I get one zero killed or limping back home with the engine smoking.

Is this great difference as it was in real life?

jugent
08-01-2005, 03:24 AM
Dismount the Val (D3A1) reargunner (AI). I think he is blind.
I have been flying the Val for a long time and the Dauntless for a shorter time.

The reargunner (AI) of the Dauntless (SBD) is lethal to the Zero, but the Vals reargunner must be intoxicated.

I know that the Zero and the Val is built of ricepaper and bamboo-sticks and that the Dauntless is made of aluminium and steel and got more firepower.
Take a look at japaneese- and american cars of today and compare.
Statistics Val 23 sorties on Zekes vs Wildcats wich resulted in that I get shoot down.
Ive meet F2:s, I-16:s I-153 and P-40 and no one has been shoot down by the reargunner!!!!
For the Dauntless, there more common that I get at least one Zero for every time I get killed.
I havnt saved any tracks of this but I can say that every time I am attacked I get one zero killed or limping back home with the engine smoking.

Is this great difference as it was in real life?

HotelBushranger
08-01-2005, 03:44 AM
Well, think about:

First of all, Vals flew in large bomber formations. This means dozens of guns trained on only a few fighters, means added proteection and safety in numbers.

The Val was actually, for a dive bomber, a very aerobatic plane. The low aspect ration wings gave it great turning power, in some cases even more than some US fighters, and nearly on par with the Zero. Therefore, in the cases that a Val was on its own, it would use its agility to dodge the US guns. It was actually used as an auxilary fighter at some bases.

And the final, and most important fact.



AI gunners are noobs.

Hope this helped http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blindpugh
08-01-2005, 04:34 AM
personally i think all gunners in game are far too uber

WarWolfe_1
08-01-2005, 05:19 AM
try sitting skill to ace in QMB. I've been shot down by AI gunners .70-.90 from them, very humbling.

F19_Ob
08-01-2005, 05:59 AM
Regarding the val reagunner compared to dauntless, the dauntless usually win with two heavy mg's wich is a lot more than a single light mg.

other than that.......

Sometimes people complain that the ai gunners are too good (usually when they get hit) but if humans could man the guns bombers would be more deadly.

Since the ai cant think, the gunners miscalculate deflection or simply fire in a totally different area where there is nothing to shoot at. Ai Bombergunners are also much slower than in real life where a side gunner could swivel the gun very quickly.

Most ai gunners can only hit reasonably well if the attacker is straight or almost straight behind the bomber.

Online Usually any bomber or fighterbomber with ai gunners are sitting ducks if the pilot have limited tactical knowledge.

I never trust my ai gunners but I try to make it easier for them to hit by going in a shallow dive with a slow turn. If i'm on the deck I fly in a slo waveing style, gently up and down, but always in a slow turn with an element of climb or descent.
This forces the attacker first to catch up and attack from behind wich gives the gunner the best angle to fire.

Online I often man the gunnerpositions myself and mostly do a much better job predicting the path of an attacker. At close range I let the ai work and try to maneuver so I give the hardest possible angles for the attacker and hope for a lucky shot from the ai, wich seldom happens.

well, my thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-01-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
try sitting skill to ace in QMB. I've been shot down by AI gunners .70-.90 from them, very humbling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tht is true.. they are snipers when you give them a chance.
You made me remember the good old IL-2 days when you can get shot down by gunner from over 1k distance.(I remember that on one occasion I have chewed up Su-2 gunner's bullet from over 1k distance).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HotelBushranger wrote:
AI gunners are noobs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they are not. On ACE skill level they are more accurate than I will ever be.
It is not unusual to rack up more than 3 gunner kills per sortie in B-29, Pe-8 or other heavy, Try it on RCAF_FB server (AFAIK they have AI only bombers as flyables there).

Take heading for enemy zone on decent alt, set throttle to cruise speed, then press level autopilot button and you may went for a cup of coffee. By the time you return to your PC you should have a few kills.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Jaws2002
08-01-2005, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Regarding the val reagunner compared to dauntless, the dauntless usually win with two heavy mg's wich is a lot more than a single light mg.

other than that.......

Sometimes people complain that the ai gunners are too good (usually when they get hit) but if humans could man the guns bombers would be more deadly.

Since the ai cant think, the gunners miscalculate deflection or simply fire in a totally different area where there is nothing to shoot at. Ai Bombergunners are also much slower than in real life where a side gunner could swivel the gun very quickly.

Most ai gunners can only hit reasonably well if the attacker is straight or almost straight behind the bomber.

Online Usually any bomber or fighterbomber with ai gunners are sitting ducks if the pilot have limited tactical knowledge.

I never trust my ai gunners but I try to make it easier for them to hit by going in a shallow dive with a slow turn. If i'm on the deck I fly in a slo waveing style, gently up and down, but always in a slow turn with an element of climb or descent.
This forces the attacker first to catch up and attack from behind wich gives the gunner the best angle to fire.

Online I often man the gunnerpositions myself and mostly do a much better job predicting the path of an attacker. At close range I let the ai work and try to maneuver so I give the hardest possible angles for the attacker and hope for a lucky shot from the ai, wich seldom happens.

well, my thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully gree.I allways do better then my ai gunner. He's just wasting ammo. I like the 110 rear gun on Spits and hurricanes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

jugent
08-02-2005, 01:28 AM
Every time there is a lot of circumstances that have to be fulfilled to achieve the strength of a under modelled aircraft "they where supposed to fly at night and above 5000m"
The Dauntless can operate alone, it can sink ships with bombs, it can take lot of damage.

If it sounds like a duck it can be a duck but also someone trying to look like a duck, if it walks like a duck it can also be a goose, if it leaves footprints like a duck it can also be a seagull but all together its most likely that its a duck.

Stop wiggling and face the fact, this game favourites the allied side.

Tully__
08-02-2005, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Stop wiggling and face the fact, this game favourites the allied side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that's the case, why are there so many people complaining that the allied aircraft don't perform well enough and the axis aircraft perform too well?

Also, why does Oleg Maddox prefer to fly Axis aircraft when he plays the game?

JtD
08-02-2005, 02:44 AM
Has all been mentioned but I think I'll sum it up:

The SBD has two machine guns (light ones F19_Ob http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), the Val only one. The SBD is a tough aircraft, it can sustain more damage than the D3A. D3A's take quite a pounding, too, but not as much as a SBD. But most important: The F4-F is a tough aircraft, while the A6M isn't. So it is not surprising that the SBD does better against A6M's than the D3A vs F4-F's.

However, irl when US planes attacked the IJN fleet off Midway, the SBD'S fell like flies to the A6M's. In FB this is fairly hard to do, but with proper tactics it is still possible. I bet the Japanese used proper tactics back in 1942.

Tooz_69GIAP
08-02-2005, 04:54 AM
Far as I'm aware, the Val has 1x7.7mm gun in the back, and the SBD has 2x.30 cals in the back.

Also, the traverse distance of the SBD is huge compared to the Val. The SBD can traverse it's guns into the forward hemisphere of the flight path, whereas the Val can only traverse a few degrees in the rear hemisphere in camparison.

These factors go a long way to showing why the SBD is more likely to get kills from the rear than the Val.

jugent
08-02-2005, 03:32 PM
What nickname uses Oleg when he flies?

I fly 3 missions as allied and 7 as axis-pilot.
In flights there are 50% fighter 30% divebomber/Jabo and the rest as levelbomber/toredoe-attacker.

When I started to fly FB/PF i flew only for the allies.

Four examples of how the game favourites the allies;


1. The USAF, RN ships can take much more damage before they get killed. A destroyer can take 6 250 kg bombs and stay a-float, and the AAA is more effective. I don€t know if it got better guns or if the a/c are more vulnerable.

2. The axis planes are unstable and uncomfortable in flight and the allies feel nice. Compare two turn and burn planes Me 109 G6 and Spit IX. The spit cuts the air like a knife, the 109 wobbles from side to side.
Compare two Boom and Zoom planes, FW 190 and the "cat-family" the cat is solid as a rock, the FW corkscrews its way in the air.

3. The allied planes can take more damage, compare the FW known as a "die-hard" plane or is it only propaganda, and the Cat-family. I feel safe in the Allied planes but not in the FW.

4. There is always a way to get out alive in an allied plane in the pacific, they are tougher and faster, but they don€t curve so well.
In a FW or a Me there is always some faster and many times more manoeuvrable aircraft that you meet and the spits always outclimbs a Me of same vintage.

And the overall scenario in the Pacific is better suited for the allies.
It is most attacking ships that gives the victory.
The allies have the A20 Beufighter for torpedoes and the B25 for bombs.
The A20 and B25 are tough planes, more than a match for a Zero.

For dive-bombing is the issue already well described.

The GM3 has very little chance to live so long that its torpedoes can reach the target. Its wing tanks leak fuel like a monsoon rain, and can burn with no fuel in it.

Of course can the IJN do it but they need more skill and cooperation than USN for success.

The later in the war, the more significant was the allies superiority in the total sum of aircrafts.
It was 10 to 1 many times and still was Japanese pilots able to fulfil some missions.
And the allies were radar guided, which wasn€t operative for IJN.

Imagine what would happened if 10 Val:s escorted by 5 Zeroes was discovered and attacked by Hellcats in this game.

I don€t say that the allies didn€t do anything right and got bad planes, but this game doesn€t give the true picture.
I don€t expect it to do so either but it would be easy to correct. It would be more of a challenge to all allied pilots.

Atomic_Marten
08-02-2005, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Stop wiggling and face the fact, this game favourites the allied side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that's the case, why are there so many people complaining that the allied aircraft don't perform well enough and the axis aircraft perform too well?

Also, why does Oleg Maddox prefer to fly Axis aircraft when he plays the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am there with Tully. I certainly do not think that axis planes are inferior.. there are inferior and superior aircraft operated by both, allies and axis in game.

And BTW while I am at it, Spitfire in game is no match for Messerschmitts G6AS, G10 and K4. Every type mentioned will eat Spit alive if flown right. For me FW-190 is one of the safest planes in game, since opposition do not have MK108s which will tear enemy plane apart in short burst. This way when you are badly hit you can always hit the silk if the .30s/.50s/20mms don't kill you first.

And yes, FW-190D is used to be faster than Spitfire last time I checked.

horseback
08-02-2005, 04:18 PM
I think something is a little unclear to some here. The bomber fliers complain that their AI gunners are half blind spastics, and the fighter fliers moan that they can't get close enough to the bombers to take 'em out before the sniper AI PKs them or disables their engine.

They can't both be right...

Or can they?

My deeply held belief is that the AI, friendly or not, are out to screw the player. Playing as a fighter pilot in a campaign means that your AI wingmen are going to run away from you at ludicrous speeds en route to the target, hide behind your canopy frames or wings so that they can collide with you once you finally catch up and try to take your place in formation, fire at your targets from behind and (occasionally through) you, ignore your calls for help when you actually need their support, and fly like morons against supposedly lower ranked opponents in lesser aircraft. The enemy AI pilots, on the other hand, can be counted on to concentrate on your plane, rarely if ever run out of E, know exactly when you have them at convergence range, and if they are equipped with AI gunners, hit you with astonishing regularity from astounding distances & angles in a way that a modern computerized fire control system would find hard to match...

If, however, that same AI gunner program is used on a human piloted aircraft, I have yet to see evidence of it, and judging from complaints I see on these boards, no one else has either. Call them the ******ed first cousins of your AI wingmen.

In all cases, the AI conspire against the player's chances of success, and make the use of historical tactics almost impossible.

cheers

horseback

WarWolfe_1
08-02-2005, 04:24 PM
Now that you have pointed it out Horseback I believe you are right......

VW-IceFire
08-02-2005, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Dismount the Val (D3A1) reargunner (AI). I think he is blind.
I have been flying the Val for a long time and the Dauntless for a shorter time.

The reargunner (AI) of the Dauntless (SBD) is lethal to the Zero, but the Vals reargunner must be intoxicated.

I know that the Zero and the Val is built of ricepaper and bamboo-sticks and that the Dauntless is made of aluminium and steel and got more firepower.
Take a look at japaneese- and american cars of today and compare.
Statistics Val 23 sorties on Zekes vs Wildcats wich resulted in that I get shoot down.
Ive meet F2:s, I-16:s I-153 and P-40 and no one has been shoot down by the reargunner!!!!
For the Dauntless, there more common that I get at least one Zero for every time I get killed.
I havnt saved any tracks of this but I can say that every time I am attacked I get one zero killed or limping back home with the engine smoking.

Is this great difference as it was in real life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A Wildcat is going to take quite a bit more of a beating from a single 7.7mm flexible mount machine gun than a Zero is from a twin .30cal.

Thats the biggest difference. Vals still take my engine out quite a bit...but only from the dead six attack. Dauntlesses are much more dangerous as the gun has more movement and you can be targeted from very odd off angles as well.

Tully__
08-02-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
If, however, that same AI gunner program is used on a human piloted aircraft, I have yet to see evidence of it, and judging from complaints I see on these boards, no one else has either. Call them the ******ed first cousins of your AI wingmen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you fly exactly the way an AI pilot does, your AI gunners do quite well. They seem to be programmed to anticipate the pilot behaviour of the AI pilots. Anything else really messes up their aim.

p1ngu666
08-02-2005, 06:12 PM
the single 7.7mm isnt that good, and teh skill of ai gunners vary alot

stuka full ai plane was more deadly than anything else the lw fielded...

b29 gunners where pretty useless before...

chris455
08-03-2005, 12:42 AM
Try attacking the Val AI. Those sniper gunners make Carlos Hathcock look like Homer Simpson. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif