AI gunners in non drone planes

[Tank-Ace]

Actually skyguns, most don't use the tail guns in a 110 or a stuka for the simple reason that they're ineffective, not that they can't manuver and shoot at the same time.

In a 110 you would do infinitly better to manuver with the goal of getting a shot at your opponent yourself, rather than manuvering with the goal to give your gunner a shot. Any 1 round you land on him is at least 12 times (roughly) more effective than any 1 round your gunner lands.

[Raphael]

Actually skyguns, most don't use the tail guns in a 110 or a stuka for the simple reason that they're ineffective, not that they can't manuver and shoot at the same time.

In a 110 you would do infinitly better to manuver with the goal of getting a shot at your opponent yourself, rather than manuvering with the goal to give your gunner a shot. Any 1 round you land on him is at least 12 times (roughly) more effective than any 1 round your gunner lands.

Nope, it is because they can't manuever, I am sure that if at least they give is the option of using the stick to completly controll the A/C while you use the mouse control the gunner, you would see a lot more people using the gunner position for defence as well as manuevering. ever played in some of those big servers of Il-2 1946?

EDIT: of course that you are talking about the 110, but think about the stuka, that japanese attacker and the Il2

[Krusty]

What you suggest is not an option. Most people are flying HOTAS or using keyboard. You cannot shift the stick to left hand (most don't even allow left-hand use) and then switch to gun using mouse for your right hand.

Conversely you couldn't move the keyboard out of the way and move your mouse to your left hand while continuing to fly with your stick. Not to mention all your controls are reversed when you face backwards, but you couldn't hit crap with a left-handed mouse.

The problem is not that you cannot manuver. It is the weakness of the guns. Many planes with tail guns are in fact quite manuverable compared to the average MA attackers they will encounter. I have flown many scenarios and FSOs with another player as my tail gunner. That is the best setup, really. Having the ability to manuver is far better than relying on the gun. The gun is a last-ditch defense mechanism simply due to the way AH handles hits and bullet damage. Sometimes a "golden BB" could kill off an agressor. Or sometimes real pilots shirk tracer fire and break off. In AH that just isn't the case and pilots press for the kill with suicidal tendencies.

[Tank-Ace]

Hell, I can't even move my keyboard or joystick without getting out a screwdriver. I have my rig setup like a cocpit with the joystick in the middle and the keyboard mounted infront of me like a control pannel.

[Skyguns MKII]

What you suggest is not an option. Most people are flying HOTAS or using keyboard. You cannot shift the stick to left hand (most don't even allow left-hand use) and then switch to gun using mouse for your right hand.

Conversely you couldn't move the keyboard out of the way and move your mouse to your left hand while continuing to fly with your stick. Not to mention all your controls are reversed when you face backwards, but you couldn't hit crap with a left-handed mouse.

The problem is not that you cannot maneuver. It is the weakness of the guns. Many planes with tail guns are in fact quite maneuverable compared to the average MA attackers they will encounter. I have flown many scenarios and FSOs with another player as my tail gunner. That is the best setup, really. Having the ability to manuver is far better than relying on the gun. The gun is a last-ditch defense mechanism simply due to the way AH handles hits and bullet damage. Sometimes a "golden BB" could kill off an agressor. Or sometimes real pilots shirk tracer fire and break off. In AH that just isn't the case and pilots press for the kill with suicidal tendencies.

I'm not saying they are not effective though. Truly the were BB guns but served at least some what of a purpose. The gunner would probably be firing for his life and to simulate that is what this wish is for do to the fact that its not always easy to get a gunner when everybody is occupied and to the fact that its nearly impossible to do both. As i said, theres a pilot and a gunners position. So why do I have to be the only man in the plane simulating for all?

[PJ_Godzilla]

I'm there. The trick is adjusting is such that it's realistic. Right now, just about anything with a tail gun usually doesn't, by dint of the pilot's preoccupation. Putting an AI gunner in there with deadly 1.5k accuracy is an unreasonable advantage to hand the 110 or SBD or 17 pilot. Still, I think it'd be pretty neat-o.

[Tank-Ace]

Following that logic, why shouldn't I get an AI gunner for my Tiger II? Why should I have to gun for my B-29's?

Theres no difference between the one and the other, yet you have drawn a line between them. If one isn't ok, doesn't that mean that the other isn't either?

[Skyguns MKII]

Actually skyguns, most don't use the tail guns in a 110 or a stuka for the simple reason that they're ineffective, not that they can't manuver and shoot at the same time.

In a 110 you would do infinitly better to manuver with the goal of getting a shot at your opponent yourself, rather than manuvering with the goal to give your gunner a shot. Any 1 round you land on him is at least 12 times (roughly) more effective than any 1 round your gunner lands.

i understand that being a low caliber gun that they are nearly ineffective. But if I'm maneuvering and making a slow bank with a stuka for example and theres a plane on my six attempting to turn with me to focus his sights less than 300 out than that "BB gun" would be a prime defence but the problem is you cant maneuver just the same from your gunners position. So with putting a AI gunner in that seat you may maneuver easier. The BB gun may not kill him. But a hit in the oil is all i need to buy time to live and escape.

[Raphael]

it is possible tho, to set up so you can control at the same time you use the mouse for the case no one joins your plane, I still don't see why not have this option that you could just not use if... well if you don't want to use (mouse and joystick stuff)

What you suggest is not an option. Most people are flying HOTAS or using keyboard. You cannot shift the stick to left hand (most don't even allow left-hand use) and then switch to gun using mouse for your right hand.

[Raphael]

Following that logic, why shouldn't I get an AI gunner for my Tiger II? Why should I have to gun for my B-29's?

Theres no difference between the one and the other, yet you have drawn a line between them. If one isn't ok, doesn't that mean that the other isn't either?

well you have complete control over your GV while you are gunning

EDIT: and control of the situation aswell

EDIT EDIT (lol): wait a sec! thinking about it... why not make it a option that you can unselect if you want. you could or not use the ai gunner as if the tank had actually more then one person but that could make you get exposed so it could be your choice on the hangar to disable it! it would be usefull for the gunner that is watching for AC but could expose you in some situations where the stupid AI could just fire at a target you are trying to stealth kill

[Tank-Ace]

i understand that being a low caliber gun that they are nearly ineffective. But if I'm maneuvering and making a slow bank with a stuka for example and theres a plane on my six attempting to turn with me to focus his sights less than 300 out than that "BB gun" would be a prime defence but the problem is you cant maneuver just the same from your gunners position. So with putting a AI gunner in that seat you may maneuver easier. The BB gun may not kill him. But a hit in the oil is all i need to buy time to live and escape.

Even if your guns were automated you would still do better dogfighting them with the goal of getting behind them. You get the same firepower down range as with your tail gunner, and if you're behind them, they physicly can't get a shot on you.

[Skyguns MKII]

well you have complete control over your GV while you are gunning

EDIT: and control of the situation aswell

adding on to this, B29s are level bombers and much easier to gun for being at a constant speed and staying level. A tiger being a gv does not need the option because gameplay is MUCH different on the ground than the air.

[Raphael]

of course it would'nt apply for freakin Flaks lol

[Tank-Ace]

You  have no more controll of a tank while gunning than you do with a plane. You can turn the tank in either direction and speed up/slow down. You can do all this in a plane, AND you can turn on WEP while gunning too.

Like I said, no difference at all between the LOGIC. None, zero, zip. Some would just use it more than others, and thats true even between the planes you've listed.

If one is harmful to gameplay, and there is no difference in reasoning behind the two, why is the other OK?

[Raphael]

Even if your guns were automated you would still do better dogfighting them with the goal of getting behind them. You get the same firepower down range as with your tail gunner, and if you're behind them, they physicly can't get a shot on you.

then there is no reason why to -1 this wish!