Jump to content
Zenki

OP rear gunners

Recommended Posts

Just for information

 

Armour penetration part 1:

 

 

best case scenario

example 1 firing against armour plate: ( like we would do it against a tank )

 

post-385-0-67478400-1479057933_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example we use the standart .50 AP which is able to penetrat 25mm at 100m with 90° impact:

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at this angle the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could penetrat up to 25mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

 

 

second best scenario

example 2 firing against armour plate with diffrent angle: ( like we would do it against a tank )

 

post-385-0-53310700-1479057390_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example 2 we use the german 7,92mm AP ammo SmK-v (Spitzgeschoss mit Stahlkern verbessert = improved pointed bullet with steelcore ) which is able to penetrat 12mm at 100m with 90° impact,

8mm at 100m with 60° and 3,5mm at 100m with 30°

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at 90° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could penetrat up to 12mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 60° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 5,77mm and since it could penetrat up to 8mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 30° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 10mm and since it is only able to penetrat up to 3,5mm under this condition we will fail to penetrat the armour for the first time.

 

 

third best case scenario:

example 3 firing against armour plate which has a 3mm aluminium plate at 20° 1,5m before the armour plate: ( like we would have it against a aircraft )

 

post-385-0-83288200-1479059731_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example we use the standart .50 AP which is able to penetrat 25mm at 100m with 90° impact:

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at this angle the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm but because we hit the aluminium plate first oure projectile starts to yaw which disturb the straight flight so that it fails to hit the armour head-on, thereby significantly reducing its penetrative abilitis to only  10mm at 90° at 100 m.

Since he armour is only 5mm we will penetrat.

 

 

 

 

worst case scenario:

example 4 firing against armour plate which has a 3mm aluminium plate at 20° 1,5m before the armour plate with diffrent angels: ( like we would have it against a aircraft )

 

post-385-0-60821600-1479061425_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example 4 we use again the german 7,92mm AP ammo SmK-v (Spitzgeschoss mit Stahlkern verbessert = improved pointed bullet with steelcore ) which is able to penetrat 4mm at 100m with 90° impact,

3mm at 100m with 60° and 2,5mm at 100m with 30°

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at 90° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could only penetrat up to 4mm under this condition we will fail to penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 60° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 5,77mm and since it could only penetrat up to 3mm under this condition we will again fail to penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 30° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 10mm and since it is only able to penetrat up to 2,5mm under this condition we will also fail to penetrat the armour.

 

The .50 AP could penetrat 14mm at 60° at 100m under this condition wich is enough to penetrat however it would fail at 30° most of the time. The 4mm engine armour of the IL2 will also protect from a large number of shots fired at 30° or less

 

Also AP/I or AP/T rounds are worse than pure AP rounds because they are not as heavy and lose speed faster.

For example the 12,7mm Berezin AP/I was falling from 25mm at 100m with 90° to only 8,5mm at 100m with 90° after passing the aluminium plate.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diffrent armour plates:

 

8mm:

post-385-0-93003500-1479062062_thumb.jpg

 

12mm:

post-385-0-39456100-1479062027_thumb.jpg

 

penetration data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sX8ZB27l94Dy7DXSG6dbhXqbVKdvJ78MDlmnUMD4Q3M/edit#gid=1465002216

 

:salute:

Edited by Gunsmith86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these footage has nothing to do with netcode problems, lagging, etc. As soon as we see smoke puffs on the hit plane the netcode worked and the hit was counted, otherwise there wouldn't be smoke puffs. It's a design issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All these footage has nothing to do with netcode problems, lagging, etc. As soon as we see smoke puffs on the hit plane the netcode worked and the hit was counted, otherwise there wouldn't be smoke puffs.

 

He was being sarcastic, Manfred.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high speed are the passes you are making when you get shot? 300-400 kph speed difference?

If not then thats why..

You dont pull up and sit behind them..

You make passes with a speed difference in the hundreds of kph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was being sarcastic, Manfred.

I know Staiger, it also wasn't meant as criticism. Just wanted to say it, because it often arise as explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high speed are the passes you are making when you get shot? 300-400 kph speed difference?

 

If not then thats why..

 

You dont pull up and sit behind them..

 

You make passes with a speed difference in the hundreds of kph.

 

Did you even watch that video above that E69_geramos109 posted? :acute:

 

Mr.X was traveling at 570km/h. The Peshka would have probably been doing around 350-400ish?

That was at least a 850-900km/h speed difference on that pass and yet the gunner still destroyed the 109 in a single burst after he flew past on the gunners blind side with the typical hit to the tail section and the 109 falling to pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high speed are the passes you are making when you get shot? 300-400 kph speed difference?

 

If not then thats why..

 

You dont pull up and sit behind them..

 

You make passes with a speed difference in the hundreds of kph.

 

 

Did you even watch that video above that E69_geramos109 posted? :acute:

 

Mr.X was traveling at 570km/h. The Peshka would have probably been doing around 350-400ish?

That was at least a 850-900km/h speed difference on that pass and yet the gunner still destroyed the 109 in a single burst after he flew past on the gunners blind side with the typical hit to the tail section and the 109 falling to pieces.

 

What amazes me the most is that the 109 came in a side-ish frontal attack, around 1 o'clock of the pe2, and the lower gunner was able to shoot and hit the 109.

Edited by JAGER_Staiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these footage has nothing to do with netcode problems, lagging, etc. As soon as we see smoke puffs on the hit plane the netcode worked and the hit was counted, otherwise there wouldn't be smoke puffs. It's a design issue.

This would only be true when you are on the receiving side. If you hit someone and see the puffs this is no indication. (As what is simulated on your pc must then be sent to the other player and that is where packages are lost)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Jordan, that's true.

 

Best would be to have records from both 'participants' when such things occur then we could compare them. On the receiving side then the plane shouldn't be hit at all if we have a netcode issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rewatched the video, and if you look from 2:11 you can see that the smoke puffs appear at places where the 109 was but some time before. I had it twice on TAW, that my connection was instable and the gunners fired at a spot where my plane was seconds ago. They fired at it statically for many seconds and soon after my plane just blew up. So I guess that when packages are lost the plane often stops in midair for the other player, making it also easier to shoot for AI gunners. This is of course apart from that they should not be able to hit anything in a spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious that P2 Gunners packages are never lost. I never lose packages when i fly russian.

 

Now seriously. With net code or not they must solve that. Is just ridiculous how they can just snap shot on you and they blow the tail, the ammo rack etc with easy.

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious that P2 Gunners packages are never lost. I never lose packages when i fly russian.

 

 

That's just perception bias. I know you're making a wry joke here but too many people state their perception bias (which they may be unaware of) as fact and its tiresome.

 

 

Now seriously. With net code or not they must solve that. Is just ridiculous how they can just snap shot on you and they blow the tail, the ammo rack etc with easy.

 

 

I'm not sure if its netcode, or AI gunner aim, or what it is. The video shows a pretty funky thing... a gunner making a snapshot moments after a high speed pass. He appears to miss and the impact smoke appears meters away from the Bf109 which then looses its tail. There's a lot going on in that segment. Either way... yep that's pretty nuts and it shouldn't happen with any gunner on any plane.

 

I don't think we should go too far down the rabbit hole except to point these crazy moments out and try and give the devs as many data points as possible. Its likely that there are some bugs in the netcode (which game does not have bugs in netcode after all) but there may be an interaction between netcode, AI, packet loss/network conditions and so on that leads to situations like these. Its rarely one thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have allways the same story. 

If you upload a video attacking a P2 and you are hit, the people will tell you that you attack from pure 6, you had no enought speed difference, you were too close... etc. Becuase if you get some close the P2 will hit you allways and probably will kill your pilot, engine, or ammo rack with one brust. 

But with a he111 or even a Ju88 you can take his 6 all the time and yes, they probably will hit you once but no real danger to lose the plane. 

I have some kills flying german bombers but all of the kills were noob pilots just shotig me at close distance on my pure 6 with the same speed as if i were a fighter. 

Problem with P2 seems to be that you  are safe only few seconds  with the gunner  firing. After that seconds the gunner become a sniper and he will hit you even with cracy angle. Also the second gunner on the lower part of the plane seems to know exactly when and where you are going to pass and he manages to hit you with the firs brust with a cracy snap shot. That is the main reason why i was shot down all the times. I can more or less deal with the first gunner but if i pass trow the second one just a moment, im hit. 

 

I dont like to say russian bias and i take it allways as a joke but is so difficult not to think about that because most of  that kind of problems benefits allways the same side. Reds can not complain about a lot of things, their planes are much more simple to manage than in a complete simulation, allways with 0 trim behabiour, the soviet armament is quite effective, i just test the Mig3 with the nose Bs and i was amaced. The best armament of the game by far after the 23mm, their planes can just turn at hight speeds with no slats and they are stable, they can pull more Gs with no braking the wings, they dont have to deal with time limits and only focus on keep the engine cold enought, more durable planes etc etc. Im not telling that all this things are wrong but just is much more simple and easy to fly reds and the game mecaninc and simplification makes a large balance and a large gap between how they were and that is not bad on some points but that difference is not as noticeable with german planes and red side have to be much more happy with the actual performance they have. 

Devs are step by step changing and correcting some of the problems so lets take more evidence and lets insist to see if with time they could consider that. 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, right now the best way to deal with Pe2 is getting a 190 or 109 with gunpods, learn how the AI gunners react to humans (their reaction time and angles) and fight from there, essentially, gaming the game. If you are fast enough, you can have 1 maybe 2 second on his six before the AI reacts to you.

Edited by JAGER_Staiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, right now the best way to deal with Pe2 is getting a 190 or 109 with gunpods, learn how the AI gunners react to humans (their reaction time and angles) and fight from there, essentially, gaming the game. If you are fast enough, you can have 1 maybe 2 second on his six before the AI reacts to you.

You are right. I have learn to trick the IA and now i know the angles i can go and the time i have before the gunner snipes me. I use to fly allways with only the nose canon so you can imagine how difficult is and how good you have to be only with one gun. I also try to snipe him from long distances.

 

But of corse is not normal that we have to train that hard and to become excepctional shoters. So we can not represent the average pilot, not all can aim shots from more than 600m yawing with the rudder to shot down a P2.

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got shot down by a dead one in the second to last mission of the "Lost Hope" campaign.

I had killed the gunner with my first volley then proceeded to dogfight (!) for five minutes with the incredibly agile IL2 until finally getting in a decisive kill shot . . . only to be riddled at the same time by . . . what?

Yeah, I checked the replay. As I flew over the crippled and falling Sturmovic I saw the gun swing my way and proceed to hose my engine down . . . all while the gunner was slumped over dead.

Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Five_By_Five said:

I just got shot down by a dead one in the second to last mission of the "Lost Hope" campaign.

I had killed the gunner with my first volley then proceeded to dogfight (!) for five minutes with the incredibly agile IL2 until finally getting in a decisive kill shot . . . only to be riddled at the same time by . . . what?

Yeah, I checked the replay. As I flew over the crippled and falling Sturmovic I saw the gun swing my way and proceed to hose my engine down . . . all while the gunner was slumped over dead.

Amazing.

Are you sure he wasn't just faking it to lull you into a false sense of security? Waiting for just the right moment to pounce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

All you can blame is the AI with it's 360deg sphere of vision in any situation. Be it on planes or ground units. Look at heavy AA for example, tracks and loads at the same time while having constant fire rate. Heavy flak was used to fire a barrage, not track single planes. AI gunners are a joke in this game. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Five_By_Five said:

Yeah, I checked the replay. As I flew over the crippled and falling Sturmovic I saw the gun swing my way and proceed to hose my engine down . . . all while the gunner was slumped over dead.

Amazing.

 

I call them "zombie turrets" and they happen in a multiplayer for each side, as well. My last one was the Ju-88 which I damaged, then it gone down spinning, but somehow managed to rip my plane apart the moment before it crashed.

 

It feels like there is kind of a "automatic revenge" kill-switch, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Five_By_Five said:

I just got shot down by a dead one in the second to last mission of the "Lost Hope" campaign.

I had killed the gunner with my first volley then proceeded to dogfight (!) for five minutes with the incredibly agile IL2 until finally getting in a decisive kill shot . . . only to be riddled at the same time by . . . what?

Yeah, I checked the replay. As I flew over the crippled and falling Sturmovic I saw the gun swing my way and proceed to hose my engine down . . . all while the gunner was slumped over dead.

Amazing.

 

If you have that on a track you should post a bug report with the track on it.

 

It is harder to disentangle what is going on in MP since there are lag/netcode type issues,  but if you have it documented in SP there is a slightly better chance that whatever it is can get checked and fixed. Just posting about in in the forum will have no effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

All you can blame is the AI with it's 360deg sphere of vision in any situation. Be it on planes or ground units. Look at heavy AA for example, tracks and loads at the same time while having constant fire rate. Heavy flak was used to fire a barrage, not track single planes. AI gunners are a joke in this game. 

 

Indeed, often seen is when shooting certain plane head-on and zooming past at 1000 km/h of relative speed, to be shot and hit - often critically - by the bottom rear gunner who aims through a periscope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The target speed is largely irrelevant for the PC: that only changes the amount of lead and possibly reaction time if the gunner is initially unsighted as in @E69_geramos109's video.   The computer is good at calculating lead and can do it almost instantaneously.  What it cannot do, I believe, is calculate changes in your vector efficiently - or it could do better, but is not programmed to do this.  The 109 made two mistakes in that attack: one was to get below the Pe-2 at all and expose himself to the most powerful defensive gun, and the second was to fly in almost a straight line, which is very easy for the PC to predict.

 

FWIW I have been flying career in an F-2, and although I have been hit on a number of occasions by fighters, I have shot down many Pe-2s and never been downed by them: indeed I am not even sure that they have ever hit me, despite often having to attack formations of 6-9 planes.  In addition, AI gunners are incapable of aiming off for their own initial vector, or for wind, so while they are clearly superior to humans on occasion (firing from spinning, burning planes :) ) they are also much worse than human gunners in some respects.  

 

So give them a constantly changing vector and they will very rarely hit at all. Stay above them and the HMG in the belly becomes irrelevant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you people obviously never had to deal with stuff like this (and yes, it works from the front as well. We actually dropped the historically favoured mode of attack because it was just too dangerous for us):

 

 

So from a dedicated Hurricane flyer who had to deal with loads of 111s and Do-17s in CloD: The gunners in BoS are by miles more manageable and quite a bit away from the nightmarish snipers that some paint them to be. You don't fly dumb, you usually get away without problem.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heinkel gunner in your video didn't have any chance to miss you. You made yourself an absolutely easy prey, trying to pass him in a few meters distance. Every BOX gunner would have shot you to peaces, too. Maybe he would have taken his pistol, to save ammo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The Heinkel gunner in your video didn't have any chance to miss you. You made yourself an absolutely easy prey, trying to pass him in a few meters distance. Every BOX gunner would have shot you to peaces, too. Maybe he would have taken his pistol, to save ammo.

 

A bit of background on the vid: It's not me flying there. It's one of the ACG LW pilots who tried the other side. If I remember correctly, he never expected it to be so brutal. That's a lesson we all should remember once in a while.

 

The Nose gunners of the He111 is much worse than that. Yes, he made an easy target but, for example, headon attacks (the tactic chosen by the RAF because it was safer and had a higher chance to knock out the bombers) are practically suicide. They would often pilot kill you before you even reached convergence distance.

 

The reason I present the video is to show that compared to the next best combat flight sims, BOS is doing pretty well. So the complaining is complaining on a high standard. I rarely see these one-shot wonders when I attack bombers on either side. Yes, I have recieved one hit kills too but mostly, that's rare on my end. Maybe it's because I learned to be VERY cautious when attacking bombers from my CloD experience.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Hit only after shooting, at very short range, after a slow approach from six? Doesnt look worse than BoS to me. ;) 

 

Yes and no. The moment you cross the 9-3 line, you're dead meat. And even if you pull close to blackout turns, they will get you. And don't try to suggest the gunners in BOS are worse than what happens in that video. That would be blatantly dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

Yes and no. The moment you cross the 9-3 line, you're dead meat. And even if you pull close to blackout turns, they will get you. And don't try to suggest the gunners in BOS are worse than what happens in that video. That would be blatantly dumb.

Nope, it wouldn't be.
Linger for that long behind 7+ PE2's and you wouldn't get half as close as the guy in that Hurricane did. (depending on the setting of the gunner obviously) 
 

Edited by Miller1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliffs gunner AI has changed a bit since 2015 as well, it used to be that gunners were either steely eyed snipers at 400m or couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at two paces. I was attacking Wellingtons yesterday with a 110 in a Battle of Wilhelmshaven-type engagement, beam attacks with a vertical component were the best method that myself and my wingman found, and even then they were sporadically pinging us depending on how close we got. Close 6 with little relative movement is suicide, just as BoX is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have that on a track you should post a bug report with the track on it.

I do have it recorded. I'll try to figure out how to post the video here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Five_By_Five said:

If you have that on a track you should post a bug report with the track on it.

I do have it recorded. I'll try to figure out how to post the video here.

 

If you know how to make a video from the track (keep it short!) the easiest way to post it here is to start your own YouTube account (or similar service), upload to YouTube then link the URL in a forum post.  It is fairly straightforward. If you need more details I am sure there have been threads on how to do this you could search; or just ask here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2016 at 7:35 PM, Gunsmith86 said:

Just for information

 

Armour penetration part 1:

 

 

best case scenario

example 1 firing against armour plate: ( like we would do it against a tank )

 

post-385-0-67478400-1479057933_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example we use the standart .50 AP which is able to penetrat 25mm at 100m with 90° impact:

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at this angle the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could penetrat up to 25mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

 

 

second best scenario

example 2 firing against armour plate with diffrent angle: ( like we would do it against a tank )

 

post-385-0-53310700-1479057390_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example 2 we use the german 7,92mm AP ammo SmK-v (Spitzgeschoss mit Stahlkern verbessert = improved pointed bullet with steelcore ) which is able to penetrat 12mm at 100m with 90° impact,

8mm at 100m with 60° and 3,5mm at 100m with 30°

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at 90° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could penetrat up to 12mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 60° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 5,77mm and since it could penetrat up to 8mm under this condition we will penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 30° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 10mm and since it is only able to penetrat up to 3,5mm under this condition we will fail to penetrat the armour for the first time.

 

 

third best case scenario:

example 3 firing against armour plate which has a 3mm aluminium plate at 20° 1,5m before the armour plate: ( like we would have it against a aircraft )

 

post-385-0-83288200-1479059731_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example we use the standart .50 AP which is able to penetrat 25mm at 100m with 90° impact:

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at this angle the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm but because we hit the aluminium plate first oure projectile starts to yaw which disturb the straight flight so that it fails to hit the armour head-on, thereby significantly reducing its penetrative abilitis to only  10mm at 90° at 100 m.

Since he armour is only 5mm we will penetrat.

 

 

 

 

worst case scenario:

example 4 firing against armour plate which has a 3mm aluminium plate at 20° 1,5m before the armour plate with diffrent angels: ( like we would have it against a aircraft )

 

post-385-0-60821600-1479061425_thumb.jpg

 

For oure example 4 we use again the german 7,92mm AP ammo SmK-v (Spitzgeschoss mit Stahlkern verbessert = improved pointed bullet with steelcore ) which is able to penetrat 4mm at 100m with 90° impact,

3mm at 100m with 60° and 2,5mm at 100m with 30°

 

From the picture above you can clearly see that at 90° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is only 5mm and since it could only penetrat up to 4mm under this condition we will fail to penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 60° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 5,77mm and since it could only penetrat up to 3mm under this condition we will again fail to penetrat the armour.

If the angle of impact is 30° the way the projectile has to move to penetrat is now 10mm and since it is only able to penetrat up to 2,5mm under this condition we will also fail to penetrat the armour.

 

The .50 AP could penetrat 14mm at 60° at 100m under this condition wich is enough to penetrat however it would fail at 30° most of the time. The 4mm engine armour of the IL2 will also protect from a large number of shots fired at 30° or less

 

Also AP/I or AP/T rounds are worse than pure AP rounds because they are not as heavy and lose speed faster.

For example the 12,7mm Berezin AP/I was falling from 25mm at 100m with 90° to only 8,5mm at 100m with 90° after passing the aluminium plate.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diffrent armour plates:

 

8mm:

post-385-0-93003500-1479062062_thumb.jpg

 

12mm:

post-385-0-39456100-1479062027_thumb.jpg

 

penetration data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sX8ZB27l94Dy7DXSG6dbhXqbVKdvJ78MDlmnUMD4Q3M/edit#gid=1465002216

 

:salute:


You forgot to mention projectile normalization.

 

To anyone interested in ballistics, give "WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" a read.

https://de.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery

 

I know it's primarily concerned with tank guns, but the principles outlined therein are also applicable to aircraft weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 8:05 AM, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

All you can blame is the AI with it's 360deg sphere of vision in any situation. Be it on planes or ground units. Look at heavy AA for example, tracks and loads at the same time while having constant fire rate. Heavy flak was used to fire a barrage, not track single planes. AI gunners are a joke in this game. 

 

It is since ROF relase. Gunners are joke in ROF and BOX also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

It is since ROF relase. Gunners are joke in ROF and BOX also.

I wouldn't say any AI in BOX "is a joke".

 

yes, it may be far prom perfect in some areas but I feel your comment does a disservice to the devs and the compromises they *have* to make.

 

I think the AI mostly does a more than acceptable job for most players but there's always room for improvement ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×