Up to date, there exists two schools of thought concerning long range gunnery - one emphasizing the human factor, and the other emphasizing the mechanical representation of general environment concerning the physics in the game. The former mainly focuses on the human ability to aim, which is greatly influenced by experience and innate talent, which unfortunately is unquantifiable and thus, unverifiable. Therefore, the latter usually emphasizes in removing possible human variation, and getting the general environment of the game to match that of reality as close as possible, to verify how much of human ability is really involved with a general phenomenon that is rarely observed in real life, but rather common in the game.
By the definition of "long range" I am following the general rule of thumb laid out by the renowned Tony Williams - which sets about 200m as a limit for gunnery ranges where one can expect to land critical hits against a fighter plane, and 400m for larger targets such as bombers.
Previously, I've pointed out that the ammunition counters and the distance indicators on the icons were the two main reasons (without dragging in the 'human variable' in the picture) why long range gunnery is seemingly more easy than it was in real life.
The argument is;
1) The ammunition counter verifies the exact amount of ammunition left for use. If shooting a gun is like drawing money from the bank, it isn't hard to imagine that a person who knows about his exact bank balance would be more willing to able to spend his money according to a planned budget. On the other hand, if the balance remains unknown, then one would be more cautious and conservative in drawing cash from the ATM, and one would be more resistant to situations that which normally one would spend money without hesitation, if he had the exact knowledge of how much he can spend.
Long-range gunnery is by definition, less effective than close-range gunnery, and thus, requires more rounds to be spent to expect the same hit probability as shooting at close distances. If there is no knowledge on how many rounds you have left, then the very thought of 'wasting' ammunition against an unlikely probability is met with considerable resistance - one can never know for sure just when his guns will stop firing, except for a vague "feel" of how many shots you've taken so far.
Shooting from longer ranges is lower in probability, but the probability does exist as long as someone fires his gun. However, what if that someone is discouraged from taking the shot in the first place? That is what the existance of the ammunition counter influences.
2) The distance counter is a fleeting example of how a familiarized visual indication can immediately link up with general experience to achieve higher efficiency. The introduction of AH2 Beta had two major changes in the gunnery modelling, in that the the concept of 'hit resolution' was more refined, and the icon distance indicators became more conservative in exact information (previous incarnation of the 'icon' showed exact enemy distances, instead of the 200yd marks which we currently have). The overall result was that the effective gunnery range in AH dropped down by nearly 200yards - whereas in AH1 500~600 yards was a very common distance where kills were achieved, in AH2 the '400' marker (which in AH2, indicates that the enemy plane is somewhere between 400 and 600 yards) is now generally known as the 'safety' line.
In short, in AH1, when you saw an enemy plane behind at 500~600, it was a distance where you would normally consider yourself either "dead" or "in big trouble". However, in AH2, the "400" mark is a distance one may expect a reasonable chance of getting out alive, especially if you were the faster plane that could depart to the "600" marker in a few seconds. This general drop in gunnery distance is perhaps the single largest evidence that the 'human experience' factor is far too overrated, since those advocates of 'experience' used to argue the same thing in AH1.
....
During the discussion of the thread on implementation of partial damage, suggested by BlauK, I seem to have stumbled upon another (possibly) fundamental reason on why long-range gunnery is more prevalent in AH2 than real life. I believe this is a previously unsuggested aspect (or at least, more or less completely forgotten) and might be worth a look.
According to most people who advise not to use tracers at all, the tracer rounds have different ballistics than the normal, invisible rounds fired and will often be misleading to where most of your potent rounds are actually going (as opposed to where the tracer is 'pointing' at).
Now, If the mere addition of luminous, burning phosphorous tips is that great to influence ballistics, as to be 'misleadin', then what if the ammunition type itself was different? Clearly this is something that does not exist in AH, but did exist in real life.
What we know about AH so far, is that AH2 does not model ammunition belt sequences. Every round fired is a equalized 'generic' round one would expect from that belt. For instance, if a real ammunition belt had 50:50 composition and fired two rounds of one AP shell doing "50" damage and one HE shell doing "100" damage, AH2 will fire two rounds of "75" damage - a "generic" round.
The perceived problem is this: note the following example comparison of the British Hispano Mk.II of real life and as depicted in AH2
* British Hispano Mk.I fired a mixed belt composition of:
HET - AP - HE - AP
*AH2 guns all fire generic rounds in generic composition going:
G - G - G - G - T
Now, if someone in AH2 fires a Hispano at a range where the ballistics differences between the T(racer) and G(eneric) rounds would be potent enough, not withstanding the dispersion factor, if he has aimed for the G rounds to hit then the four G rounds will hit the target and the T round will miss.
G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - T(miss) ....
However, in real life, at a range long enough, where the ballistics differences between the rounds become potent, if one fires the Hispano so as to his HE round hits, then all the rest of the rounds will actually miss!
HET(miss) - AP(miss) - HE(hits) - AP(miss) - HET(miss)...
Thus, in the game, out of 5 rounds fired 4 rounds would connect, where as in reality, only 1 out of those 5 will hit. If the aim was good enough for the AP or HET round to hit, then it is both 2/5.
AH2 does not model belt sequences. Thus, 4 rounds of 5 fired are identical, generic rounds that has identical ballistics properties.
Therefore, even if dispersion is factored in, it can be said that AH2 guns have at least twice as high base probability of hitting the target than actual rounds in real life - provided, that the shooting distance is far enough for different types of rounds to show considerably different ballistics qualities.
Ofcourse, none of this matters when firing at close ranges, where all rounds will hit. However, one the range becomes far enough for different types of ammunitions to show different trajectories, AH2 guns have at least twice as higher base probability to hit the target, because AH2 doesn't have such a thing as a 'ammunition sequence'.
All the more the reason to ask for ammunition belt sequence to be modelled in the game IMO.
