Why were fighters ever needed, if Bombers were as strong as ingame?

[Sokol1]

Be watch you AI gunner is possible see how gunners fire range is limited, he react only if plane are very close ~200 meters.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2014 by Sokol1

[7.GShAP/Silas]

If you're depending on AI gunners to protect you, then be sure to issue them two commands as soon as you enter the aircraft:

 

Fire at long range, and fire at will. That will help you out.

[J2_Trupobaw]

If you're depending on AI gunners to protect you, then be sure to issue them two commands as soon as you enter the aircraft:

 

Fire at long range, and fire at will. That will help you out.

 

... or at least will work as early warning.

 

Few thoughts on historical pilots. First, they worked in teams, hard to do in SP. Second, they were more careful in positioning and attacking at safe angle, and more inclined to abort if odds were against them. If historical pilot failed to position himself against a bomber, so that only option of attack he had was pursuit, trading fire with gunners etc, he could and would say "I failed positioning, it's suicide now" and not attack, or abort when defensive fire became to dense, return home and log a failed mission with no loses. Sim player is less likely to abort an attack, even if he bothered with positioning at all. He will proceed with attack on slim chance it may succeed, will get shot down more often than not and will claim bombers are tough. When facing unfavourable odds, fighter pilot's approach was "I didn't survive this far to get myself killed in stupid way", while players approach is closer to "I didn't waste 7 minutes climbing and chasing that bomber just to abort an attack". 

 

Victory or respawn scenario is much easier to get into than victory or death was .

Edited November 21, 2014 by Trupobaw

[unreasonable]

Your comments are very true and make MP a bit of a joke. Unfortunately, the SP AI seems to have the same mentality.

 

I suppose it is just a matter of making a game that is fun while including simulation of the planes and weapons as opposed to simulating actual military operations.

 

The only way to work in teams in BoS SP is to let the wingman AI do its thing (since it ignores you as soon as it sees the enemy) and try to catch enemy AI that get target fixated on your wingman. This used to work very well for me in IL2 1946 and RoF but for some reason I am struggling in BoS. Getting old, I expect. Time to take up something more sedate, like sailing ships...

[Sokol1]

> Fire at long range, and fire at will

 

Always use this, but Pe-2 gunner still "absent-minded".  He move for fire position only if plane are around 200 meters and flying straight at dead six (like players used to do).

[Yakdriver]

at dead six, he might not be able to shoot him,... the gun does not go down the few ° that are needed for that?!
not the gunners fauklt un that case - you too need to help him by moving in a manner that enables him to shoot.

[Sokol1]

You are put the things too "technically" - be "dead six" I mean the rear quarter of plane, not a straight line with plane fuselage center.

[Yakdriver]

okay...

i am a mechanic and an It technician by trade so.... i have a technical mindset

Edited November 21, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[Sokol1]

Since AI gunner on player plane refuse shoot at enemy fighters...

 

Edited November 22, 2014 by Sokol1

[SharpeXB]

Good attack Sokol1 you make it look easy

 

This makes me wonder why did disigners and pilots in WW2 think that their airplanes need to have 20mm or 30mm cannons for shooting down enemy airplanes, when pair of small caliber machine guns were so deadly.

 

What a overkill is 6x .50 cal on P-40 when even one or two was so powerful against airplanes, or Me-262 with 4x30mm canons...and Fw-190 had to have 4x20mm, why not only MGs in nouse. They could do wonders with FW then, with light airplane and not having overkill guns in wings that they obviously didn't need

I assume you are kidding when you say WWII planes didn't need cannons. Sure a very accurate shot from a .30 cal bullet could bring down any aircraft. But rifle caliber bullets were an underestimation in the early fighter designs.

flaw with ai: player gunner always shite since your plane moves realistic. while enemy gunners always marksman since their pilots just fly on a track

In BoS the AI uses the same flight model as the player so this isn't the case.

[avlSteve]

This may be one of many reasons I'm a fool, but whenever I go into MP, I always feel compelled to never carry extra guns, ammo, or fuel.  Unless it's the armored glass or removed headrest in a 109, I'm stock in a fighter, with no more than 33% fuel.

 

Is that dumb?

 

Edit:  Oh, God.  I'm the master of OT posts.

Edited November 23, 2014 by avlSteve

[Willy__]

This may be one of many reasons I'm a fool, but whenever I go into MP, I always feel compelled to never carry extra guns, ammo, or fuel.  Unless it's the armored glass or removed headrest in a 109, I'm stock in a fighter, with no more than 33% fuel.

 

 

I neve take less than 50% fuel. As I have somewhat a careful way of flying, I prefer to be flying around a few more minutes than the boost on performance for having less fuel onboard.

 

About the guns, bombs, etc. It depends, if I'm going on a jabo mission I usually take the 250 or 500kg bomb with the 109/190. For the stuka I tend to mix up things and every sortie is a different loadout.

I dont take the gunpods for the 109 though.

 

The only thing I take with me almost everytime is the additional cannons for the 190. Dat firepower!!! 

Edited November 23, 2014 by istruba