2 Seater Rear Gunners Accuracy

Rear Gunners in 2 seaters are too accurate in V1.1..

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 91.7%
  • No

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12
I've been trying them in QC, with the enemy plane set as 'Rookie', and the gunner is perfect in that mode. I have to really take the mickey (park on his tail) to be badly hit, but even jinking around I take the occasional round, as I think it should be. I lost my engine eventually (twice), but only because I had to stick around long enough to actually damage the buggers. Boy, they can soak it up. Both times though I set him alight. SUPERB effects!!! And one of them jumped. First time I've seen either happen. :)
 
I found that rookies, or normal pilots and gunners aren't too bad to shoot down if you keep a level head and plan your attack well. I mostly dive straight down on them at full speed and continue my dive untill I'm well under them and climb for a second pass. However the veteran and ace 2 seaters definately give me a hard time. They seem to be masters at deflection shooting, often ripping my crate to shreds from fairly long distances.

-Rooster

'There does not seem to be any rookies in campaign so you must be talking about QC
 
'There does not seem to be any rookies in campaign so you must be talking about QC

Yep. Thats why I put normal in there, because thats as low as it goes in campaign. But before I voted, I flew against every two seater on every side on every AI setting so I could have a balanced vote.

-Rooster
 
I just had an experience that makes me definately say there is an "issue" or should I say "room for improvement of a great product"

Attacking bombers with BnZ tactics seemed to work, but just now I got in a swirling dogfight with some Bristol F2bs and it was just insane these tailgunners were hitting me while their pilot was pulling Gs, I was pulling Gs etc. Just no frikkin way. I barely made it back home with I think one time that I shot at one of them and then got hit and then just manoeveruing all around them and they also, at speeds over 100 mph and still they were just hammering me.

sorry but i gotta call bs on that :173go1:
 
I mentioned in a related thread about making the hit boxes for rear gunners a little larger so it would be easier to wound or kill them and put them out of commission. Is this possible?

Also, I don't know if there are different skill levels for the gunners. If not, and it can be coded, this might be utilized to lower overall the skill levels of the gunners. If skill is already reflected in the game, I suggest lowering the skill of the "ace" rear gunners to veteran or just above, reduce veteran slightly lower than they are now, and either leave rookies where they are, or make them just a tad worse.

In the end, however, I trust the judgment of Winder and the rest of the OBD team. They can't make everybody happy! :applause:
 
Dear All,
I think there are 2 parts to this problem. The first is that the gunner is not in control of the aircraft and therefore does not definitely know when the pilot will opt to evade thereby putting his aim off. Of course the pilot could call to the gunner but would he be heard??
Secondly any 'g' loads will tire him which we as gunners do not experience in the game. I do like the rates of fire from the gunners........short bursts of around 6 rounds as the gun and target bouncing around would disrupt one's aim but it does seem to easy. OK, it is important to attack in the correct fashion but I think most people here have cut their teeth on IL-2 etc and have learned to do firing passes instead of a rear attack hardly moving across the gunners visual field at all.
So I think changes in the accuracy of the gunners rather than the damage to the attacker when hit, are necessary.
Best regards,
Pike.
 
I think the simplest solution is to put back into the campaign all classes of crew, from rookie to ace. Cannot the percentages expressed of each in-game be controlled by an algorithm? A bit like a pyramid in fact, rookies in greatest numbers (the base of the pyramid) and aces in fewest (the point of the pyramid), with the other classes in between.

In such a case one wouldn't know who or what one was attacking until the attack, or an exploratory pass, was commenced. That level of un-certainty is surely immersive. The odds are that one would be attacking a lower-skilled target, but one would never know for sure at the outset. Stray rounds whazzing past, or a deadly hail of accurate lead.

It's all very well having the rookies left out of campaign as a class, to ensure every dogfight is a thrilling challenge, but a constant diet of such can become a bit too rich over time. As can a constant diet of too-easy kills. Meat vs potatoes. But why not both in a stew? Plenty of potatoes for basic nourishment but with enough meat to keep the flavour interesting and provide extra protein, so to speak.

My vote is to put all classes into the campaign and let nature dictate where the cards fall. :)
 
I thought I read that Rookie pilots had a difficult time not crashing. If the program can differentiate between rookie pilots and rookie observer/gunners, then this would be great.
 
I have just picked up a 'bug' that will need sorting and may be a cause of this...its actually more a design stuff up on my side...

There are two categories of on board guns in a craft - the pilots gun(s) and the rear gunners gun(s) - we can manipulate each separately - so far so good.

But if you select Easy in the workshops for say you as a fighter the craft is loaded with better accuracy guns all round which means AI rear gunners are also more deadly - easy then being not so easy as your opponents rear gunners are then more accurate too - better to select Hard....ahem.

I will separate the categories....and make the rear gunners a wee bit less deadly too - but not by much.


WM

Good points WM, I agree with you. I would like to see more separation between the two no matter what the setting is.

I think there should aways be an accuracy difference between the two positions, this based on a level of skill the player selects. If one selects easy, the pilot gunner should be equal to a single fighter on easy and the rear gunner less ... an so on.

The pilots gun should be as accurate as any other single seat fighter. Where as the rear gunner should be less accurate when the plane is maneuvering, but as accurate in level flight as the pilots gun dependent on the skill level selected.

I voted YES based on what you said.

WF2
 
Good points WM, I agree with you. I would like to see more separation between the two no matter what the setting is.

I think there should aways be an accuracy difference between the two positions, this based on a level of skill the player selects. If one selects easy, the pilot gunner should be equal to a single fighter on easy and the rear gunner less ... an so on.

The pilots gun should be as accurate as any other single seat fighter. Where as the rear gunner should be less accurate when the plane is maneuvering, but as accurate in level flight as the pilots gun dependent on the skill level selected.

I voted YES based on what you said.

WF2


Yes it was a concept that caught me as easy for player makes it easy for opposing rear gunner too.

Yes I will split the settings in workshops to be main guns and rear guns - might not make 1.2 but will be in 1.3 - I promise.

WM
 
OK rear and main gun spread is now selectable individually in Workshops and will be in Patch to V1.2.

Thereafter we can re-evaluate with a POLL on V1.2


WM
 
OK rear and main gun spread is now selectable individually in Workshops and will be in Patch to V1.2.

Thereafter we can re-evaluate with a POLL on V1.2


WM

Too late for Sidney...:frown:

But...yay!:jump:
 
I think the simplest solution is to put back into the campaign all classes of crew, from rookie to ace. Cannot the percentages expressed of each in-game be controlled by an algorithm? A bit like a pyramid in fact, rookies in greatest numbers (the base of the pyramid) and aces in fewest (the point of the pyramid), with the other classes in between.

In such a case one wouldn't know who or what one was attacking until the attack, or an exploratory pass, was commenced. That level of un-certainty is surely immersive. The odds are that one would be attacking a lower-skilled target, but one would never know for sure at the outset. Stray rounds whazzing past, or a deadly hail of accurate lead.

It's all very well having the rookies left out of campaign as a class, to ensure every dogfight is a thrilling challenge, but a constant diet of such can become a bit too rich over time. As can a constant diet of too-easy kills. Meat vs potatoes. But why not both in a stew? Plenty of potatoes for basic nourishment but with enough meat to keep the flavour interesting and provide extra protein, so to speak.

My vote is to put all classes into the campaign and let nature dictate where the cards fall. :)

Yes, that would be perfect Siggi
 
OK rear and main gun spread is now selectable individually in Workshops and will be in Patch to V1.2.

Thereafter we can re-evaluate with a POLL on V1.2


WM

Do you mean .... "Thereafter we can re-evaluate with a POLL for V1.3 ? "

I like the compromise.

WF2
 
he means a poll on whats in 1.2 and indeed for the future

thats how i read it :)
 
Regarding the interesting question of whether two-seaters in OFF are "unrealistically" hard to shoot down, I went back to the literature to see if it provided any clues. Hope this is of some interest, though I am sure many of you know far more about this than me.


First of all here is VM Yeates in the classic and highly recommended Winged Victory (my edition pub. Ashford, Buchan & Enwright 1990] which although a novel is undoubtedly autobiographical, as Yeates was a highly experienced Camel pilot who survived the war. A typical experience was:

"He went up at eleven o'clock, but they did not see any Huns except two separate two-seaters which they chased but did not get near" [p.310]

They never flew alone if they could help it:

"They were diving from the clouds. They had surprised two aeroplanes flying West over Carvin, apparently in company. They were two-seaters of the type known as LVG. Mac went straight down on one of them. Tom, on his left, was in position to attack the other, and he veered to get it in his Aldis. He opened fire and the observer replied. He found himself in the unenviable position of fighting a two-seater single-handed, as all the others had followed Mac. The observer was doing some good shooting, and Tom had to side-slip away. He dived, still side-slipping, for position under the LVG's tail. The pilot saw him, and turned steeply to keep him in the observer's field of fire. He could out-fly the two-seater, but it was extremely difficult to do so with the observer's tracer coming so near. He had to sideslip and twist so much that he could not make effective reply, but he fired whenever his nose was pointing near the enemy, to put the wind up the pilot. After one of these bursts the LVG reversed bank as quickly as it could and in doing so put Tom in the observer's blind spot, and he was able to fire a more dangerous burst, and this was more than the pilot could stand. He put his nose down to dive away. At the same moment two other Camels came up and fired, and all four aeroplanes went careering earthwards. But the LVG was hit vitally. Smoke poured from it, and it hit the earth a blazing pyre. [pp 251-252]

In sharp contrast is the account of the RFC's greatest ace Major McCudden VC, from his autobiography Flying Fury: Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps (my edition published 2000 by Greenhill Books). He preferred to hunt alone, and had his own engine fitted with "high-compression pistons" in order to increase his rate of climb so he could "wait" at high altitude (exactly how he survived this, with no oxygen or heated clothing I cannot imagine). The majority of his 57 victories were two-seaters:

"I used to go up day after day waiting at 17,000 upto 20,000 feet for the German two-seaters, who were always over our lines during the clear visibility. I expect some of those Huns got a shock when they came over at 18,000 feet and were dived on by an SE from above, for in the winter it was an exception to see an SE above 17,000 feet, which was the ceiling of the average 200 h.p. SE with its war load" [pp. 227-8].

The skills of two-seaters varied:

"I shot down a DFW that was doing artillery work over Vitry at 12,000 feet. This DFW crew deserved to die, because they had no notion whatever of how to defend themselves, which showed that during their training they must have been slack, and lazy, and probably liked going to Berlin too often instead of sticking to their training and learning as much as they could while they had the opportunity. I had no sympathy for those fellows.." [p.242]

From this I conclude:

- just chasing off two-seaters is a success, even if you don't shoot them down, since at least that stops them doing what they came for;
- unless you're an ace, never attack them alone;
- if you are an ace with exceptional flying and shooting skills, you can use surprise by coming down fast from higher altitude more or less vertically, out of the sun, and down them with a few shots;
- in good two-seaters (ie those which survived) the pilot is skilled in positioning the aircraft to avoid the gunner being put in a blind spot;
- the skills of two-seaters vary greatly.

So I think there is a case maybe for having some (random?) variation in two-seater "deadliness", and for them to manoeuvre rather than flying on in a straight line. However I don't have enough experience to know what is the range of two-seater behaviour modelled in OFF,since my experience is limited to Quick Combat and I'm willing to bet this isn't completely representative of the campaigns. Given the general wondrousness of everything I've seen to date, they probably will manoeuvre if they need to, but my own "flying" ability is so woeful at present they probably think it's hardly worth the effort. My own flying is more reminiscent of this wonderful account:

"I got up to 16,500 feet when a beastly two-seater Hun insisted on coming in my direction. I simply had to see him, much as I was dying not to. Of course I made a mess of things as usual. I had to wait to see his markings before I fired, and by that time his nose had begun to go down. I made a mighty lunge round and pushed at everything I could in a wild frenzy of excitement. Unfortunately I left my engine full on during my headlong flight, and it soon ceased to function in an orderly manner. By that time I had blazed off a drum from my Lewis gun, but to my great annoyance my Vickers refused to 'marche'. This was later accounted for owing to my not having loaded it! (Don't you dare to tell anyone else!) Anyway the Hun would not stop one of my bullets and went home." [2nd Lieutenant Gwilym Lewis, 40 Squadron RFC, in Wings Over the Somme, p99, quoted in Steel & Hart: Tumult in the Clouds, Hodder & Stoughton 1999, p 312]

Thanks again for a wonderful sim.
 
A large number of aces got shot down (or at least badly shot up) by 2-seaters, including MvR.
 
Back
Top