AI gunners way to accurate

[Dakpilot]

It would be interesting if for a while a decent size group of people only flew Pe-2 with real gunners and see if a thread

 

"real gunners are way too accurate" cropped up 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Lusekofte]

What puzzles me the most is the 35 series, in my mind the gunners are more effective compared to the 87 series. 

 

 

"real gunners are way too accurate" cropped up 

Well I get that all the time, but they call me AI  

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

OK People What do we call too Accurate ???

The Actual 1.5-3% Accuracy gunners have now or more??

Look at my stats thats a gunners (ai gunners) Accuracy over 50 hours in HE-111 and hundred of players shoot me down
gunner have 1.7% Accuracy and thats also improved in stats by a little bit of ground striking i do..

But for the most part on GERMAN Bombers the gunner accuracy is well under 5% all shots hit.
Thats very low Considering ILR it would have been closer to 25%



17 kills over 50 hours and maybe well over 15,000 Gunner bullets fired.
thats less that 1%


Maybe Rename the thread.
PE-2 AI GUNNER WAY TO ACCURATE!!

Edited February 14, 2017 by =WFPK=Sshadow14

[unreasonable]

OK People What do we call too Accurate ???

 

The Actual 1.5-3% Accuracy gunners have now or more??

 

Look at my stats thats a gunners (ai gunners) Accuracy over 50 hours in HE-111 and hundred of players shoot me down

gunner have 1.7% Accuracy and thats also improved in stats by a little bit of ground striking i do..

 

But for the most part on GERMAN Bombers the gunner accuracy is well under 5% all shots hit.

Thats very low Considering ILR it would have been closer to 25%

 

 

I think that is a very good question - however your answer that RL accuracy would have been closer to 25% is wildly wrong - indeed 1.5 - 3% is also probably too high, perhaps by an order of magnitude. If gunner accuracy was that good, the bombers would really not have needed escorts.

 

Ammo loads for different bombers vary, but for each 1,000 rounds per plane 2% hits = 20 hits. A formation of 20 aircraft under sustained attack would inflict 400 hits. How many hits to shoot down (or just drive away) a fighter? Hard to say, but given that many of them will be head on when hit, and so likely to take hits in engine or radiators, not very many: often just one.

 

Chances are most bomber gunners would have fired off most or all of their ammo and scored exactly zero hits. My starting hypothesis is that RL gunner hits were more like 0.2% of rounds expended, but I am open to a range.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

IMHO i have never seen any proof that ww2 bombers where under that much attack like in the discovery channel propaganda films and docos made about WW2 its very hard.

anyone have good rescources about gunners in ww2 (not taken from American military records please)

[Scojo]

What puzzles me the most is the 35 series, in my mind the gunners are more effective compared to the 87 series. 

 

 

Well I get that all the time, but they call me AI  

Haha YES! I love it

 

So I've changed my opinion on this topic since this past weekend.

 

Let these fighter whiners win and just nerf AI gunners to hell, IDGAF

 

All of my sorties this past week in my Pe-2 and my AI gunners haven't hit s***. I've had to hit auto level and man the guns myself to have ANY CHANCE AT ALL and even then all I can do is get the fighter to disengage and then crash land my plane. It took me many deaths over my target to get smart and stop trying to rely on them and my evasive maneuvers

 

If I have to do the work anyway, then let the AI gunners burn

 

Also something to throw you kids off, the one plane I did have an AI gunner shoot someone down it was in the JU-88

[LukeFF]

 

 

anyone have good rescources about gunners in ww2 (not taken from American military records please)

 

What's so bad about looking at American records? 

 

 

IMHO i have never seen any proof that ww2 bombers where under that much attack like in the discovery channel propaganda films and docos made about WW2 its very hard.

 

Ever hear of the Battle of Britain? 

[Scojo]

What's so bad about looking at American records? 

I think he wants accounts from VVS or LW as American bombing was very different from the Eastern front and so were the gunner armaments (as far as I know)

[Lusekofte]

There where reports from FW 190 squadrons attacking B 17 that not one 190 returned back without some sort of damage . BOB was the first time Luftwaffe learned they had a tactical airforce only capable to operate in airspace controlled by them. I read Guy Gibsons book Enemy coast ahead. It is about the time he flew Hampdens . He said earl in that book that none of them really expected to survive more than one mission over the channel. So I think it says a lot about gunner efficiency , you can't really tell what is right or wrong about it. We simply do not know. 

Let us have our PE 2 alone and as is, Axis is soon going to have a new bomber on their hand 

[Scojo]

There where reports from FW 190 squadrons attacking B 17 that not one 190 returned back without some sort of damage . BOB was the first time Luftwaffe learned they had a tactical airforce only capable to operate in airspace controlled by them. I read Guy Gibsons book Enemy coast ahead. It is about the time he flew Hampdens . He said earl in that book that none of them really expected to survive more than one mission over the channel. So I think it says a lot about gunner efficiency , you can't really tell what is right or wrong about it. We simply do not know. 

Let us have our PE 2 alone and as is, Axis is soon going to have a new bomber on their hand 

Well spoken, LuseKofte. +1 since I ran out of likes lol

[JtD]

In 1944 the USAAF heavy bombers in the ETO spend 40 million 0.50 rounds. In that period in the region, they claimed 2400 enemy aircraft destroyed. That's near 17000 rounds spend for each claim. However, considering that there was a tremendous overclaim factor (Schweinfurt for instance somewhere around 10-20), it's probably closer to 200000 rounds per kill, or conservatively 100000. If we take Shadows figure as an in game benchmark, we're at 1000 rounds per kill and thus about 100 times as effective. With a smaller gun on top of that.

 

It appears that in game we have ridiculously high accuracy and effectiveness. However, these numbers alone don't tell even half the story - in game the average pilot does not break off an attack 500m away from the target because he is scared for his life. He'll press it home, sit at the bombers six 100m away and blast it out of the sky. Or get blown out of the sky in the process. This way, naturally, gunnery accuracy, gunnery effectiveness and loss ratios both for bombers and fighters involved go up to ridiculous levels. The point of the gunners mostly was to keep enemy fighters away to protect the bomber, while in game it often is down to doing sufficient damage. Psychological factors hardly matter.

 

Recently I flew over the top of a four plane Pe-2 formation in a Bf110 and then did a split S in order to approach them at high speed from the rear, when in the middle of the split S one of my engines was hit. One of the Pe-2's had fired a short burst and hit me flying at an odd, constantly changing vector, from more than 500m away. Clearly, these sniper moments exist in game. However, it is also my impression that many people fly unhistorically aggressive attacks and then complain about overly effective gunners, because they expect historical cr*p gunner performance in game under unhistorical circumstances. Hence I keep recommending to check if tactics or expectations need to be re-adjusted, before yelling at the code.

[Scojo]

In 1944 the USAAF heavy bombers in the ETO spend 40 million 0.50 rounds. In that period in the region, they claimed 2400 enemy aircraft destroyed. That's near 17000 rounds spend for each claim. However, considering that there was a tremendous overclaim factor (Schweinfurt for instance somewhere around 10-20), it's probably closer to 200000 rounds per kill, or conservatively 100000. If we take Shadows figure as an in game benchmark, we're at 1000 rounds per kill and thus about 100 times as effective. With a smaller gun on top of that.

 

It appears that in game we have ridiculously high accuracy and effectiveness. However, these numbers alone don't tell even half the story - in game the average pilot does not break off an attack 500m away from the target because he is scared for his life. He'll press it home, sit at the bombers six 100m away and blast it out of the sky. Or get blown out of the sky in the process. This way, naturally, gunnery accuracy, gunnery effectiveness and loss ratios both for bombers and fighters involved go up to ridiculous levels. The point of the gunners mostly was to keep enemy fighters away to protect the bomber, while in game it often is down to doing sufficient damage. Psychological factors hardly matter.

 

Recently I flew over the top of a four plane Pe-2 formation in a Bf110 and then did a split S in order to approach them at high speed from the rear, when in the middle of the split S one of my engines was hit. One of the Pe-2's had fired a short burst and hit me flying at an odd, constantly changing vector, from more than 500m away. Clearly, these sniper moments exist in game. However, it is also my impression that many people fly unhistorically aggressive attacks and then complain about overly effective gunners, because they expect historical cr*p gunner performance in game under unhistorical circumstances. Hence I keep recommending to check if tactics or expectations need to be re-adjusted, before yelling at the code.

Also very well spoken. +1

[MadisonV44]

Could not agree more with JtD

Pe-2 AI gunner precision is a real spoiler. 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

In 1944 the USAAF heavy bombers in the ETO spend 40 million 0.50 rounds. In that period in the region, they claimed 2400 enemy aircraft destroyed. That's near 17000 rounds spend for each claim. However, considering that there was a tremendous overclaim factor (Schweinfurt for instance somewhere around 10-20), it's probably closer to 200000 rounds per kill, or conservatively 100000. If we take Shadows figure as an in game benchmark, we're at 1000 rounds per kill and thus about 100 times as effective. With a smaller gun on top of that.

 

It appears that in game we have ridiculously high accuracy and effectiveness. However, these numbers alone don't tell even half the story - in game the average pilot does not break off an attack 500m away from the target because he is scared for his life. He'll press it home, sit at the bombers six 100m away and blast it out of the sky. Or get blown out of the sky in the process. This way, naturally, gunnery accuracy, gunnery effectiveness and loss ratios both for bombers and fighters involved go up to ridiculous levels. The point of the gunners mostly was to keep enemy fighters away to protect the bomber, while in game it often is down to doing sufficient damage. Psychological factors hardly matter.

 

Recently I flew over the top of a four plane Pe-2 formation in a Bf110 and then did a split S in order to approach them at high speed from the rear, when in the middle of the split S one of my engines was hit. One of the Pe-2's had fired a short burst and hit me flying at an odd, constantly changing vector, from more than 500m away. Clearly, these sniper moments exist in game. However, it is also my impression that many people fly unhistorically aggressive attacks and then complain about overly effective gunners, because they expect historical cr*p gunner performance in game under unhistorical circumstances. Hence I keep recommending to check if tactics or expectations need to be re-adjusted, before yelling at the code.

 

There are also some factors that can increase hit% in the sim, like the ability to zoom on the attacking planes, or not having to deal with recoil-induced bullet spread.

On the other hand the gunnery skills of fighter pilots in this sim is in average much higher than what it was like back then. So all in all, there is some kind of balance going on.

 

Having read about some wise comments here, I will probably stop complaining about Gunner overall effectiveness.

But I will never stop being frustrated seeing the AI pull some crazy deflection shots but still miss by 10 meters a fighter falling asleep dead on my 6 

[Sokol1]

IMHO i have never seen any proof that ww2 bombers where under that much attack like in the discovery channel propaganda films and docos made about WW2 its very hard.

 

anyone have good rescources about gunners in ww2 (not taken from American military records please)

 

Accord the The Most Dangerous Enemy - a good resume of all write before, demystifying Battle of Britain, between 10 July - 11 August 1940 RAF fighters lost for German bombers:

 

13  - damaged 38 = 51 *

 

For that 51 fighters hit by bombers Luftwaffe lost - in bombers (not including Stukas - a dead chicken).

 

72 - damaged 33 = 105

 

Stukas

 

22 - damaged 20 = 42

 

On Adler Tag (August, 13) cock-up,  Johannes Fink KG2 Dorniers were left alone by their escorts in their raid, but keeping close formation are able to defend themselves.

 

Eventually the bombers were intercepted. KG 2 lost five Do 17s in the attempt. Six Dorniers were also badly damaged. In return, accurate fire from the Dornier gunners shot down two Hurricanes from the attacking Squadrons; No. 111, No. 151 and No. 74.  Another source suggests the destruction of five Do 17s and another seven damaged.

 

Consider that relative to other German bombers Do 17 has poor defensive armament.

 

* For reference/comparison of bombers defensive fire effectiveness (in same period) - RAF fighters lost for:

 

 

For Bf 110 escorts/sweeps

 

6  - damaged 10

 

For Bf 109 escort/sweeps

 

87  - damaged 52

 

BTW - Is very muzzy attack Do-17 in some CLoD QM and their gunners shoot in all directions, rarely hitting attacking Hurricanes, even player aircraft, is this that people want for Pe-2?    

Edited February 14, 2017 by Sokol1

[unreasonable]

Accord the The Most Dangerous Enemy - a good resume of all write before, demystifying Battle of Britain, between 10 July - 11 August 1940 RAF fighters lost for German bombers:

 

13  - damaged 38 = 51 *

 

 

Now all you need is the number of GAF bomber sorties intercepted between those dates and a guestimate for number of bullets fired per sortie (number of intercepted sorties * ammo carried per sortie * fudge factor) and you can get another rough cut at defensive hits percentage.  It is going to be very, very tiny.

[=VARP=Cygann]

Not sure if this is just about rear gunners discussion, but I will mention my feeling on the fighters AI.

 

Seems to me that AI in fighter planes do not spray and pray enough IMHO.

Considering many pilots returned home with depleted ammo and not a single hit on enemy, I'd expect to see a lot more tracers going on in combat when AI is involved and not just those that are near certain to hit.

 

Same like human pilots do, there should be AI attempts to fire more often when he thinks he will hit (even though he is off in the estimate).

 

I am not speaking here to reduce AI deadliness, their time to kill target could remain the same but maybe they could spend more ammo in between true hits, giving more of a 'human' feel.

 

Unless those guys were really that good of a shot and conserving ammo IRL, but I kind of doubt it...

[=VARP=Cygann]

My intent was not to imply that they should be easier to beat in any way, or left defenseless to soon.

 

Just it's kind of odd to see every time AI opens fire on another AI, the other one is instantly leaking or smoking. Just looking at it from afar gives impression like AI cheats on AI  

 

I know it's pure subjective statement from me, no actual data or knowledge how IL2 AI behavior and aiming algorithm works. Just saying how it looks to me as end result (and is probably a bit off topic OP meant to discuss, but I felt it's related enough to share my opinion on it in this this thread).  

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Can i clarify something..

I Do not think the following gunners are too accurate.

HE-111
88
87
110
IL2

BUT The Pe2 is either broken or something else.
it has well over 40% Hit rate where as other planes around 2%

[Scojo]

BUT The Pe2 is either broken or something else.

it has well over 40% Hit rate where as other planes around 2%

LOL this guy has jokes

[Grancesc]

In 1944 the USAAF heavy bombers in the ETO spend 40 million 0.50 rounds. In that period in the region, they claimed 2400 enemy aircraft destroyed. That's near 17000 rounds spend for each claim. However, considering that there was a tremendous overclaim factor (Schweinfurt for instance somewhere around 10-20), it's probably closer to 200000 rounds per kill, or conservatively 100000. If we take Shadows figure as an in game benchmark, we're at 1000 rounds per kill and thus about 100 times as effective. With a smaller gun on top of that.

 

It appears that in game we have ridiculously high accuracy and effectiveness. However, these numbers alone don't tell even half the story - in game the average pilot does not break off an attack 500m away from the target because he is scared for his life. He'll press it home, sit at the bombers six 100m away and blast it out of the sky. Or get blown out of the sky in the process. This way, naturally, gunnery accuracy, gunnery effectiveness and loss ratios both for bombers and fighters involved go up to ridiculous levels. The point of the gunners mostly was to keep enemy fighters away to protect the bomber, while in game it often is down to doing sufficient damage. Psychological factors hardly matter.

 

Recently I flew over the top of a four plane Pe-2 formation in a Bf110 and then did a split S in order to approach them at high speed from the rear, when in the middle of the split S one of my engines was hit. One of the Pe-2's had fired a short burst and hit me flying at an odd, constantly changing vector, from more than 500m away. Clearly, these sniper moments exist in game. However, it is also my impression that many people fly unhistorically aggressive attacks and then complain about overly effective gunners, because they expect historical cr*p gunner performance in game under unhistorical circumstances. Hence I keep recommending to check if tactics or expectations need to be re-adjusted, before yelling at the code.

 

I absolutely agree with JtD

I think the Pe-2 AI gunner precision is unrealistic and a great annoyance in this sim.

[Dakpilot]

I absolutely agree with JtD

I think the Pe-2 AI gunner precision is unrealistic and a great annoyance in this sim.

 

"gunners"

 

people always forget there are two operated .50 cals in the back without a vertical stab in the way

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Scojo]

The model for gunner accuracy is definitely unrealistic. Gunners always have the same chance to hit whether you're in an insane maneuver or flying level. That needs to be fixed.

 

But they aren't too accurate. My Pe-2 gunners couldn't shoot their own hand if I cut it off for them and stuck it to the end of their MG.

 

The few times they have hit, the fighter gets away. In all my sorties only 2 fighters have gone down from my AI. I've been shot down way more times than that.

 

The only way I can defend myself from fighters is to man the guns myself or out maneuver and front gun kill the bad LW pilots

[JaffaCake]

The model for gunner accuracy is definitely unrealistic. Gunners always have the same chance to hit whether you're in an insane maneuver or flying level. That needs to be fixed.

 

But they aren't too accurate. My Pe-2 gunners couldn't shoot their own hand if I cut it off for them and stuck it to the end of their MG.

 

The few times they have hit, the fighter gets away. In all my sorties only 2 fighters have gone down from my AI. I've been shot down way more times than that.

 

The only way I can defend myself from fighters is to man the guns myself or out maneuver and front gun kill the bad LW pilots

 

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your experience, Scojo. The occasional times I fly on WOL in a pe2 I get a mixed bag of experiences - the occasional 109 that sits on my 6 and blasts away while my AI gunner is sucking his thumb shooting a circle around the target - usually the time I take over and blast them away. At other times I don't even realise there was 109 attacking me other than the gunner's warning and chunks of a smoking wreck of the 109 screaming past under my plane. Flying both sides I find that LW pilots are a lot less inclined in comparison to reds to sit on the 6 and blast away - the fear of pe2 gunners is propagating!! But it is a big pity when LW gets shot down executing good approach and still getting taken out of the air in the first burst of the gunner.

 

I think everyone expects to get shot down when they perform shallow dive on pe2 6 and sit on it for an extended time. I think people get upset when they approach at high speeds and angle and still get sniped - something I definitely seen my gunners do. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Lusekofte]

I think the Pe-2 AI gunner precision is unrealistic and a great annoyance in this sim.

For who?

 

It is a annoyance for me to find topics about the hard suffering axis pilot that has no good planes and have to fight overwhelming odds like 3 against 1 . And suddenly have to face a alone PE 2 once in a while that might give you a dent in the side before it plunge to the ground.

Yesterday I flew among 2 other pilots against 30 Axis pilots in a PE 2 and I really felt sorry for the poor 109 pilots having to face that odds. Not once have I come undamaged from a attack from fighters . Every time I have to abort and turn home if I get to have a chance of returning. BUUHUU for the hard pressed Luftwaffe and its inadequate fighters.

 

To tell you the truth, right or wrong, if the gunner get less effective than it is , there is no sense flying against the odds seen today in a bomber. I migrate more an more to offline DCS myself and I will not touch this game when it comes to public servers if it s small efficiency are going to be reduced to nothing. 

There are just too few Allied flyers out there compared to Axis side already to make sense flying at all

Edited February 15, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Scojo]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your experience, Scojo. The occasional times I fly on WOL in a pe2 I get a mixed bag of experiences - the occasional 109 that sits on my 6 and blasts away while my AI gunner is sucking his thumb shooting a circle around the target - usually the time I take over and blast them away. At other times I don't even realise there was 109 attacking me other than the gunner's warning and chunks of a smoking wreck of the 109 screaming past under my plane. Flying both sides I find that LW pilots are a lot less inclined in comparison to reds to sit on the 6 and blast away - the fear of pe2 gunners is propagating!! But it is a big pity when LW gets shot down executing good approach and still getting taken out of the air in the first burst of the gunner.

 

I think everyone expects to get shot down when they perform shallow dive on pe2 6 and sit on it for an extended time. I think people get upset when they approach at high speeds and angle and still get sniped - something I definitely seen my gunners do. 

You just proved my point about the gunner accuracy model being unrealistic.

 

The model is bad.

 

The overall accuracy probability is not.

 

The gunners should be more accurate when relative velocities are small or in low G maneuvers and less accurate during the opposite.

Edited February 15, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[JaffaCake]

You just proved my point about the gunner accuracy model being unrealistic.

 

The model is bad.

 

The overall accuracy probability is not.

 

The gunners should be more accurate when relative velocities are small or in low G maneuvers and less accurate during the opposite.

 

 

I forgot to say that I was supporting your argument in that the AI gunner model is a bit weird!

 

 

For who?

 

It is a annoyance for me to find topics about the hard suffering axis pilot that has no good planes and have to fight overwhelming odds like 3 against 1 . And suddenly have to face a alone PE 2 once in a while that might give you a dent in the side before it plunge to the ground.

Yesterday I flew among 2 other pilots against 30 Axis pilots in a PE 2 and I really felt sorry for the poor 109 pilots having to face that odds. Not once have I come undamaged from a attack from fighters . Every time I have to abort and turn home if I get to have a chance of returning. BUUHUU for the hard pressed Luftwaffe and its inadequate fighters.

 

To tell you the truth, right or wrong, if the gunner get less effective than it is , there is no sense flying against the odds seen today in a bomber. I migrate more an more to offline DCS myself and I will not touch this game when it comes to public servers if it s small efficiency are going to be reduced to nothing. 

There are just too few Allied flyers out there compared to Axis side already to make sense flying at all

 

I think the problem is not balance, but realism and consistency across multiple aircraft. If historical gunners are really bad - then they should be modelled as such, to the point of adding some hindrances to the player controlled gunners. If they were good - they should perform well across all turreted planes.

 

I also think that a solo bomber would be an easy prey historically speaking - they did not invent bomber formations for no reason!! But at the same time I saw a flight of 12 stukas in formation with escort get obliterated by several russian planes that ignored the escorts and just sat on the stuka's 6 pounding at it and moving onto the next target.

 

AI gunners are weird. German guns are weak and possibly incorrectly modelled damage wise. Pe2 is the only hard-hitting rear gun that is capable of taking out an engine or a pilot quickly, which is why there is so much talk about it.

Edited February 15, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Scojo]

Oh ok, sorry about that.

 

 

One thing people have to remember when considering the Pe-2 though, is that it was originally designed to be a high altitude fighter. It's going to be harder to attack than a bomber. It's a fighter with gunners in it.

 

 

You may have a point with the guns. What is the blister turrets RPM and caliber compared to the LW? How does the durability of LW fighters compare to VVS fighters in the front of the plane?

 

One thing to remember though when comparing stuka to the Pe-2 is the tail section. Not only is the stuka tail right in the way, the hit boxes for all tail sections are larger than the visual model. This will obviously hurt the stuka gunner much more than the Pe-2 gunner.

[Scojo]

 

 If historical gunners are really bad - then they should be modelled as such

 

This.

 

What annoys me so much about this topic is people are so concerned with gameplay balance instead of the fact that this is a Simulation.

 

"I get shot by gunners. Too accurate. Plz nrf" is not ok.

 

"4 out of my 5 bomber attacks result in critical damages or deaths" is ok.

 

Even better would be someone keeping track of their sorties where they attacked bombers and list the plane statuses after to see if there's actually a problem.

 

If gunners are too accurate, then I'm willing to accept that. But my experience says that's definitely not the case. The only case I see that has merit is the accuracy model of the gunners.

[EAF19_Marsh]

The Pe-2 always seemed pretty accurate in the original Il-2, but that might be fairly subjective. I recall somewhere (Hannig?) that is was regarded as a fairly tough customer.

 

 

I think everyone expects to get shot down when they perform shallow dive on pe2 6 and sit on it for an extended time. I think people get upset when they approach at high speeds and angle and still get sniped - something I definitely seen my gunners do.

 

Totally agree with you. for me, the annoying part is the ability to hit aircraft traveling at 500-odd km/h and moving relatively in 3 planes from the gunner (who has a hand-held weapon); the odds against that are astronomical.

Edited February 15, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[Scojo]

The Pe-2 always seemed pretty accurate in the original Il-2, but that might be fairly subjective. I recall somewhere (Hannig?) that is was regarded as a fairly tough customer.

 

 

Totally agree with you. for me, the annoying part is the ability to hit aircraft traveling at 500-odd km/h and moving relatively in 3 planes from the gunner (who has a hand-held weapon); the odds against that are astronomical.

Not exactly...

 

Sustained hits yes, but it's pretty plausible the gunner can use the tracer fire to ambush target the fighter if the fighter never jinks.

 

When I gun, I actually rarely try to sustain hits. I'm always firing bursts long enough to ambush the fighter in it's relative flight path. It's the easiest way to hit.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

If historical gunners are really bad

 

This is the to be or not to be. After field modded turrets was fitted to IL 2 . losses decreased , mostly because of the respect attacking fighters got . Look at Sakais story, he thought he attacked a Wildcat and too late saw it was a Dauntless. He got severe head wounds and only skills made him able to return. The gunners of design like dauntless IL 2 PE 2 had a pretty good angle of fire, and was wisely respected.

Gameplay in this sim, wether you like it or not is rather WT ish. People press home a attack no matter what, making the gunners pretty effective at close range. It is a myth that gunners was not effective, they where against bad planned attacks and lone aircraft.

Why should I listen to 109 pilots complaint about AI gunners when the only ones gunner really shot down planes is when I manning it myself. My gunner maybe able to damage a plane, but not prevent own plane from being mortally damage. What about Flak , what should I say when it hit me at altitude of 5 K . And you know it is only 3 of them down there. Have I made multiple topics about that. How about looking at it as a challenge. I would find it pretty boring if I where not to risk an attack from fighters, or hit by flak. 

We do not face historical battles in this sim, we face a pretty unique counterstrike gameplay. 

[JaffaCake]

This is the to be or not to be. After field modded turrets was fitted to IL 2 . losses decreased , mostly because of the respect attacking fighters got . Look at Sakais story, he thought he attacked a Wildcat and too late saw it was a Dauntless. He got severe head wounds and only skills made him able to return. The gunners of design like dauntless IL 2 PE 2 had a pretty good angle of fire, and was wisely respected.

Gameplay in this sim, wether you like it or not is rather WT ish. People press home a attack no matter what, making the gunners pretty effective at close range. It is a myth that gunners was not effective, they where against bad planned attacks and lone aircraft.

Why should I listen to 109 pilots complaint about AI gunners when the only ones gunner really shot down planes is when I manning it myself. My gunner maybe able to damage a plane, but not prevent own plane from being mortally damage. What about Flak , what should I say when it hit me at altitude of 5 K . And you know it is only 3 of them down there. Have I made multiple topics about that. How about looking at it as a challenge. I would find it pretty boring if I where not to risk an attack from fighters, or hit by flak. 

We do not face historical battles in this sim, we face a pretty unique counterstrike gameplay. 

 

 

I just wish to remind you that this game's selling point is historical accuracy and realism. I wouldn't pay the cash required if all I got in return is WT with better DM and FM.

 

I do not believe it matters how balanced things are. I do care for historical accuracy and realistic interactions. So if 109 pilots complain, I personally notice the moments these 109 pilots mention when I fly pe2's myself and it does seem inaccurate - I make my own experiences known. That is the only way we can get devs to address the issue in any way.

 

If all that you are motivated by is the balance and "fairness" then you should consider the german planes and il2 - their gunners do not seem to draw many complaints from either side. And from my anecdotal experience I regularly get shot down by a fighter sitting on my 6 and not even considering the fact that AI gunner is trying to poke holes in him.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Gameplay in this sim, wether you like it or not is rather WT ish. 

 

-snip-

 

 

I don't think it has anything to do with being "WTish" - the brazen disregard for one's virtual life has been evident in all sims well before WT was a sparkle in Gaijin's eye.

[Lusekofte]

Do not get me wrong, the gameplay in DCS is the same in public servers. I just think it is the way it always will be when unorganised battles online occur 

 

 

I just wish to remind you that this game's selling point is historical accuracy and realism

 

And you can prove that it is not historical, is this something we need to believe just because you say so 

[Scojo]

Do not get me wrong, the gameplay in DCS is the same in public servers. I just think it is the way it always will be when unorganised battles online occur 

 

 

 

And you can prove that it is not historical, is this something we need to believe just because you say so 

Well in the case of gunner accuracy, I'm not sure we could ever prove it one way or the other.

 

However we can point out the problem, what we feel is wrong with it, and then leave it up to the devs to make the final decision.

 

And in the case of the gunners being just as accurate in barrel rolls as flying level, I think it's a valid issue to raise to the Devs attention

[JaffaCake]

And you can prove that it is not historical, is this something we need to believe just because you say so 

 

I think the point is exactly for us to show to the devs that something is not historical or realistic. If we collect enough evidence for hard proof, or enough anecdotes for "them to look at it" then hopefully they would address the concern appropriately. Just like they did with 190 FM and 190 armour plate on the engine.

 

Arguments from the POV of balance or "fairness" or "I wouldn't play this game if you change X" are hopefully disregarded by the devs.

Edited February 15, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Lusekofte]

This is my point exactly, The gunners in all planes have a AI performance similar to what we see in AI planes, they just play out differently. The smartest dumbass AI I have seen took 13 years to develop OLD IL 2 and they started to shape up in version 4.11 . I hate to say it, but I hated them then and thought it must be room for improvement.

I think artificial Intelligence is the bottleneck in all games, it will always be the one in need for improvements

Edited February 15, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Grancesc]

The outline of a hit bomber emitting thick smoke is hardly visible to an attacking fighter. Nevertheless, the rear gunner hits the fighter with sniper precision despite the smoke and hard evasive maneuvers of the bomber. Radar-controlled gun turrets? Who is claiming here the AI gunners are realistically modelled?

[Scojo]

The outline of a hit bomber emitting thick smoke is hardly visible to an attacking fighter. Nevertheless, the rear gunner hits the fighter with sniper precision despite the smoke and hard evasive maneuvers of the bomber. Radar-controlled gun turrets? Who is claiming here the AI gunners are realistically modelled?

No one here is claiming they're realistically modeled...

 

You at least haven't read my posts here if you're claiming that...

 

But as to your specific scenario, if I see a fighter enter my bombers smoke trail, I know right where he is and I'm going to shoot him. The only way fighters have snuck up on me through smoke is if they start from far off without me spotting them before they do

 

The AI knows they're there, and that's a problem with the AI. Besides, the AI right now always warn the pilot too late anyway. The only way I can reliably get information from my gunner is to constantly look over my shoulder to see if he's moving. Most of his callouts come after the fighter has already started shooting at me.