Pilot kills

[6./ZG26_Loke]

8 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Instant pilot kills are even ruining SP experience, its becoming a boring game, Il2 series are heading towards being more and more arcade.

What I said months ago. 

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

All very compelling evidence of a problem with AI gunnery on the bombers.

Missing, however is a single example of an instant pilot kill, which is the subject of this thread.

Just fly one mission in a bomber or ground attack aircraft in a mp server, and you will have your evidence. 

[LukeFF]

12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Just fly one mission in a bomber or ground attack aircraft in a mp server, and you will have your evidence. 

 

Not quite. ? I know it gets repetitive, but I'll say it again: if you think there's a problem, record a track and upload it here. Just saying there's a problem is not going to get you far.

[Charon]

 

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

All very compelling evidence of a problem with AI gunnery on the bombers.

Missing, however is a single example of an instant pilot kill, which is the subject of this thread.

But these problems are intimately linked.

 

I used to struggle to shoot down bombers because I would only make safe attacks. Either high-aspect shots, or attacks from the front. I'd make few passes and send a lot of bombers home smoking, but only rarely would I kill a pilot or set one on fire.

 

Then I noticed that none of my friends were respecting gunners: they were just making stern attacks, and pressing them until they got the kill. So I stopped respecting gunners too, and now I knock them down left and right.

 

45 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I was just going after a 410 on my server.  Just to prove a point I attacked from dead astern in a Tempest.  Boom headshot, golden BB at .68km.   Tried again in Mustang, plane shot out from under me.  I guess it's very plane dependent but 410 rear gunners are stone cold killers.

I ran 10 trials (vet Me 410 in auto-level at 55% throttle vs avg P-51D, "escape", 2000m separation, +200m starting altitude to the P-51. The gunner managed to shoot down the P-51 on the first pass 3/10 times; in exchange, the Me 410 was shot down 3 times (2 fires, 1 pilot kill). The remaining 4 trials were indecisive after the first pass. In three of these trials, the Me 410 was essentially unscathed after the first pass.

 

The Me 410 was no more lethal than the dorsal gunner of the Pe 2 series 87 which I tested last week, however he was more effective at deterring attacks (Pe2s87 vs bf109F4: 4x dead 109s, 5x dead pe2, and the Pe 2 was never unscathed).

 

I do notice that the initial shots from the Me 410 are at least consistently in the ballpark of the attacker; this is not so with the Pe-2.

 

Edit: Disregard that last part; I think the Pe-2 screenshot was from when I was testing gunners with 'long engagement range'.

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Charon

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, Charon said:

I ran 10 trials (vet Me 410 in auto-level at 55% throttle vs avg P-51D, "escape", 2000m separation, +200m starting altitude to the P-51. The gunner managed to shoot down the P-51 on the first pass 3/10 times; in exchange, the Me 410 was shot down 3 times (2 fires, 1 pilot kill). The remaining 4 trials were indecisive after the first pass. In three of these trials, the Me 410 was essentially unscathed after the first pass.

 

The Me 410 was no more lethal than the dorsal gunner of the Pe 2 series 87 which I tested last week, however he was more effective at deterring attacks (Pe2s87 vs bf109F4: 4x dead 109s, 5x dead pe2, and the Pe 2 was never unscathed).

 

I do notice that the initial shots from the Me 410 are at least consistently in the ballpark of the attacker; this is not so with the Pe-2.

 

Edit: Disregard that last part; I think the Pe-2 screenshot was from when I was testing gunners with 'long engagement range'.

 

 

That's some great data, and it mirrors my experience facing them in MP - they are VERY dangerous. 

 

I've been working on compiling the actual record of ME410 gunners in the ETO - so far I've gone from Sept 1943 through May of 1944 and found about 100+ individual cases of USAAF fighters attacking Me410s aggressively enough to claim at least a damaged credit, if not a probable or outright kill.  Of those potential engagements between 410 gunners and USAAF fighters, there appear to be 68 410s lost, plus many damaged in exchange for 5 actual USAAF fighter losses, of which 4 clearly fell to the forward guns of the 410s.  I plan to put all this together in a post once I'm finished (and I know of at least one more documented case of a US fighter being lost to a 410 gunner in July of 1944).  But as of right now, I'm pretty sure that the 410 gunners are wildly over-performing in game vs what they did historically.  As a quick example, here's an engagement where we have the gun camera film showing the attack and the pilot's AAR.

 

 

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-carson-30may44.jpg

 

This is a great illustration of an actual attack on a 410, that would be absolute suicide in game.

Edited December 17, 2022 by 357th_KW

[JonRedcorn]

14 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I didn't say that or mean to infer it... I'm a SP guy, but the SP experience is not what it was, and for me that means it's no longer fun to play.

I have several combat flight sims, and sorry to say it, but the SP side of things in the GB series is the worst out of all of them.

Pretty graphics and churning out more planes etc does not make a brilliant flight sim... plus the dev's have known for years now that the SP side keeps getting neglected and you would think that the bulk of players being SP they would have tried harder to sort it.

Couple that with the AI, plus the lack of proper control to your squadron and wingmen it is a sorry state of affairs.

If people like me have stopped playing, I haven't 'won' anything, but the games developers are loosing out because we SP guys are just going elsewhere... and that's sad, because the game looks great, but is being let down by other factors that never seem to get the love and attention the game needs.

I think it's pretty unfair to claim the SP has gotten WORSE. If anything it's gotten slightly better or stayed the same. I can't for the life of me see how it's regressed...

[6./ZG26_Loke]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not quite. ? I know it gets repetitive, but I'll say it again: if you think there's a problem, record a track and upload it here. Just saying there's a problem is not going to get you far.

How on earth will you make track file, which will show that you get pilotkilled on every mission?
You can only listen to the community, as there was a reason this topic was stated in the first place.

[Lusekofte]

On 12/17/2022 at 10:01 AM, 357th_KW said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think the outcome should be when a fighter encounters an unarmed transport

I talk about all the bombers too. I do expect a couple of attacks not one every time. First salvo. 
but I care no longer. Won’t hear from me about this issue again. 
Devs are here for fighters I have deleted the game yesterday. This issue has no longer relevance for me

[6./ZG26_Custard]

13 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Just fly one mission in a bomber or ground attack aircraft in a mp server, and you will have your evidence. 

The majority of people just don't care mate because they're either single players or fly fighters. The vocal majority will always win. And the vocal majority of course is fighter pilots. You and I both know we have flown for years online and flying bombers was a challenge with about a 50% survival rate. Something fundamentally changed not only with the ridiculous AI gunners but the instant death laser beams that reduced mission survivability probably less than 10%.

I got fed up of the instant magic laser deaths and some people in the community telling me I'm imagining it.

Edit -I'm wasting my time here. it's probably why I'm not flying anymore. Still, the fighter pilots have got what they want haven't they?

Edited December 18, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

How on earth will you make track file, which will show that you get pilotkilled on every mission?
You can only listen to the community, as there was a reason this topic was stated in the first place.

 

You could provide a track of a single pilot kill, and then explain why you think that death was unreasonable. 

 

Though I'm pretty confident in saying the perception of pilot deaths being guaranteed is entirely fallacious, and doesn't line up with the available evidence. Have some statistics: 

 

These are the stats from the month of November on the Finnish server for the Ju-88a4.

 

Durability tracks the percentage of aircraft that returned home after taking damage. Survivability tracks how many pilots survived a sortie where their aircraft took damage. 

 

The Me-410:

 

The 110-G2: 

 

The He-111 H16:

 

The C-47, from this month:

 

That one is very surprising to me, given how vulnerable the 47 is, though I do have anecdotal experience of bringing a C-47 home missing the rudder and with several cannon holes in the starboard engine after a mix-up with a 190. I didn't even notice I'd lost the rudder until a wingmate pointed it out.

 

 

And just for fun, here's the average amount of .50 cal rounds it takes to down a Ju-88a in November:

 

Hmm. That's certainly not a guaranteed pilot snipe on the first burst.

 

All of this paints a very explicit picture that in general 1/3 bombers survive being shot, and almost 50% of pilots survive encounters where their aircraft took damage. Seems your experiences don't match up with the statistical reality. You must be quite unlucky. 

 

 

And as a quick, fun addendum, it seems bombers are more likely to survive any given sortie than a fighter is, trending with around 50% rate of aircraft landing on an airfield. Fighters of all stripes generally sit at around 35%. 

 

Obviously this is because of the different mission profiles, fighters are out looking for trouble and thus more likely to find it and get shot down, so it doesn't have much bearing on this discussion. I just think it's neat. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain

[453=Whittle]

Your pic links are broken.

 

"And just for fun, here's the average amount of .50 cal rounds it takes to down a Ju-88a in November:"  You can't draw that conclusion, because the number 102 was the "average hits per aircraft lost". ie Given that the aircraft was lost, that was the average number of hits it took... Which is completely different to how many rounds it takes to down the aircraft.

 

(not that I feel strongly either way on the thread's topic at the moment).

[6./ZG26_Custard]

23 minutes ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

Though I'm pretty confident in saying the perception of pilot deaths being guaranteed is entirely fallacious, and doesn't line up with the available evidence. Have some statistics: 

@6./ZG26_Loke There you go mate, we are all imagining it. 

[453=Whittle]

34 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

... Something fundamentally changed not only with the ridiculous AI gunners but the instant death laser beams that reduced mission survivability probably less than 10%.

 

The AI gunners would be enough to explain it for me. All the gunners of planes I attack online (except the 410's) are a joke and enable shooting from 6 o'clock, potentially straight through the fuselage.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

8 minutes ago, 453=Whittle said:

The AI gunners would be enough to explain it for me. All the gunners of planes I attack online (except the 410's) are a joke and enable shooting from 6 o'clock, potentially straight through the fuselage.

You are probably right.

[Lusekofte]

To me this is no longer a fight to fix gunners problem and Hollywood effect fighters want. 
It is clear this is how fighter pilots want it. 
Nice and easy. For me this game is abandoned by all people I know with interest for a complete and authentic war simulation. 
Just a few still hoping for something more than this hollow fps thing going on. One have to fight every fighter jockey in community not interested in others perspective. And one do not get attention from the devs at all. 
 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

And one do not get attention from the devs at all. 

The Ai useless gunners certainly have been a massive issue for at least a year. I never thought I would stop flying in great battles. After a year of watching gunners not able to hit a fighter sitting straight and level on you six with impunity and the laser death one shots I've got to the point where I've just had enough. The bomber game is pretty much destroyed for me.   

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

26 minutes ago, 453=Whittle said:

Your pic links are broken.

 

"And just for fun, here's the average amount of .50 cal rounds it takes to down a Ju-88a in November:"  You can't draw that conclusion, because the number 102 was the "average hits per aircraft lost". ie Given that the aircraft was lost, that was the average number of hits it took... Which is completely different to how many rounds it takes to down the aircraft.

 

(not that I feel strongly either way on the thread's topic at the moment).

 

While you are correct, there is always going to be a certain amount of overkill in these statistics, (as a fun example, aircraft with more guns, or guns with higher rates of fire consistently have a higher average hits on downed plane, simply because they have a higher weight of fire). However, as I understand it, the tracker does not count any hits that landed after the pilot has died or left the aircraft. Which if anything, makes this an extremely relevant value here. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

@6./ZG26_Loke There you go mate, we are all imagining it. 

 

At the end of the day this is your personal anecdotes against the accumulated data of literal thousands of sorties. Is the data I've given flawed, misrepresentative in some way? These numbers are very consistent across servers, months and aircraft types. 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain

 

So all the bomber and ground attackers are just imagine it? 

This thread is not real, and really is in another dimension. 

 

Before you come with all your statics, I suggest you fly as a bomber for at least a month. Then we can talk. 

 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

15 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The Ai useless gunners certainly have been a massive issue for at least a year. I never thought I would stop flying in great battles. After a year of watching gunners not able to hit a fighter sitting straight and level on you six with impunity and the laser death one shots I've got to the point where I've just had enough. The bomber game is pretty much destroyed for me.   

Same here…. The devs destroyed the Bomber gameplay and don’t care about..

At all the AI seems in a very bad condition.

In case of WW1 two seaters the AI isn’t able to reload. 

Happens often when I play online on Flugpark:
I was wondering why my gunner hold the fire, so I try to do the job by myself. Jump on the gunners seat and I face not only a safe enemy on my six, also an empty Beckers gun. Reload the gun, aim and hit are too many tasks for the half second the enemy need to kill my pilot.

The condition of the game in that case is pathetic. Also I can fly in my PWCG career as a fighter in a Breguet 14 combat box without getting any punishment for my reckless behaviour.

So far the devs didn’t earn any pre order without find a solution for this problems ??

[6./ZG26_Custard]

20 minutes ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

At the end of the day this is your personal anecdotes against the accumulated data of literal thousands of sorties. Is the data I've given flawed, misrepresentative in some way? These numbers are very consistent across servers, months and aircraft types. 

Yes, it's my personal experience flying thousands of hours and thousands of sorties in bombers. I didn't take my statistics from just one month. Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. I suppose everyone that's reporting problems with pilot deaths, the destruction of bomber gameplay and the absolutely appalling AI gunners is all purely anecdotal too. 

[Lusekofte]

43 minutes ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

the end of the day this is your personal anecdotes

That count more based on 10 years. You soon enough grow tired yourself if you find your self in minority. 
I am rather amazed they took the time building flyable coffins 

giving us hope. 
But to me it is the lack of complexity. It is no room for balance when it comes to gunners and damage. This is why I have no hope what so ever it will be fixed

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, it's my personal experience flying thousands of hours and thousands of sorties in bombers. I didn't take my statistics from just one month. Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. I suppose everyone that's reporting problems with pilot deaths, the destruction of bomber gameplay and the absolutely appalling AI gunners is all purely anecdotal too. 

 

I'm honestly quite staggered at the arrogance on display here. You can look at the Finnish statistics for every month since the damage model change, they are entirely consistent with the month of November. This is the assorted data of literally every bomber flight on the server. The stats for Combat Box are much the same, these are the two most popular multiplayer servers, effectively collating the results of almost every bomber sortie.  We are talking numbers in the tens of thousands of sorties in the short few months since the pilot health adjustment.

 

Although perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you have flown 3500 sorties (that's just counting the 88a4) since the damage model change, and your personal experience carries more weight than every single bomber flight anyone has undertook in multiplayer. Lets see, oh... You've flown 8. 

 

Presumably you fly a lot more singleplayer, which we can't gather statistics for, but as suggested a multitude of times in this thread, you can record tracks, and point out the places where you think a pilot snipe was unreasonable. 

 

If you want to effect change, you need to have something other than the rather silly hyperbole of instant pilot snipes. We can see from the statistics the average amount of hits taken before pilots die or bail, and especially in the case of .50 cals, it's not a low number. The average hits for pure .50 cal aircraft to down an 88 dropped from 115 to 80 after the update. A notable decrease, but certainly not even close to the 'instant kill' rhetoric. Yes, on average they die slightly faster than they used to. But they also don't die in larger numbers. In fact, survivability since the update for the ju-88 has increased slightly. Still within a margin of error, and not an increase shared by other types (they all have consistent numbers, no notable change up or down) but ultimately showing that the odds of surviving a multiplayer bomber sortie have not markedly changed. The idea that bomber sorties always end in death is complete and utter fiction, in fact, bombers are statistically more likely to survive a sortie than a fighter is. 

 

I agree that the gunner nerf (while very much something that was needed) was overdone, and that in general the way AI gunners function is in great need of a complete overhaul. There's a lot of strangeness around how their accuracy increases proportionally to aircraft dead-zones. However, that's not the topic of the thread.

 

 

At the end of the day, I question why people expect their bombers to survive encounters with fighters without escort. These are large, generally slow, sluggish and poorly defended aircraft. Not a single one of the flyable bombers or attackers in game carry a defensive armament that's a realistic threat to a fighter, even in the good old days of laser accurate terminator gunners, most of the kills mine scored were posthumous, with my killer's engine dying 5 minutes after he'd shot me down. And vice versa, my experience as a greedy fighter player was that the gunners may wound my pilot or break my engine, but rarely if ever before I shot the bomber down first.

 

Historically, bombers were incredibly vulnerable to fighters, hence why they flew under escort and in large formations to protect themselves. I don't understand why you'd expect this to be different in game. I love a good bomber or attacker sortie as much as the next person. But I'm under no illusions to their vulnerabilities, hence why when we fly them we take precautions to avoid interception or have some form of escort or sweep to cover us. Flying alone and then complaining that the aircraft specifically designed to shoot you down, shot you down, comes across as rather silly to me. If you want bombers with survivability, fly ww1. I promise you a well organised breguet formation is some of the most fun you can have level bombing in this game. 

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

14 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

That count more based on 10 years. You soon enough grow tired yourself if you find your self in minority. 
 

It’s been 10 years of you calling this a fighter game.   How many times would you estimate that you’ve deleted the game from your computer in those 10 years?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Dreay me what a lot of waffle and a condescending talkdown. You are replying to me like you think I am some kind of fool. I heard it all. You talk of arrogance just listen to yourself. This is a 7 page thread about pilot kills so go figure. Now, I'll let you get back to your stats.  

5 hours ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

 

I'm honestly quite staggered at the arrogance on display here. You can look at the Finnish statistics for every month since the damage model change, they are entirely consistent with the month of November. This is the assorted data of literally every bomber flight on the server. The stats for Combat Box are much the same, these are the two most popular multiplayer servers, effectively collating the results of almost every bomber sortie.  We are talking numbers in the tens of thousands of sorties in the short few months since the pilot health adjustment.

 

Although perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you have flown 3500 sorties (that's just counting the 88a4) since the damage model change, and your personal experience carries more weight than every single bomber flight anyone has undertook in multiplayer. Lets see, oh... You've flown 8. 

 

Presumably you fly a lot more singleplayer, which we can't gather statistics for, but as suggested a multitude of times in this thread, you can record tracks, and point out the places where you think a pilot snipe was unreasonable. 

 

If you want to effect change, you need to have something other than the rather silly hyperbole of instant pilot snipes. We can see from the statistics the average amount of hits taken before pilots die or bail, and especially in the case of .50 cals, it's not a low number. The average hits for pure .50 cal aircraft to down an 88 dropped from 115 to 80 after the update. A notable decrease, but certainly not even close to the 'instant kill' rhetoric. Yes, on average they die slightly faster than they used to. But they also don't die in larger numbers. In fact, survivability since the update for the ju-88 has increased slightly. Still within a margin of error, and not an increase shared by other types (they all have consistent numbers, no notable change up or down) but ultimately showing that the odds of surviving a multiplayer bomber sortie have not markedly changed. The idea that bomber sorties always end in death is complete and utter fiction, in fact, bombers are statistically more likely to survive a sortie than a fighter is. 

 

I agree that the gunner nerf (while very much something that was needed) was overdone, and that in general the way AI gunners function is in great need of a complete overhaul. There's a lot of strangeness around how their accuracy increases proportionally to aircraft dead-zones. However, that's not the topic of the thread.

 

 

At the end of the day, I question why people expect their bombers to survive encounters with fighters without escort. These are large, generally slow, sluggish and poorly defended aircraft. Not a single one of the flyable bombers or attackers in game carry a defensive armament that's a realistic threat to a fighter, even in the good old days of laser accurate terminator gunners, most of the kills mine scored were posthumous, with my killer's engine dying 5 minutes after he'd shot me down. And vice versa, my experience as a greedy fighter player was that the gunners may wound my pilot or break my engine, but rarely if ever before I shot the bomber down first.

 

Historically, bombers were incredibly vulnerable to fighters, hence why they flew under escort and in large formations to protect themselves. I don't understand why you'd expect this to be different in game. I love a good bomber or attacker sortie as much as the next person. But I'm under no illusions to their vulnerabilities, hence why when we fly them we take precautions to avoid interception or have some form of escort or sweep to cover us. Flying alone and then complaining that the aircraft specifically designed to shoot you down, shot you down, comes across as rather silly to me. If you want bombers with survivability, fly ww1. I promise you a well organised breguet formation is some of the most fun you can have level bombing in this game. 

 

5 hours ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

18 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, it's my personal experience flying thousands of hours and thousands of sorties in bombers. I didn't take my statistics from just one month. Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. I suppose everyone that's reporting problems with pilot deaths, the destruction of bomber gameplay and the absolutely appalling AI gunners is all purely anecdotal too. 

 

I'm honestly quite staggered at the arrogance on display here. You can look at the Finnish statistics for every month since the damage model change, they are entirely consistent with the month of November. This is the assorted data of literally every bomber flight on the server. The stats for Combat Box are much the same, these are the two most popular multiplayer servers, effectively collating the results of almost every bomber sortie.  We are talking numbers in the tens of thousands of sorties in the short few months since the pilot health adjustment.

 

Although perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you have flown 3500 sorties (that's just counting the 88a4) since the damage model change, and your personal experience carries more weight than every single bomber flight anyone has undertook in multiplayer. Lets see, oh... You've flown 8. 

 

Presumably you fly a lot more singleplayer, which we can't gather statistics for, but as suggested a multitude of times in this thread, you can record tracks, and point out the places where you think a pilot snipe was unreasonable. 

 

If you want to effect change, you need to have something other than the rather silly hyperbole of instant pilot snipes. We can see from the statistics the average amount of hits taken before pilots die or bail, and especially in the case of .50 cals, it's not a low number. The average hits for pure .50 cal aircraft to down an 88 dropped from 115 to 80 after the update. A notable decrease, but certainly not even close to the 'instant kill' rhetoric. Yes, on average they die slightly faster than they used to. But they also don't die in larger numbers. In fact, survivability since the update for the ju-88 has increased slightly. Still within a margin of error, and not an increase shared by other types (they all have consistent numbers, no notable change up or down) but ultimately showing that the odds of surviving a multiplayer bomber sortie have not markedly changed. The idea that bomber sorties always end in death is complete and utter fiction, in fact, bombers are statistically more likely to survive a sortie than a fighter is. 

 

I agree that the gunner nerf (while very much something that was needed) was overdone, and that in general the way AI gunners function is in great need of a complete overhaul. There's a lot of strangeness around how their accuracy increases proportionally to aircraft dead-zones. However, that's not the topic of the thread.

 

 

At the end of the day, I question why people expect their bombers to survive encounters with fighters without escort. These are large, generally slow, sluggish and poorly defended aircraft. Not a single one of the flyable bombers or attackers in game carry a defensive armament that's a realistic threat to a fighter, even in the good old days of laser accurate terminator gunners, most of the kills mine scored were posthumous, with my killer's engine dying 5 minutes after he'd shot me down. And vice versa, my experience as a greedy fighter player was that the gunners may wound my pilot or break my engine, but rarely if ever before I shot the bomber down first.

 

Historically, bombers were incredibly vulnerable to fighters, hence why they flew under escort and in large formations to protect themselves. I don't understand why you'd expect this to be different in game. I love a good bomber or attacker sortie as much as the next person. But I'm under no illusions to their vulnerabilities, hence why when we fly them we take precautions to avoid interception or have some form of escort or sweep to cover us. Flying alone and then complaining that the aircraft specifically designed to shoot you down, shot you down, comes across as rather silly to me. If you want bombers with survivability, fly ww1. I promise you a well organised breguet formation is some of the most fun you can have level bombing in this game

 

And oh yes look at the stats I'm hardly flying anymore you are right ?

[RedeyeStorm]

Not my experience so I disagree. 

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Dreay me what a lot of waffle and a condescending talkdown. You are replying to me like you think I am some kind of fool. I heard it all. You talk of arrogance just listen to yourself. This is a 7 page thread about pilot kills so go figure. Now, I'll let you get back to your stats.  

 

 

And oh yes look at the stats I'm hardly flying anymore you are right ?

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, RedeyeStorm said:

Not my experience so I disagree.

That's the wonderful thing, we are all entitled to disagree ??

[Lusekofte]

20 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s been 10 years of you calling this a fighter game.   How many times would you estimate that you’ve deleted the game from your computer in those 10 years?

No I started call it this after gunners were totally useless and repeated it after planes start to explode in my face after one burst. 
It is quite amazing how your memory works 

Your wisdom is known by all members here. Still you use it mostly for sarcasm. 
I personally do not mind it at all. I just disagree on the path this game has taken. 
I uninstalled it and ended my reflections 

You find me in off topic sections if you need to empty your gut some more

[JG7_X-Man]

@[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain is right on point.

 

I think this conversation is so funny to me - we can all just look at the actual events of WW II Black Thursday comes to mind, the Second Schweinfurt Bombing Raid. If gunners were as effective as they were back in the day in this game, there would be no need for fighter escort in real life. I am not saying that gunners in this game should be absolutely useless, but history shows a single B-17/B-24 cannot fend off a pair of well flown fighters. A B-25/B-26 cannot fend off a single well flown fighter.

 

The Evolution of Long-Range Escort Doctrine in World War II.

 

The closure rates were simply too fast for bomber gunners to track and hit without luck - this being the single fighter scenario. The Luftwaffe used coordinated attacks that rarely resulted in a single aircraft firing on a single bomber. Everyone knows the Luftwaffe used the rotte (2 ship combat tactics).

 

Where the Luftwaffe designed very effective tactics to tackle the combat box, they could not replace the men and machines that were lost as fast as the Allies could.

Edited December 20, 2022 by JG7_X-Man

[6./ZG26_Loke]

1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain is right on point.

 

I think this conversation is so funny to me - we can all just look at the actual events of WW II Black Thursday comes to mind, the Second Schweinfurt Bombing Raid. If gunners were as effective as they were back in the day in this game, there would be no need for fighter escort in real life. I am not saying that gunners in this game should be absolutely useless, but history shows a single B-17/B-24 cannot fend off a pair of well flown fighters. A B-25/B-26 cannot fend off a single well flown fighter.

 

The Evolution of Long-Range Escort Doctrine in World War II.

 

The closure rates were simply too fast for bomber gunners to track and hit without luck - this being the single fighter scenario. The Luftwaffe used coordinated attacks that rarely resulted in a single aircraft firing on a single bomber. Everyone knows the Luftwaffe used the rotte (2 ship combat tactics).

 

Where the Luftwaffe designed very effective tactics to tackle the combat box, they could not replace the men and machines that were lost as fast as the Allies could.

 

 

 

[Charon]

@JG7_X-ManI agree, but I think the thing that's sometimes lost here is the emphasis on well flown. Good fighter tactics against bombers doesn't just mean charging in and shooting (we as impatient virtual pilots often resort to that...); it means exploiting areas of weak defensive coverage, making coordinated attacks, and taking advantage of broken formations, and sometimes proactively breaking the formation with weapons like rockets. Häberlen gives a vivid account of what happened when his inexperienced ex-bomber pilots made stern attacks on a combat box of B-17s.

Quote

We started with seven Me 410s and flew west. Despite their climbing ability, we had only reached a height of 17,000ft as we flew over Stuttgart, and we witnessed the enemy aircraft drop their bombs on the target. As fast as possible we tried to catch up with them so we could attack. I decided we would climb, which would give us a slight advantage, and we could fire our rockets into the formation. As I had written in my letter to the air ministry, our engine power was now so much reduced that we could not get nearer than 3,500ft from the now home flying aircraft. Just before Nancy we came within range. "We will try to attack" I said to Bubi, and pointed our aircraft downwards towards the formation to enable us to fire our rockets.

 

What then happened, we will never forget. We were used to flack from the ground bursting around us, but what burst around us was like uncountable colorful fireworks. Bubi said we were mad. Such concentrated defensive fire we had never seen. There was now no return, the only thing we could do was to close our eyes, fire the rockets, and dive steeply. Where our rockets went we could not see. All we could see was the heavy defensive fire from the formation, aimed in our direction. At a height of 16,000ft I leveled out and saw the closely packed formation, as if controlled by a ghostly hand, flying west.

 

I now had time to consider the rest of the squadron. How had they come through this first action against the flying fortress formation? Not to well, it would seem. Although they were experienced men who had many unpleasant flying experiences behind them, this must have been something quite new, and shocking. After about two hours we landed in Illesheim, only to find that a crew hand landed before us. Shortly afterwards, two other Me 410s landed. We waited and waited, but three aircraft of my group did not return. We waited anxiously to see who reported. Lieutenant Hovestadt's aircraft was badly hit, and he and his radio operator bailed out. Unfortunately he landed in a tree and badly injured his leg. He was crippled for the rest of his life. The other crews were also caught in the defensive fire, which killed two radio operators. The first operation with the new weapons was a shattering experience for us.

A Luftwaffe Bomber Pilot Remembers, p127.

 

(Of course, I'm not convinced Häberlen is a reliable narrator -- there doesn't seem to have been an attack on Stuttgart on 1944-09-06. There were attacks on the 5th and the 10th that were about the right size, but the report from the 5th lists only two t/e e/a seen in the target area (no attack, no claims). Maybe the 10th?)

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's all very nice quoting "real life" but in real life, bombers could and did take a pounding and pilots didn't suffer what we currently have, the in-game, nanosecond, laser beams of doom. Also in "real life" fighters didn't just line up behind bombers for a jolly and just sit there laughing at how crappy the ai gunners are. It's almost impossible to have mass formations of bombers flying with heavy escort in this game because we are not dealing with real life, if we were 50% of all injuries to crew would be from shrapnel. Anyone who has flown bombers consistently for more than a year will notice that something has fundamentally changed that's completely made flying bombers irrelevant in this game. This is not about being shot down or pilots dying it's the fact that the ai gunners has been completely kiboshed and many people are suffering the laser beam deaths of doom, this is not imagined. I'll also add, another problem that could be compounding issues, I don't think ballistics comes into the mix at all, because between the tail and the pilot there's an awful lot of equipment, systems, armour and bodies. Rounds don't necessarily travel in a laser beam fashion but when they hit something they shatter, tumble, ricochet and do all sorts of crazy stuff. Currently it seems that this is either poorly modelled or not modelled at all. However, this is not real life is it, and we are dealing with a game. Unfortunately, it is a game that has taken a direction that is fundamentally destroying the bomber aspect of the game and turned into a completely figher centric game. And that is such a shame.

[Lusekofte]

41 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

And that is such a shame

After a short while testing this with only Lagg 3 and 109 available 

I though “oh my god, what a potential “

Some years later it got to be “what a game this could have been”

I fly (flew) fighters in coop , after a while it just bore me to death.  But for those who like that part I can understand their pow, of finding this great. 
But to me now, making those bombers flyable was an awful tease. I am not quite sure if it is ballistic or DM. Something turned horrible wrong 

[SCG_motoadve]

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

After a short while testing this with only Lagg 3 and 109 available 

I though “oh my god, what a potential “

Some years later it got to be “what a game this could have been”

I fly (flew) fighters in coop , after a while it just bore me to death.  But for those who like that part I can understand their pow, of finding this great. 
But to me now, making those bombers flyable was an awful tease. I am not quite sure if it is ballistic or DM. Something turned horrible wrong 

Totally agree with you.

If you fly online, dedicate thousands of hours, become good, get lots of kills very easy, hardly ever get killed, get your big  ego, the easier this pilots can kill the more they like the game, so right now it is a dream for them, and they dont want anything changed that will make the game more challenging, because their stats will be lowered, they are loud and make themselves heard, they back each other on the forums, this is part of the reason, this game has been changing towards more arcade, and why now we get instant pilot kills, very fragile airplanes, specially bombers, planes get on fire easily, wings snap like cardboard in some planes like 109s, you can take off across runways , wont get stuck, gunners are crap.

All this contributes towards more easy kills, and it is destroying what this game was.

 

Il2 is loosing lots of people who used to have a passion for  game, and were flying it for years, who came from the original Il2 from Oleg days, not the War Thunder player , who are the newer players, which not all, but many of them seem to like an easier game than Il2 was meant to be initially, this are the kind that have been pushing towards an easier game, but this people will not stay for as long and will move on to another game as soon as they find something that gives them instant gratification.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

The pilot kill seems a bit over done IMO.   Especially the medium to long range shots.  Up close and personal, maybe not.  But at longer range (ground fire included),  seems a little unrealistic to me.

[LukeFF]

All these complaints here, and yet practically no one can be bothered to post tracks or mission files showing the problem.

[SCG_motoadve]

25 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

All these complaints here, and yet practically no one can be bothered to post tracks or mission files showing the problem.

This is not a new problem with the last build, I recorded this on January 2022.

Laser shot, first bullet pilot kill.

Now has become worse, even when flying bombers.

 

 

[Charon]

So it would be realistic if pilots died after getting shot for the second time with .50 BMG? Or the third? 

 

I'm curious how many hit-points some of you think real-life people have.

[RedeyeStorm]

The last three missions I flew I got shot up. Two where Spit 9 in MP. No pilot kill and brought both planes back. Third was a SP career mission in a P38. Went down in flames and bailed out. Not a scratch on the pilot. 
 

I do not recognised glass planes or massive pilot kills. I do agree that AI gunners have been toned down to much but they where overkill before. 
 

The most ardent claimers of glass planes and massive pilot kills haven’t flown for some time by there own admission and offer no proof of this. This is there for not going anywhere.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

35 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

All these complaints here, and yet practically no one can be bothered to post tracks or mission files showing the problem.

It's not imagined and multiple people are noticing it. I have quit flying and don't see myself returning anytime soon, so hopefully someone else other than @SCG_motoadve will post more examples. I have already posted video showing the  absolutely diabolical state of the AI gunners and of course this just is compounding the issue and maybe the perception of laser death. Having said that it's happening too often to just be a coincidence.

2 minutes ago, RedeyeStorm said:

The most ardent claimers of glass planes and massive pilot kills haven’t flown for some time by there own admission and offer no proof of this. This is there for not going anywhere.

I would urge anyone to fly online as a bomber pilot for 3 months. Climb out of the fighter cockpit and give it a go. I'd love to hear what people think.  

[SCG_motoadve]

3 minutes ago, Charon said:

So it would be realistic if pilots died after getting shot for the second time with .50 BMG? Or the third? 

 

I'm curious how many hit-points some of you think real-life people have.

No , a pilot can get hit and die, its not about that, mostly its about a first bullet laser pilot kills that happens one after the other, even while flying bombers.

 

[RedeyeStorm]

3 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It's not imagined and multiple people are noticing it. I have quit flying and don't see myself returning anytime soon, so hopefully someone else other than @SCG_motoadve will post more examples. I have already posted video showing the  absolutely diabolical state of the AI gunners and of course this just is compounding the issue and maybe the perception of laser death. Having said that it's happening too often to just be a coincidence.

I would urge anyone to fly online as a bomber pilot for 3 months. Climb out of the fighter cockpit and give it a go. I'd love to hear what people think.  

I do not enjoy online play because you end up flying a bomber solo. I prefer SP and really enjoy flying as a bomber pilot. That is why I agree with you that the AI gunners need to be improved. Probably halfway where they are now and where before. Right now the gunners often end up shooting at a piece of sky that contains no plane. No evidence unfortunately but I do enjoy watching AI planes in external view and observed this behavior.