revising AI gunners again?

[RossMarBow]

What do people think about the current state of AI gunners

Before in multiplayer they were over powered with laser accuracy

Now they fire a perfectly straight line seemingly randomly placed when trying to shoot ground targets (and so I presume air targets)
which is why now they are a bit too useless 

 

Any chance of a more polished version with more realistic behavior?

 

Maybe have them fire randomly in a cone that slowly narrows longer they are on target
As this would reflect a gunner slowing training in on the target
It wouldn't be overpowered but it would make gunners a bit more reliable 

Also it would be nice if they fired short bursts instead of holding down the trigger until they run out of ammo
especially if they are missing 

[CountZero]

The way i see it gunner ai needs to be like this:

Normal = gunners cant hit sht, they are there just for effect, to be used on bombers in SP missions so fighter player playing SP can shoot at them without worry of being hit

Veteran = gunners like normal but they can hit you if you sit on their 6 or your to slow. Used in MP where you can have realsitic bomber numbers, compared to fighters, have fighter escorts and so on... basicly coop or event enviroment.

Ace= gunners like before, can hit you extreamly accurate, to be used in MP where one human player is neded to be force of 12 bombers in real ww2. Use in SP missions where human is in bombers, and in MP where you dont have realistic bomber numbers, 24/7 fast food enviroment.

 

How its now you dont see any differance betwen skills, all are to easy. Before it was better, even with some AI exploits at ACE skill ( AI knows where you are without seeing you, it can hit you at funny angles and speds), it was danger to attack bombers, but numbers advantage fighters have still ment bomber have harder time, but atleast it could bite then, now its just waste of time to play with bomber online.

Edited April 21, 2022 by CountZero

[Thorne]

Hot take incoming:

 

I rarely fly heavy bombers, and when I see them as a fighter pilot they usually equal a juicy, free kill. If AI gunners for human pilots in multiplayer need to be crack-shot marksman to give the bombers as fighting chance, and in doing so encourage more people to fly heavy bombers, then I think that's a good thing. I have no problem with the fact that makes my life slightly more challenging as a non-bomber pilot. If anything it forces me to approach bomber killing responsibly by going for high speed deflection shooting vs parking my lazy butt behind them and whaling away like I'm attacking some kind of bomb laden sky-bus.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Thorne

[Lusekofte]

They better be quick about it. VR is coming in COD 

Dedicated bomber pilots migrate. And if we remember GB this way

we aint coming back soon.

But honestly, those like me have already gone SP. Or coop.

Frustration stick a while. And I do not think they will fix it any time soon.

There is a lot of people on the fence , MP servers is pretty much status quo, for years. Getting people in is one thing, keep them is another. 

I will not be too hard on the devs, they improve gameplay in every update they got. They are not lazy or ignorant.

They know, but got a lot on their hands

[6./ZG26_Loke]

The very few left in our group, talked last night about the change we have had with MP bombing missions. 

 

Before we had a mission survival rate on about 50/50, and if lucky even a kill now and then. 

Today, we are never able to survive one single mission, even if we try to keep a tight formation. Kills? Forget about that. 

 

If devs want it to remain attractive to fly bombers, then they also have to do it in the way that the bombers represent a 1/20 ratio as a minimum between bombers and fighters. Simply because it will never be possible to gather so many, to fly bombers together.

In rl, 300 bombers like to attack a target where they could risk encountering 10 to 20 fighters on their way. On mp servers it is more 2 - 3 bombers against 3 - 4 fighters.
And no, before someone goes into self-swing and says, then you just have to arrange an escort. It just does not gonna happen. Those who fly fighters have already flown and rarely have time to wait.

For us, the gameplay has only moved one way and that is against fighter vs fighter only. There is nothing left for the bombers on the mp servers. And personally, I strongly consider not investing more in this flight simulator as I do not get what I pay for. A fair gameplayet for all. 

[RedeyeStorm]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

The very few left in our group, talked last night about the change we have had with MP bombing missions. 

 

Before we had a mission survival rate on about 50/50, and if lucky even a kill now and then. 

Today, we are never able to survive one single mission, even if we try to keep a tight formation. Kills? Forget about that. 

 

If devs want it to remain attractive to fly bombers, then they also have to do it in the way that the bombers represent a 1/20 ratio as a minimum between bombers and fighters. Simply because it will never be possible to gather so many, to fly bombers together.

In rl, 300 bombers like to attack a target where they could risk encountering 10 to 20 fighters on their way. On mp servers it is more 2 - 3 bombers against 3 - 4 fighters.
And no, before someone goes into self-swing and says, then you just have to arrange an escort. It just does not gonna happen. Those who fly fighters have already flown and rarely have time to wait.

For us, the gameplay has only moved one way and that is against fighter vs fighter only. There is nothing left for the bombers on the mp servers. And personally, I strongly consider not investing more in this flight simulator as I do not get what I pay for. A fair gameplayet for all. 

This off course only applies with online flying. No such issue in SP.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Gunners were possibly too hot in the past, but they do seem a bit lame these days.

I was flying an HP yesterday and they seem to like to shoot at empty sky now.

 

My first wish is that the ai pilot, and ai gunners all have individual skill ratings. That would instantly make things much more dynamic.

Simplify the gunner settings to :

Low - you've a good chance of not getting hit.

Med - you've a good chance of beint hit.

High - you're likely to get hit.

Obviously if you're bobbing about right in front of any guns you should be getting hit at any setting.

If you're getting jiggy with it, keeping a reasonable distance, or performing a full speed single pass - you probably should only be picking up occasional, random bullets.

Perhaps proximity is the key ? Not even the good ones can end your mission from 1km out, and even the green ones can hit you at point blank.

And how about giving any gunner almost no chance of hitting you if you play by the book and attack with the sun behind you ?

 

Talk is cheap, and I'm sure this is all very complex, but I agree they still need a bit of work.

 

I'm back in ww1 lately, but since the change I've noticed in ww2 that I almost never survive an encounter with a 'human' fighter. Gunners seem to struggle to hit anything.

On my own maps (ww1), traditionally I set gunners to low or medium - but I'll have to do some testing and maybe notch their skill levels up as things are.

 

S!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Zooropa_Fly

[Lusekofte]

I have not flown Gotha and HP 400 due to them lousy gunners.

[354thFG_Leifr]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

The very few left in our group, talked last night about the change we have had with MP bombing missions. 

 

Before we had a mission survival rate on about 50/50, and if lucky even a kill now and then. 

Today, we are never able to survive one single mission, even if we try to keep a tight formation. Kills? Forget about that. 

 

If devs want it to remain attractive to fly bombers, then they also have to do it in the way that the bombers represent a 1/20 ratio as a minimum between bombers and fighters. Simply because it will never be possible to gather so many, to fly bombers together.

In rl, 300 bombers like to attack a target where they could risk encountering 10 to 20 fighters on their way. On mp servers it is more 2 - 3 bombers against 3 - 4 fighters.
And no, before someone goes into self-swing and says, then you just have to arrange an escort. It just does not gonna happen. Those who fly fighters have already flown and rarely have time to wait.

For us, the gameplay has only moved one way and that is against fighter vs fighter only. There is nothing left for the bombers on the mp servers. And personally, I strongly consider not investing more in this flight simulator as I do not get what I pay for. A fair gameplayet for all. 

 

Agree, and agree some more.

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

There is nothing left for the bombers on the mp servers. And personally, I strongly consider not investing more in this flight simulator as I do not get what I pay for.

I decided this a year ago, I will not buy more stuff unless it is of real interest.

I patiently waited 10 years paying for stuff of little interest.

It is a shame really, I think even fighterpilots get tired of dogfights and want more purpose in their game play.

I migrate to Cod once VR is ready, I fly coop occasionally in this game and some SP. 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

LuseKofte, a question if I may.  And please understand I'm not trying to wind you up, as I do agree with you in many ways, but why do you think things will be different in Cliffs of Dover?  People are people no matter the game they play.  The single seat aircraft have always been more popular in multiplayer, at least as long as I can recall all the way back to the original IL2.

Edited April 23, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Yogiflight]

5 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Gunners were possibly too hot in the past,

It absolutely depended on the aircraft. The Pe-2 and two seater IL-2 were absolutely deadly to attack in career missions on medium difficulty. On the other side the A-20 and B-25, even on high difficulty, rarely hit me in career mode missions, and if they hit, then just a few hits without a lot of effect. Now the later counts for all gunners, enemy and friendly.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

We have regularly flown bombers and ground attack and have been invested in IL2 since the early days. For many years, I only ever flew in SP, in the early titles and CLOD etc I didn't really get invested in flying online until about 8 years ago despite being invested in flight sims for donkeys years. Once the MP bug bit me I have never really wanted to fly in SP again.  

 

Over the last few months the survival rates per mission are standing at around 10% and that is only if you don't meet fighters. Last night we did 7 flights and had a 100% loss rate. This isn't unique. In fact over the last months it's the norm. Fighters have absolutely nothing to fear from the AI gunners online, they are effectively redundant. If one fighters meets four bombers in close formation the bombers are dead.

I will be the first to admit that the gunners in some of earlier builds were ridiculous but even having said that, the survival rates for most bomber flights was still around 50%. 

As @6./ZG26_Loke pointed out, we can't expect the real world advantages of 300 bombers being escorted and being engaged by 40 fighters in an online server.

 

I am honestly not sure if this is due to how server admins set up their gunners is the problem AI or it a fundamental fault with the AI since it was changed. I have often wished for more flyable bomber aircraft like the B-25 and B-26 and was very much looking forward to the 410. However, flying last night, I thought whats the point because the poxy gunner can't hit anything anyway. 

 

Over the years, I have genuinely enjoyed this wonderful series and never thought that my passion for the sim would in anyway diminish. Unfortunately, that day has finally come and any fun or enjoyment from flying ground attack or bombers has been lost with the change to the AI gunners, because they cannot defend your aircraft even when a fighter will sit straight and level on your six. 

 

[Lusekofte]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

LuseKofte, a question if I may.  And please understand I'm not trying to wind you up, as I do agree with you in many ways, but why do you think things will be different in Cliffs of Dover?  People are people no matter the game they play.  The single seat aircraft have always been more popular in multiplayer, at least as long as I can recall all the way back to the original IL2.

Because in COD is you settle behind a bomber you gonna get Hurt.

If you do it properly you gonna have a kill.

Cod got a more historical correct autopilot. You need to have correct speed in order to stabilise enough to a proper bomben. It got a more realistic way to operate bombaim,, and if enough people from the old days come back. Proper missions in mp will be executed.

I migrate to GB because I had less time fir serious flying. Now I want back to less but longer serious flying.

In this game I tried to survive onebparadrop sortie in JU 52, chatting to get fighters to cover me.

Of the 10 drops I tried maybe 3 paratroopers survived.

And you got no Credit what so ever. If you drop them fighters will massacrate them in air.

Nothing I like to fly is survivable low or high. At any time.

I survive my thirst of flying by flying choppers in dcs

Honestly, I like people here in this community, a American would have said I love you all. But in Norway we say I like you.

For that reason I do not abandon this community. I simply do not agree personally with devs vision, but I do understand it

Edited April 24, 2022 by LuseKofte

[ATAG_Ezzie]

10 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

We have regularly flown bombers and ground attack and have been invested in IL2 since the early days. For many years, I only ever flew in SP, in the early titles and CLOD etc I didn't really get invested in flying online until about 8 years ago despite being invested in flight sims for donkeys years. Once the MP bug bit me I have never really wanted to fly in SP again.  

 

Over the last few months the survival rates per mission are standing at around 10% and that is only if you don't meet fighters. Last night we did 7 flights and had a 100% loss rate. This isn't unique. In fact over the last months it's the norm. Fighters have absolutely nothing to fear from the AI gunners online, they are effectively redundant. If one fighters meets four bombers in close formation the bombers are dead.

I will be the first to admit that the gunners in some of earlier builds were ridiculous but even having said that, the survival rates for most bomber flights was still around 50%. 

As @6./ZG26_Loke pointed out, we can't expect the real world advantages of 300 bombers being escorted and being engaged by 40 fighters in an online server.

 

I am honestly not sure if this is due to how server admins set up their gunners is the problem AI or it a fundamental fault with the AI since it was changed. I have often wished for more flyable bomber aircraft like the B-25 and B-26 and was very much looking forward to the 410. However, flying last night, I thought whats the point because the poxy gunner can't hit anything anyway. 

 

Over the years, I have genuinely enjoyed this wonderful series and never thought that my passion for the sim would in anyway diminish. Unfortunately, that day has finally come and any fun or enjoyment from flying ground attack or bombers has been lost with the change to the AI gunners, because they cannot defend your aircraft even when a fighter will sit straight and level on your six. 

 

 Hey Custard

 

I'm a long time twin flyer - firstly in COD flying the 110, -111, Welly and Beaufighter and for the last year flying the Brisfit in FC.  I share your pain and the way to overcome it for me was to learn to rear gun and fly at the same time.  Took a while but eventually I became reasonably proficient at it and to be honest i actually quite enjoy it now, especially when unsuspecting single-engined fighter jocks line up for easy 6 oclock shot and get a face full of rear gun rounds.

 

And from time to time a human gunner sits in there - shoutout to ST_Malesan - and they usually do a great job. as well. The Brisfit is reasonably competitive if flown with a human gunner who knows what to do.

 

I'm not sure if the aircraft you fly allow you to rear gun and fly at the same time. So sorry if this isnt possible in your ride of choice. And I'm sorry if you have tried rear gunning and flying and its not for you.

 

Just trying to help find a way to keep your enjoying this game.

 

Ezzie

[357th_KW]

On 4/23/2022 at 9:21 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

We have regularly flown bombers and ground attack and have been invested in IL2 since the early days. For many years, I only ever flew in SP, in the early titles and CLOD etc I didn't really get invested in flying online until about 8 years ago despite being invested in flight sims for donkeys years. Once the MP bug bit me I have never really wanted to fly in SP again.  

 

Over the last few months the survival rates per mission are standing at around 10% and that is only if you don't meet fighters. Last night we did 7 flights and had a 100% loss rate. This isn't unique. In fact over the last months it's the norm. Fighters have absolutely nothing to fear from the AI gunners online, they are effectively redundant. If one fighters meets four bombers in close formation the bombers are dead.

I will be the first to admit that the gunners in some of earlier builds were ridiculous but even having said that, the survival rates for most bomber flights was still around 50%. 

As @6./ZG26_Loke pointed out, we can't expect the real world advantages of 300 bombers being escorted and being engaged by 40 fighters in an online server.

 

I am honestly not sure if this is due to how server admins set up their gunners is the problem AI or it a fundamental fault with the AI since it was changed. I have often wished for more flyable bomber aircraft like the B-25 and B-26 and was very much looking forward to the 410. However, flying last night, I thought whats the point because the poxy gunner can't hit anything anyway. 

 

Over the years, I have genuinely enjoyed this wonderful series and never thought that my passion for the sim would in anyway diminish. Unfortunately, that day has finally come and any fun or enjoyment from flying ground attack or bombers has been lost with the change to the AI gunners, because they cannot defend your aircraft even when a fighter will sit straight and level on your six. 

 

Out of curiosity, do you guys in the bomber squads see any difference in using a human gunner vs using an AI?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:21 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I am honestly not sure if this is due to how server admins set up their gunners is the problem AI or it a fundamental fault with the AI since it was changed.

I remember a post from the Finnish server host’s, they put the AI on Ace.

So it’s definitely a problem of the lobotomised AI ?

 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Out of curiosity, do you guys in the bomber squads see any difference in using a human gunner vs using an AI?

Yes we did. 

Had Custard as reargunner, after he was shot down. I was then attacked by the same aircraft, which just had Custard shot down. I eventually also got it, but the attacking aircraft was badly damaged, and only had the option to limp home. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I set player controlled planes to 'Ace' in a ww1 Arras MP map, and spent a bit of time watching the gunner.

He spent a fair bit of his time firing arcs of bullets at nothing - very erratic. It was amazing he didn't shoot the tail off !

This was in Bristol and Halb - I assume they're all about the same.

So yes, I'd say needs looked at again sometime if possible.

[Luftschiff]

The bigger problem for me that made flying bombers less interesting is still the drastically reduced effectiveness of bombs, coupled with occasionally unclear targets and damage states. If you risk your life on a long and boring 1 hour mission just to have a fart's chance of surviving, hit the target directly and limp home only to be told 0 targets hit, or 1 light vehicle destroyed, is a surefire way to ruin anyone's will to keep doing the lowest regarded job in the game. 

 

AI gunners were too good, but the issue was always more about absurd spatial awareness and reaction times than accuracy, it's yet another nail in the coffin for me as a mud-mover though. Bomber gameplay has definitely suffered severely in the past 3 years.

 

If we're rolling back a change I'd much rather roll back to the older bombs, they may have been too powerful, but again - a single bomber in this game is expected to do the job of full formations, and it was rewarding and fun.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

Bomber gameplay has definitely suffered severely in the past 3 years.

It's probably at the lowest point it's ever been. I think we can all agree that the AI gunner's were far too good but now they are just dead weight. I sincerely hope that the gunner AI is looked at again because it's killing the game for bomber pilots. 

   

[PatrickAWlson]

Ability to hit targets: This should be based on target profile.  If a target is coming straight at the gunner then iit is an easy target, as no lead is required.  The more lead required, the  less accurate gunnery should be. Another variable is the stability of the platform.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering then it is going to seriously impact his aim.

 

Ability to track targets: Somewhat dependent on the gun.  Hauling around a heave machine gun while tracking an incoming target is not really all that easy.  G-loads should also affect the ability to track.  Not only will a maneuvering platform make it more difficult to hit, it will also make it more difficult to manage the gun.

 

Skill of the gunner: kind of self explanatory - a better gunner will compensate for poor conditions better, but still far from perfectly.

 

Gunner health: A gunner should not keep firing at 100% proficiency when wounded.  In fact, a seriously wounded gunner should be incapacitated.  

 

Take these things into account and you will start to get more believable gunnery.  If a formation of bombers is flying straight and level and you approach them from  6:00 co-alt (i.e. zero deflection) then they should probably kill you.  If you approach a single aircraft from this profile then it is a race as to who hits first.  The advantage is still with the fighter as he is firing more guns from a very stable mount.  

 

Once the attacker starts coming in from more difficult  angles, gunner accuracy should degrade quickly.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering as well then that should have a severe impact.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering violently then the gunner should not be hitting anything.  Finally, a wounded gunner should be significantly affected and possibly incapacitated.

 

In the end, the advantages are mostly with the attacking fighter, especially if the target is isolated.  Don't expect your Me-110 gunner to hit anything while you are banked 45 degrees pulling several Gs.  The more stable the target aircraft, the more effective the gunnery.  This, of course, comes at the expense of making the target aircraft an easier kill.

[Luftschiff]

4 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Ability to hit targets: This should be based on target profile.  If a target is coming straight at the gunner then iit is an easy target, as no lead is required.  The more lead required, the  less accurate gunnery should be. Another variable is the stability of the platform.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering then it is going to seriously impact his aim.

 

Ability to track targets: Somewhat dependent on the gun.  Hauling around a heave machine gun while tracking an incoming target is not really all that easy.  G-loads should also affect the ability to track.  Not only will a maneuvering platform make it more difficult to hit, it will also make it more difficult to manage the gun.

 

Skill of the gunner: kind of self explanatory - a better gunner will compensate for poor conditions better, but still far from perfectly.

 

Gunner health: A gunner should not keep firing at 100% proficiency when wounded.  In fact, a seriously wounded gunner should be incapacitated.  

 

Take these things into account and you will start to get more believable gunnery.  If a formation of bombers is flying straight and level and you approach them from  6:00 co-alt (i.e. zero deflection) then they should probably kill you.  If you approach a single aircraft from this profile then it is a race as to who hits first.  The advantage is still with the fighter as he is firing more guns from a very stable mount.  

 

Once the attacker starts coming in from more difficult  angles, gunner accuracy should degrade quickly.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering as well then that should have a severe impact.  If the gunner's aircraft is maneuvering violently then the gunner should not be hitting anything.  Finally, a wounded gunner should be significantly affected and possibly incapacitated.

 

In the end, the advantages are mostly with the attacking fighter, especially if the target is isolated.  Don't expect your Me-110 gunner to hit anything while you are banked 45 degrees pulling several Gs.  The more stable the target aircraft, the more effective the gunnery.  This, of course, comes at the expense of making the target aircraft an easier kill.

 

 

Agreed on all points, but I also think (I know I'm reiterating it endlessly, sorry) that a major factor of what made the gunners unbelievably good before the patch was their perfect situational awareness and ability to trade targets across different fields of fire/be ready to fire on targets approaching from blind spots without ANY delays or penalties to accuracy. 

 

It could reliable get single-bullet snapshots off on targets crossing their FoF at 800 km/h despite only being within that cone of fire for less than a second, and despite approaching from an angle where the gunner couldn't even see them.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

15 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The more stable the target aircraft, the more effective the gunnery.  This, of course, comes at the expense of making the target aircraft an easier kill.

It doesn't matter with the current build because even if you are flying straight and level the gunners are "really" struggling to hit anything. Fighters can just cruise up behind bombers without a care in the world. For some inexplicable reason the gunners will fire everywhere but at the target. At first, I was convinced that it was probably a server-side setting but now I think it is a problem firmly with the AI. 

[354thFG_Leifr]

It isn't really about asking for the single gunner with his pea-shooter to fend off a Tempest, it's about having the gunner function in some capacity that it can be regarded as working. Right now they aren't, and a good portion of flight-time I have to be asking myself what my compatriot to the rear is up to. I've had gunners in recent sorties fire at absolutely nothing (confirmed via track recording, and gunner positions locked, including AI callouts!), fire single-shot bursts at encroaching enemies in level flight, and also wildly spray the entire magazine in every part of the sky but where he is supposed to be shooting.

 

I would happily do away with the all-knowing all-seeing AI gunner callouts if they were replaced with a more reasonable directional callout (enemy, seven o'clock low) sort of thing.

[Lusekofte]

The interest of the many is fighters and attackers.

What is being buildt is just that. With ai bombers.

I come to the conclusion, that more effective turrets on ai bombers are making devs not fixing this problem.

 Therefore I no longer support a game not providing my interest. They should never buildt flyable  bombers in the first place, they led me to believe this was part of their ambitions.

I mean how can one fly Gotha and HP with gunners we have?

It is 2 builds they never should have bothered with.

I won't delete the game, one day maybe will more people press to a change 

[Habu]

On 4/28/2022 at 10:11 AM, Luftschiff said:

The bigger problem for me that made flying bombers less interesting is still the drastically reduced effectiveness of bombs, coupled with occasionally unclear targets and damage states. If you risk your life on a long and boring 1 hour mission just to have a fart's chance of surviving, hit the target directly and limp home only to be told 0 targets hit, or 1 light vehicle destroyed, is a surefire way to ruin anyone's will to keep doing the lowest regarded job in the game. 

 

 

About that point, it's not the game the problem, it's the mission builder.

 

For exemple :

In a mission if the mission builder give you a factory as a target, but do not make it as an Entity, you can hit it and destroy it, you'll have no report in the statistic.

[Luftschiff]

35 minutes ago, Habu said:

About that point, it's not the game the problem, it's the mission builder.

 

For exemple :

In a mission if the mission builder give you a factory as a target, but do not make it as an Entity, you can hit it and destroy it, you'll have no report in the statistic.

 

Unclear targets, yes - but the bomb effectiveness, the primary concern and source of my frustrations, is very much a game problem.
I was just bringing up a number of other causes (aside the gunner effectiveness which is the original thread purpose) that also have negatively affected the life of bomber pilots over the past few years.

[[CPT]Crunch]

On 4/23/2022 at 4:32 AM, Zooropa_Fly said:

you probably should only be picking up occasional, random bullets.

And there's the crux of the problem, there is no such thing as random on a computer.

 

Should go to a system of levels within each gunners cone of fire, the inner 25% of the cone, your going to take a hit 85%, next slice to 50% 50% dead on, next slice out to 75% your going to get it 25%, and the last part of the outer cone of gun limits 10% effective.  Numbers to be adjusted for game play as seen fit.  Its a problem when the gun at its limit is just as effective as the center of the cone, all in one for the entire arc just doesn't seem to work.  Put a slight millisecond gun swing delay in and the hard maneuvering fast pass through targets still get a free pass.  Or have the gun dispersion rate change according to the part of the cone the gun is currently in.

Edited April 29, 2022 by [CPT]Crunch

[Habu]

1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

 

Unclear targets, yes - but the bomb effectiveness, the primary concern and source of my frustrations, is very much a game problem.
I was just bringing up a number of other causes (aside the gunner effectiveness which is the original thread purpose) that also have negatively affected the life of bomber pilots over the past few years.

No.

 

The target can be hit and destroyed, and give you no points if the mission builder didn't change the properties of the object. And some object has too many hit points. Devs adjusted that for most of them.

Again, mission builder can change the hit point of  objects.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Habu

[Luftschiff]

1 hour ago, Habu said:

No.

 

The target can be hit and destroyed, and give you no points if the mission builder didn't change the properties of the object. And some object has too many hit points. Devs adjusted that for most of them.

Again, mission builder can change the hit point of  objects.

 

 

Yes.

 

You are misunderstanding the issue, or rather focusing on a very specific part of it. This is on me for trying to condense my message for readability rather than clarity. So first off, yes - Servers might indeed have unclear targets where you're asked to bomb a factory, and only 1 factory building out of 50 is an actual target. This is a part of the problem and a mission issue. A mission designer might have set the wrong durability value, also potentially a problem but a different one. My primary concern as I have said before is that Blast radius and effectiveness of bombs was -severely- reduced a while back, which made the larger bombs, or even medium sized bombs, ineffective both in terms of application from high-altitude (safer but less accurate) level bombing - and in terms of bang (ha) for the buck as regards weight and quantity.

 

Before you could counter any of these other issues by hitting the area with higher yields, now you need a direct hit with even 500 kg bombs to do any damage, and the blast radius of a 1000, 1400 or even 2400 kg bomb is not effectively any more potent than the 250 at a distance of a few yards. Could that potentially be alleviated with drastically reduced hit points? Probably, but that'd lead to other issues, and the blast radius would probably still mismatch. 

 

A bomber used to be able to return from a port strike with 20-30 even 50 targets destroyed.
These days it's usually 0-3 and a light AA gun. Same bombload, same mind-numbing time to target, same skill and patience, only with much, much lower chances of surviving. Of course it's a much less appealing prospect now. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Luftschiff

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

 

A bomber used to be able to return from a port strike with 20-30 even 50 targets destroyed.
These days it's usually 0-3 and a light AA gun. Same bombload, same mind-numbing time to target, same skill and patience, only with much, much lower chances of surviving. Of course it's a much less appealing prospect now. 

This is a scoring issue more then anything.  The bombs are still doing damage (albeit in a much smaller radius), but you get no credit unless a target is destroyed.  A formation of bombers could go drop on a target, and one guy in the middle would end up with most of the points, since his bombs were the tipping point that destroyed the buildings, and everyone in front and behind got nothing.
 

It would be nice to get an alternative scoring mechanic that scored based on hits in a defined target area - it’s not as if WW2 bomber pilots returned from a mission and knew exactly what (if anything) they had hit.  The current destruction only scoring, combined with small precise targets and modest low level flak encourages ultra low level bombing that would have been mostly suicidal IRL.

[Luftschiff]

13 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

This is a scoring issue more then anything.  The bombs are still doing damage (albeit in a much smaller radius), but you get no credit unless a target is destroyed.  A formation of bombers could go drop on a target, and one guy in the middle would end up with most of the points, since his bombs were the tipping point that destroyed the buildings, and everyone in front and behind got nothing.
 

It would be nice to get an alternative scoring mechanic that scored based on hits in a defined target area - it’s not as if WW2 bomber pilots returned from a mission and knew exactly what (if anything) they had hit.  The current destruction only scoring, combined with small precise targets and modest low level flak encourages ultra low level bombing that would have been mostly suicidal IRL.

 

The scoring has always counted only destroyed targets though, that's not a recent change - only the damage being done has changed, by way of exponentially decreasing the blast radius. There is little to no variation in score between the craft in our bomber formations, and even if there was - the total has still dropped by around 95% for altitude bombing, and 50% for dive or glide bombing.

[Lusekofte]

I want to use this topic to clarify my opinion, my frustration, and pleasure.

Mostly because this topic bring up one of the latest frustration for me.

Devs choices is not bad because I do not agree with them. Since first session online it was damn clear majority was not interested in taking off , do flight sim at all. They wanted to shoot. 

It has been that way ever since, sure there are many,  people out there wanting a realistic historical mirror of ww 2 air War, way more than me. But majority out on servers are loners going for fast fun when time available.

This is what shows developers what to do.

I am one of those eager to fly Mosquito, but it bring in reality nothing to gameplay itself. By the time it was operational, axis had fast enough fighters to catch it if in air at same altitude. So it is just another big target that mirrors what active online majority wants. 

There are no broken promises, just false expectations, expectations as numerous as members. 

I am glad I have some use for this purchase, I still find it worth its money

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@LuseKofte.

Can hardly agree more with you. 

Every evening we see fighters taking off right across taxiways and runways. They don't give a damn because there are no penelty. 

As you have pointed out several times now, bombers and ground attack aircraft, have been reduced to nothing but targetdrones. 

Last Friday when flying in a 3 ship Ju88's our gunners never talked, never fired a single shot. The enemy flying the Tempest with it's over super power guns, took all three 88's out, within a minut. 

 

That is the "joy" we face at the moment. 

[Lusekofte]

I am sure, this policy will keep online community from the growth it needs.  If foundations are at place, missionbuilders will make campaigns suitable for a more sustainable and serious gameplay. I just knows it

[[DBS]TH0R]

With the current state of AI gunners, one is better of with a new loadout to drop the AI crew and save some useless weight. Pls gib.

[357th_KW]

7 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Last Friday when flying in a 3 ship Ju88's our gunners never talked, never fired a single shot. The enemy flying the Tempest with it's over super power guns, took all three 88's out, within a minut. 

 

That is the "joy" we face at the moment. 

If the goal is to fly unescorted bombers against heavily armed late war fighters, i doubt you will get much “joy” from the game no matter what is changed.  That was a formula for disaster in real life - should we expect it to be any different here?  
 

During 1943, two USAAF bomber groups in the CBI were using B-24s to carry out unescorted strikes against Japanese targets.  Their opponents were flying Ki-43-IIs armed with 2 x 12.7mm hmg’s.  And even in that matchup that seems to favor the bombers so heavily, it was quickly found that escort was needed - the Ki-43’s shot down around 30 B-24’s vs about 20 losses of their own.  None of our bombers in game even come close to the armament and durability of a B-24.

 

If the AI gunners are so bad (and I’m not saying they aren’t bad), it should be fairly straight-forward to demonstrate by using a human gunner.  But even if the gunners were performing equal to a human, I don’t think that’s going to make small formations of light and medium bombers viable against late war fighters.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:32 PM, Luftschiff said:

The scoring has always counted only destroyed targets though, that's not a recent change - only the damage being done has changed, by way of exponentially decreasing the blast radius. There is little to no variation in score between the craft in our bomber formations, and even if there was - the total has still dropped by around 95% for altitude bombing, and 50% for dive or glide bombing.

The decreased bombing radius has been discussed ad nauseam in several other threads, and the general consensus based on evidence was that the current blast radius is actually rather realistic (at the very least, within plausible limits) for vehicles. It's true that bomb damage is less realistic for static objects though, and some improvements could be made in that area (although I don't know the computational as well as development cost of a better hit system). However it is at least partially the mission builder's responsibility to create and adjust targets to make them suitable for bombing.

 

Bombs in general were not very powerful weapons against hard targets such as buildings. Usually against large targets, 10 bombs of 100kg were better than 1 bomb of 1000kg. See the diagram below. Even a 1000kg bomb only completely destroys targets some 16m away.

 

I do agree that multiplayer missions are very geared towards fighter vs. fighter combat though, and that the general attitude online is rather YOLO. It's one of the reasons that I stopped flying multiplayer, being someone who neatly taxies to the runway before takeoff and who likes to fly something different than fighters every now and then. Here too, I believe it's up to the mission writer to change this. I have little experience with writing multiplayer missions specifically, but if they aren't too different from singleplayer missions, one or two well-placed CheckZone MCUs would go a long way to penalise players YOLO-taking off across taxiways and runways. Similarly, targets could be placed in such a way that gives bombers a chance of survival by flying far away from where the action is, or even be completely hidden until the mission starts.

 

I won't deny that the current gunners are less good than they should be. But apart from that, there's lots of things that can be done by mission writers to make missions more fun for bomber pilots. If there are no good bomber missions online, you should blame the server admins rather than the game developers.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

demonstrate by using a human gunner.

I cannot count the times I flew autopilots and manned the gun myself, èasy picking it was, most times chat said, " damn snipergunners"

I given up GB and in special mp, due to the general attitude by its users. It is a fps game nothing more.

Gunners are BS and dead weight, your post just confirm general attitude about the problem. If you do not like to see human bombers online, that is the way 

things evolve.