Was waiting for a bit if Tony can bump in and clarify a few things, but perhaps he's busy for the time being.
The chance of hit does not directly increase in proportion to dispersion. If that is to be made true it would require another batch of those abstract conditions, such as "dispersion increases the chance of hit in proportion to the amount of rounds fired". Frankly, accounting the dispersion factor as a means to hit an aerial target takes for granted that the process of "reasonable aiming" is non-existant in the first place, and therefore the shooter is to rely on a more a less semi-random patterned dispersion to hit anything.
In other words, it is a "fire enough rounds in the general direction and hope at least some of those rounds hit" approach. The entire concept of "aim" is neglected in that kind of thinking.
(Frankly, this is the part where the "get rid of the ammo counters" and "get rid of distance indicators inside 1.0" argument justifies itself, since it requires somewhat hefty volume of rounds to be propelled in the air, so a round that is destined to fly inside the general dispersion pattern eventually finds a way in a random chance.
If the ammo counters are removed, and people do not have the means to keep track of remaining rounds, every attempt in long-range gunnery increases the anxiety factor to the pilot, until it eventually pressures him to stop firing at such distances in the first place - in which case the chance to hit at long ranges eventually reaches near zero levels, since if the pilot does not shoot, that 'chance' influenced by the dispersion becomes meaningless.
I was preparing a number of 'challenges', with some amount of confidence, for those who claim they don't have any problems in judging distances even without the 200yd incremental 'markers', until my Photoshop crashed on me, so it might take a few more days until it is prepared again.)
The very process of aiming presumes that by 'aiming', a reasonable chance can be expected to hit the target with reliable accuracy. Therefore, the 'aiming process' is meaningful when the distance is close enough for the human pilot to accurately judge and aim, and then finally pull that trigger to expect a certain amount of hitting accuracy ratio in relation to the total number of rounds fired.
However, saying that 'dispersion increases the chance to hit" is dangerously misleading IMO, in that such assumption leaves out a single word - which would be "eventually".
Imagine a situation where you have a limited amount of rounds to fire against a plane's 6 o'c angle. At a distance of 100~200yards, when you have limited 100 rounds to fire, the hitting accuracy can be deadly high.
However, imagine the same target at 600yards, and you fire that same 100 rounds against it. How many here thinks that when the parameters are set identical, only 100 rounds to be fired, that you will still achieve a higher rate of hit because of dispersion?? Only when you fire, 100, 200, 300, 400 more rounds, will the dispersion finally allow some of the fired rounds to connect at the target. Dispersion doesn't allow a higher hit rate at the same parameters - it only allows it at the price of wasting very many rounds to finally achieve a satisfactory number of hits - I don't call that 'higher hit probability'. I call that 'higher hit probability simply due to more numerous attempts".
What we're talking about here is the hit probability that can be attained and influenced by human aim. When I am talking about "long-range hits", I'm not talking about those fluke shots which rarely happens in the game. I'm talking about the people who can aim at a target flying at least some 500~600yards in front of him, and then constantly achieve a meaningful probability to seriously damage, or even shoot down the target in only the first or second burst fired from his plane. Perhaps Stoney's case of being on the receiving end of those MK108s at 600 yards out, could be one of these cases.
Clearly, those people have a correct aim, and do not rely on the pure chance factor of the dispersion pattern to hit the target - they actively aim, and aim accurately despite very far distances and while I do admit at least some 60~70% of their "good aim" is due to experience and skill, at least some 30~40% of the secret to their success is caused by some parameters from the game that existed in real life, but do not exist in the game, which (this is the catch) can be introduced into the game without causing too many problems.
Some people say that is caused by the different FEs, but I distinctly remember Wotan/Batz/Bruno's experients which proved that actual difference in the FE rarely, if ever, extends further out than 100~200 yards. I only wish Bruno was here to clear the point.
But I digress.
In the above mentioned cases of people who regularly achieve a reasonably high chance of shooting down planes at such distances, I suspect the entire process is influenced by specifically the ammo counters, distance indicators, and the identical ammunition fired. I imagine what they are doing is;
1) see the plane, judge the relative E factors, and then make a 'guess' as to just where the plane is when it indicates "600".
2) Relying on that visible, verifable "600" number, they place the target plane at a certain position on the gunsight, giving a vertical lead as they are trained to by using the "600" verification.
3) This aim may not be as accurate as closer distances, but it is enough to place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped.
Therefore:
1) by removing the "600", the 200yd incremental distance indicator from the icon, we first remove the very basic judgement tool which more or less verifies a certain range of the target, that the pilots can rely on, and move the entire "judge distances" to the realm of uncertainty, as it should be.
2) then we remove the ammo counters, and move the "calculated risks concerning spending available ammunition", again, into the realm of uncertainty. Perhaps in his first, second, or even third engagements the pilot would pretty much not hesitate to "spray" some of his rounds at long distances, expecting a hit, but I can bet that when it comes to his 4th, 5th, or more engagements he would be ever more uncertain about the condition of his available ammunition - which, will ultimately discourage him from even attempting a long distance shot.
3) and then, by introducing different ammunitions, we not only diverge the "quality" of his hit at long distances (in case of cannons, some of his hits achieved might not be the powerful HE rounds, but rather the more weaker AP rounds), but we also influence the dispersion itself. A pilot, with experience, may be able to lead the target so it rests at the most concentrated, center location of the circular dispersion pattern - but at least more than half of his rounds (that have different ballistics), will fall lower from that most concentrated place.
In the end, I do not believe long-distance gunnery is achieved by skill alone. I think it is also achieved by a significant amount of unvoluntary 'exploitation' of the system (if you can call it 'exploit' in the first place) - which, IMO, can be corrected. AH was always forthcoming when it came to "situationary realism" as opposed to "technical realism" and that is one of AH's great points IMO. I don't see why my suggestion cannot be valid, as it is not as if I am requesting for an artificial "bullet inhibitor" that prevents hits at long ranges.
All I am asking is that AH be a little bit, just a tad bit more life-like, and let's all see where that leads to.
I mean, in the worst case scenario, I could be totally wrong and people would still be achieving 600yd hits regularly - no harm done to any of you out there, since the game stays the exactly same.
In the best case scenario, the gunnery distance would be shortened, and people will have a lot more hear-pumping dogfights at close-ranges.
Nothing to lose, only lots to gain - what can be more better than this?
