Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"This used to be a pretty heated debate, and IIRC changes to the buff guns were made after Pyro had gunned for me on a B-17 and an N1K took us down from a near level 6 attack. "
What the hell is wrong with that?
So lemme see here....
The buff guns are the same as fighter guns except they are "adjusted" so that a fighter is likely unable to kill buffs from a "near level 6 attack". Holy toejam, no wonder this needed to be changed as we all know NO bomber in WW2 was ever shot down like this in a rear attack, not a single one, ever. All had to be attacked by climbing 5,000 feet above them and making high deflection vertical passes like we must in AH to have any chance of survival.....
Right? Toad are you saying Pyro adjusted the games buff gun model because he was no good playing the game that day?
That must be nice, being able to do that. 
You have obviously missed the point.
The MAXIMUM RANGE of the guns is roughly the same (the buff mounted guns are the heavy, longer (42"?) barrel M2 right? As opposed to the light barrels (36"?) on the fighters. The guns were given a small boost to maximum EFFECTIVE range to counter net lag. Meaning that the projectiles hold thier energy a second or two longer than projectiles fired from fighters. Least that's the way I understood it way back when, when it was splained to us all.
Grun go back to my post and red the bit about the engagement agaist the Spit14s (that you obviously missed).
Here's the situation Grun:
You're flyin a B-17.
A bandit approaches you from the rear, in a dead 6 attack
You see him at a range of 1.1k on your FE
He starts firing from that 1.1k on your FE and blows yer buff all to hell, leaving you scratching your head and wondering if he was cheating.
The fighter saw the range as 700yds on his FE.
Whenever something is behind you always subtract 200-400yds from the range being shown as a guesstimate to what the other guy sees on his FE. The closer he is to you the less you subtract. This difference is net lag.
Without some means of compensation for net lag fighters can park off the 6 of bombers and plink them all day long and enjoy being invulnerable the buff's guns. Most fighter jocks would really enjoy the buff guns going back to how they were in the beta and first tour or two. Back then the guns were about as useful as tits on a boar, unless you were a super crack shot.
There
MUST BE some compensation for the net lag component involved here. The trick is balance. The buff guns can hit and kill out to 1.4k. I've done it. I've also attacked a formation (and a verra nice one too) of B-17s with my wing man, killing all 6 and we both flew away unharmed. There is balance here.
But sometimes it seems (this from me being the buff and shooting hapless idjits from the sky) that the .50s on the B-17 are throwing 20mm API shells. This is the power increase I think needs another look. And I acknowledge the possibility that I was blessed with an inordinate number of Golden BBs in the incidents that brought this train of thought to mind.
My personal opinion, and there's nothing to back this up except my experiences in AH, is that this fine tuning did adjust the power of the guns up higher than intended, and it hasn't been looked at since because 1) Dale and Doug think I'm nuts, 2) They decided that even though it was more adjustment than originally planned it worked with the playability balance they're striving to achieve, or 3) There are more important things ranking higher on the development list. Each is a good reason on its own, and I think it's a combination of all 3
Of course it's possible that they meant to set them right where they're set.
While I've just about become a card carrying member of the anti-fluff movement, the do need to be given a fair shake when it comes to shooting. So let's address the issue of the fluffs standing in a 60degree bank and maintaining perfect stability w for the guns....
