Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

 
next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Archives   » EAW Archive 1   » The settings on bomber guns/realism.

   
Author Topic: The settings on bomber guns/realism.
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 10-19-1999 10:06 AM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
This is a repost.

Something I noticed while playing around with GunEdit is that all of the bombers have dumbed down guns. Guns with reduced firing rates, low muzzle velocities, short ranges and/or reduced calibre . I have been playing around with it, using the B-17 as my test subject. What I have done is given it 50 cal Mgs with the same stats as the P-51's guns, gave it the historical ammo load (I will have to up this a bit as the AI doesn't know how to conserver ammo) and made the dispersion much higher (50, but I'm goin to try lowering it to 30 and see what effect that has). The effect of my current changes has been to make it so that the B-17s hit less often, but harder when they do. Because they hit less often, the attacking AI fighters are more willing to press the attack and get some damage on the bombers. It seems to me that with a little work it would be possible to find the right balance this way and make EAW feel even more accurate.

Coments anyone?

Sisu


Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tannethal
unregistered

posted 10-19-1999 10:31 AM       Edit/Delete Post
Tried a similar thing but failed.
gave all bombers correct ROF & MV and the outcome was that you were shot down in less than a few seconds. It's not the guns it's the AIGunner tracking ability, they simply are to good.
If you ever served in the army you will know how hard it is to track a moving object with a maschinegun, even when you aren't moving.

IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 10-19-1999 02:43 PM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I think I have solved the overly accurate gunner problem by setting the dispersion to a very high number, currently 50 but I think that is a bit too high. When I get home I will try different numbers. The high dispersion means that the gunners can't hit the spot they are aiming at very easily because of high bullet drift. Think of it as though they are firing automatic, smooth bore muskets.
Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Canaris
unregistered

posted 10-20-1999 12:30 AM       Edit/Delete Post
Mach Schnell- Get zis out to all units sofort!! Ze Ami's bombers are using new automatic, smooth bore muskets !-
IP: Logged
Tobiwan
Member
Member # 420

posted 10-20-1999 03:25 AM     Profile for Tobiwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I remember a few years ago the online gaming community had this same problem with Aces over Europe. Nick Bell and those other geniuses (and they really where) who edited AOE could never get the bomber fire right. The noticed when editing the game that Dynamix had downgraded the bomber guns. Obviously this is because with relistic armament they where too good.
Why? Well it is very hard to get AI gunners to simulate the difficulties of actually hitting anything with a gun from a bomber. The waist .50s where hopeless and the turret guns where a little better.

Anyway they never really came to a satisfactory conclusian (sic) to this problem. I just remeber reading many debates simalar to this one.

But bear this in mind:
a)The *effective* range of a .50 gun would be reduced when firing from (for e.g.) a hand-held waist position, due this being less stable then a fixed wing mounting. Imagine the recoil! Twin .50 turret guns would be much better but still not as stable as wing guns.

b) Sighting. Fighter pilots (even in EAW) had better sights in their fighters than bomber gunners had in thier positions.

However a game is not gonna simulate this (unless we get really good at hacking EAW) so putting the full (2+2+2+2+1+1= 10 .50s and 3 .30s = 13guns) gun load on a B-17 is gonna make is rather deadly. I would hate to be scalped at 2000feet out by a 1sec burst from a B-17 radio operators .30 gun. Or have a wing taken off at 2500ft out by a dorsal gunner.

------------------
Matthew "Raptor" Renard


Posts: 893 | From: Amanzimtoti, KWA-Zulu, South Africa | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 10-20-1999 10:06 AM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I worked on it more last night. I modified all of the bombers to give them guns that roughly match the stats on the same calibre fighter guns, except they have very high dispersion. I tried leading a flight of 12 Spitfire Mk Ia against 12 unescorted He-111. The end result was 2 destroyed Spits (me and one other) for the loss of 12 He-111s. In the course of the fight I saw the AI fighters do things that I have never seen before, for example, at one point 2 Spits, one on the others wing, came deep into the bomber formation firing repeatedly at 1 He-111 and only broke off at the last moment to avoid colliding with it. The He-111 was destroyed. I was destroyed after pressing into the formation repeatedly, which is something that a good fighter pilot, at least one who wishes to live, would not do. It seemed overall to be a better representation of WWII fighter vs. bomber combat.
If any of you wish, I could email you the file and you could try it out ant tell me what you think needs to be done. Just post your email address or email me directly at [email protected]

Sisu


Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 10-20-1999 01:07 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I'll try it, it sounds like a very good idea to me. Do I post my email here (cringe) or what?
Thanks


Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 10-20-1999 02:06 PM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
You can email me directly at [email protected]
Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved