• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


xBromanx last won the day on June 21

xBromanx had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,454 Outstanding


About xBromanx

  • Rank
    Jug is love! Jug is life!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,598 profile views
  1. And in real life they will fail to hit the broad side of a barn when firing under those circumstances.
  2. You need altitude to do that, and you need to be willing to accept the consequences of throwing it all away. Unless the enemy is the last on the team, getting into a prolonged maneuvering fight will result in you get gang banged by enemies after you throw away all your energy against the first target. And I wouldn't say the P-47 can "easily" outmaneuver 109s either, even with speed. They become roughly equal, though. As soon as the speeds drop, you'll be a sitting duck.
  3. My interpretation of the subject is that keyboard inputs would continue to work exactly as they do now, so at those very low speeds you could still make moderate adjustments to your flight path. When I'm doing any kind of vertical maneuver like a hammerhead or chandelle, when my speed gets really low, I use the keyboard to maneuver the plane as opposed to the mouse. I rarely use the mouse at very low speeds unless I'm trying to aim at a target. I think the suggestion is worth trying because I don't see it affecting anyone other than prophangers. You can still maneuver easily enough with keyboard at low speed, you will just struggle to make precise adjustments to accurately hit a target. This is assuming it's at all possible to code something like this into the game.
  4. Without watching the video, I can already tell you that you're going struggle against 109F4s in the P-47D. The 109F4 is immensely better in every regard other than dive limit and top speed, where it's just about equal to the P-47D except at the very extreme high altitudes. Against even a semi-decent 109F4, I have yet to discover a tactic to defeat it with in a 1v1 unless I start with an initial energy advantage and kill it before it equalizes it.
  5. Good to know. Thanks!
  6. I'd be interested to try it. Anything to fix the issue. With that said, I figured I'd give an update on my progress with the video, as there's been an interesting development. So far I only have 1 instance out 14 deaths that's been the result of sniping over 700m, and it occurred just as I passed that distance (~710m). I can't say for certain why this may be, as I know for a fact that not only 1 month ago just about every other death of mine came from an MG 151 1km behind me, but it seems now that guns are doing less damage at distance. I've been hit several times at long range since I started putting this compilation together, and I've hit several enemies at long range as well, but in just about every instance there was almost no damage, if any at all. Even at closer distances I'm noticing all guns are doing less damage than they did before. This is a good thing in my opinion. I'm continuing my efforts to put a compilation together, but if I can't get enough clips I'll abandon the project and report when I do so in this thread. If it is, in fact, the case that the sniping issue has been resolved, I see no reason to continue positing suggestions to fix it.
  7. What if both are equal in energy? What advantage does the P-47D have?
  8. Both, or whichever one can meet the P-47D in combat.
  9. I don't think I understand what the idea is exactly. Could you elaborate?
  10. Thanks. I'll have to give it more practice.
  11. Sucks you have to put in a little bit of effort to defend yourself. If only the game would play itself for you....
  12. Yeah, I have no way to test fly it, so it's definitely possible I just haven't found what there is to exploit against it.
  13. I'm trying to figure out how to fly against this plane. Does the P-47D do anything better than the C.205? Seems like everytime I fly against it, it matches me completely in top speed, and then easily outclimbs and outmaneuvers me.
  14. This is going nowhere because people refuse to read / comprehend what's being said. Please read the following in its entirety: In US planes, arguably, your most powerful tactic against an enemy is BnZ, while straying too far from this tactic is exceptionally difficult in the best case, or suicide in the worst. US planes' BnZ tactics capitalize on their exceptional ability to conserve energy at high speeds. They are among the best planes in the game at doing so. However, they are also among the worst at retaining energy in maneuvers, especially at higher speeds. Now, if I see someone say one more xxxx time that "all you have to do to avoid being sniped is maneuver," I'm going to seriously rage. YOU CAN'T MANEUVER in US planes unless you want to dump a metric assload of energy when you're flying at very high speeds. The more you have to maneuver while you're extending away, even if it is the most gentle of spiral climb, YOU WILL WASTE ENERGY. Now, the argument posited by myself, and others of a similar mind, is that having to do this until you get to 1.2km separation is excessive and breaking the balance between momentum fighters and less strict energy fighters. If you disagree with that, that's you're opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it's your word against mine at this point, and so far (without trying to sound like the most conceited person here), I have seen no one demonstrate an opposite opinion to mine who has adequate experience for their opinion to be considered as trustworthy as mine. I don't like pulling that card, but really that's what this all comes down to. There is no objective right or wrong on this topic concerning the balance of the game. HOWEVER, do NOT xxxx say that ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MANEUVER AND YOU'LL BE FINE. That is absolute garbage for anyone who knows anything about US planes and how they retain / gain energy. Secondly, as I've already stated, the longer US planes have to extend from a target, the more time they spend shedding their energy, and the more time their opponent gets to accelerate out of their defensive maneuvers to recover what they lost, or even gain more than what they had. This means that after every attack, the energy gap closes. It is my opinion that the long range sniping in this game accelerates the closure rate of that energy gap to an excessive degree. It is so excessive that it is far too punishing for someone to miss an attack against a maneuvering enemy, and it is far too forgiving for planes to fly defensively against a BnZing enemy. Even if you are not dispatched immediately after your first attack, the damage is done against your ability to further attack the enemy, as your position becomes increasingly weaker and weaker. This dynamic is, in my opinion, excessively unbalanced against the attacking plane. As I already said, these are opinions. Everyone is entitled to disagree with my opinions, as my opinions are not objectively true. However, once again, I would point to the lack of experience and success of those opposing my opinions, and once again urge others to question their credibility. Thirdly, long range sniping does not equally effect all planes. You cannot hit a maneuvering opponent at 500+m distance anywhere near as easily as you can hit an opponent that is trying to conserve energy in a smooth climbing maneuver. Stop using this argument please. If it were realistic that planes be capable of reliably destroying targets at 1km distance, then there would be no basis for requesting changes to the gamemode. However, there is boundless evidence to suggest that there is no realistic basis for the current behaviors of planes, and as such this lack of realism begs the question of whether or not something should be changed. With that said, I'm going to abandon this thread, unless specific questions are directed at me, until I can put together the compilation that I promised I would try to put together.
  15. I agree with @FidgetSquad. Would you accuse me of the same? What I'm seeing from you post is someone who doesn't actually have much experience flying the planes that are most affected by long range sniping. What I see from your stats confirms as much. What experience you do have in them doesn't seem to be that of success either. I want someone who flies the P-47D; who flies the P-51s; who flies the Corsairs; who flies the P-38s, and who flies them a lot, and who flies them with success to come into this thread and tell us that long range sniping is not an issue.
  16. We need to see a replay of that. As much as I claim sniping is BS, there's no way someone is hitting you from 2km away
  17. Well, for starters the second video I shared with you was put together over the course of 30 matches. It was put together for a thread to demonstrate the frequency of prophanging in my encounters during matches. Due to a replay bug during the compilation I was only able to put about half of the examples in the compilation that I actually encountered. In all cases I was kill at over 700m and with enemies below 130ish kph. Even still, ignoring what I couldn't put in the video, that's 6 encounters where I was sniped at excessively long ranges (Ignoring the last clip with the P-51 because I was within 500m when he shot me). That's 6 out 30 matches, which comes out to 1 in every 5 matches that I was killed by prop-hanging snipe shots. That number still doesn't demonstrate the frequency of snipe shots impacting my matches because they don't include instances where I don't attempt maneuvers due to the risk of being sniped. In nearly every single match that I fly, I have to take into consideration that an enemy can kill me from 1km away which forces me to fly much more conservatively than I should. I could show you replay after replay where I was forced into a more conservative maneuver rather than a more aggressive one that could have ended the fight would the enemy not been capable of sniping me. Regardless, with all of this said, and as one of the few members of this forums that actually ever presents any evidence to back up their claims, I will try to create an updated compilation of snipe shots. This will require me to fly more aggressively than I usually do. As I said, I understand the risk of death from 1km away, so I tend to avoid those scenarios as much as I can. To be clear on the terms, I'm going to include any instance that I take damage when I'm over 700m away from the enemy that hits me. If you'd like to move the goal posts from there, please let me know before I start to put the compilation together. Give me a week or so. As of this post, I have 761 battles in the P-47D-25, with 353 deaths (for future reference). Then I should never attack, as all attacks can leave me exposed if I miss. The point that I'm trying to make is that too many attacks are much more risky than they should be. When I should be relatively risk-free attacking with a 100kph advantage, I have to wait until I have a 300kph advantage. It's easy to say, "oh you didn't have enough energy when you attacked, and that's why you died." But when I have to have a 300kph advantage to attack every time I engage an enemy, surely you understand why this is a huge issue that breaks the balance of the game. Why are they not viable? If snipe shots rarely occur, as you say, then what is the harm of nerfing the effectiveness of guns at long ranges with reduced damage or accuracy?
  18. You indirectly accused me of being bad when you said that people who have issues with sniping need to get good. I referenced your stats because I wanted to make a point that, what you perceive as a non-issue is only a non-issue to you because you have other issues that overshadow this one. I'm telling you, as someone who actually has a lot of experience, and a lot of success in the P-47D, there is nothing you can do against long range sniping when you get put into situations where you have to conserve as much energy as possible. It is not uncommon to be placed in those situations. I know you're not going to like this answer, but you just don't understand how to fly US planes at their highest potential, nor does anyone else in this thread so far who sees no issue with sniping, as far as I can gather from their player cards. You don't have issues with sniping because you have other issues with how you fly the planes. When you smooth out those issues, you will see that when you try to execute effective BnZ tactics, the ability for the enemy to snipe you at long distances will prevent you from doing maneuvers that you should be perfectly safe doing, which will force you into defensive situations that are difficult to overcome. This is a matter of realism, but even morseso it's a matter of balance. We should never be completely immune to counterattack, but right now the counterattack window against high speed attacks is just too large. It's not realistic, nor is it balanced, as it significantly reduces the effectiveness of top speed performance and energy retention. It does happen often, but it doesn't matter if there were any amount of statistics given to you, you would accuse the players of "not flying correctly" just as you've done throughout this entire thread, despite you having very little idea how to actually fly correctly yourself. There is nothing that could be presented to you that would change your mind.
  19. Well, clearly you don't understand it, otherwise you would have much better stats.
  20. Or it's possible that you don't have this problem because you're busy failing while performing other maneuvers rather than flying your plane to the highest of its potential. You don't get shot down by snipe shots because you don't put yourself in the position to get sniped, but whatever you're doing instead doesn't seem very effective either based on your stats in those planes that are the main focus of this discussion.
  21. So, let me get this straight. You are not, nor have you ever been good enough to consider yourself a "good" pilot, by your own admission. Yet, somehow, you know that if others get good enough, this issue will be solved? How does one who is not good enough at the game know that getting good will remedy their issues? 600+m snipe shots are arcadish, hands down. They give the players an arcade-like experience when they play the game. We can remove that arcade-like experience by artificially reducing gun effectiveness at long range. I, personally, would rather implement an arcadish mechanic that counters another arcadish mechanic to give an overall more realistic experience than do nothing and continue having an arcade experience. With that said, I think that removing the distance indicators on name tags, as you suggested, would be better than nothing, even if it likely wouldn't completely remove players' abilities to perform incredibly unrealistic snip shots.
  22. What is more arcadish? Being limited to shooting at targets at ranges that were practiced irl during ww2? Or being able to 360 no-scope someone at over 1km away while stalled out at 50kph?
  23. I think that there could be several fixes to the issue. I like the idea that @Hank_HI11posted, about removing the crosshair and replacing it with just an open circle. If the circle is large enough, it would go a long way to bring accuracy down to realistic levels. If I had my way I'd weaken bullet damage outside of 500m significantly, and then make them useless after 700m. I don't know if the guns can be fine tuned like that, though. Besides that, just give the guns exaggerated bullet drop and energy loss outside of 500m. It would make hitting a target much more difficult at those ranges, and next to impossible at 1km. Anyone of these, I think, would be positive changes for this game.
  24. Yes, thank you. That's exactly my point.
  25. First Video: It does happen often. I've showed you two videos so far (the first and third), and If I'd recorded every instance I'd have several hours of footage. Besides that, I've already explained why forcing planes like the P-47's to do crazy maneuvers outside of .5km separation is detrimental and inbalanced. I was flying straight to conserve energy. You have to do that in the P-47, otherwise you're dead in the long run. Second Video: Nonsense. For starters there are more than just Russian planes in that video, and they should also be stalling at the speeds they are firing at. They are well below their stall speeds and yet they are still able to maintain accuracy up to 1km away. I don't understand how people can justify hitting a target 1km away while at speeds below 100kph in a vertical climb....You have got to be completely idiotic to think that is fine.
  26. It's a game....so what. It's not realistic, nor is it balanced.
  27. As I said earlier, this is the Air RB section. You have exactly 36 matches in any kind of RB mode. You have not the experience necessary to be able to say, "[Sniping] hardly ever happens" in this game mode. Just to demonstrate to you how wrong you are, here is a series of videos of my experience in War Thunder Air RB. Skip to about 30 seconds from the end These are just the very few exceptions that I've recorded. These are a drop in the bucket of what I experience regularly.
  28. Then we are at an impasse, and we will never agree. 1km is way too far of a shot to make, and you would never be able to land a shot like that irl, in War Thunder SB, or any other simulator. I've had people claim they could make a shot like that, and I've often requested the evidence that they could. So far, however, no one has been able to present anything close to it.
  29. He killed me from 1km away.....I made a mistake in failing my attack, but the punishment is way too severe. It shouldn't be so unforgiving to fail an attack like that. 1km is way too far from an opponent to have to fear being killed.
  30. Well, yes. Obviously everyone knows not to intentionally put themselves in front of your enemy's guns. The issue is that the enemy can easily maneuver (i.e. pointing their nose at you) within the 15+ seconds you have to get separation. You can only do two things in that situation. 1) Expend energy in maneuvers to avoid being hit, or 2) try to stay fast and just endure the barrage of gunfire that's about to get lobbed at you, hoping you don't take critical damage. Yes, you should never be completely immune to counterattacks from your enemy, but the argument right now is that the window of opportunity your opponent has to counterattack you is just way too long, and BnZing is far too punishing if you fail an attack. You get stupid crap like this: I didn't put myself in front of the enemy. The enemy maneuvered into my flight path and then utilized the 10 second window to counterattack and defeat me as I was over 1km away from him. That is excessive, and there's no counter to it in US planes.
  31. It's not equally exploitable. It's much more difficult to hit a spitfire that is maneuvering at 1km away than it is to hit a P-47 zoom climbing away out of an attack at 1km. It forces momentum fighters that rely on energy conservation to throw away excessive amounts of energy that they can't easily recover.
  32. I just...I don't know how to respond to this.... The only way to not overshoot a BnZ attack is to 1) kill the enemy, or 2) reduce your speed to below the speed of your target. 1) can never be achieved 100% of the time, even by the most skilled of players, and anyone who thinks 2) is a good idea in a US plane is absolute idiot. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. The whole point of BnZ tactics is that you always have the speed after an attack to escape your enemy to reset your position for another attack. You HAVE to overshoot if you are BnZing, otherwise you're not BnZing. I don't know how anyone could take you seriously with a statement like that....
  33. If you overshoot without the energy necessary to escape, then yes, it is your fault. Right now, you need 300+kph over your enemy to expect to get out of range with limited risk. The margin of error is just too huge. You can "I know you are, but what am I" all you want. The fact of the matter is the way that players are able to hit targets at excessively long ranges with regularity breaks the balance of the game, and swings the pendulum of balance way too far away from planes that rely heavily on top speed and energy retention tactics. It's one of the reasons we see US teams faltering in nearly every match. You have to fly your plane to a standard of precision and risk that few other nations come anywhere close to.
  34. Except there's not....
  35. I started firing at 600 yards. That could mean that at any point between when he started firing and when he stopped firing he observed the hits. You just claimed that snipe shots in Air RB are rare.....How would you know that when you don't play? It's not ad hominem when I call you out for making **** up that you have no experience of.
  36. And just btw....what the xxxx do you know anything about how common snipe shots are in Air RB? You have almost no experience flying in it.
  37. After reading them, not a single one claims hits at the ranges they started to fire from. They opened fire and then closed to much shorter ranges before the target was claimed as destroyed, except the one at 550 yards on a large 2 engine aircraft.
  38. You're referencing a single report out of 100s....
  39. You only had 2 bombers on your team. Had you had more, you likely wouldn't have enjoyed the air superiority that allowed you to fly unharassed.
  40. The fighters on your team killed over 60% of the ground targets in that 1.0 match you shared. That won't be possible in higher tier matches. Also, this is a bit of an assumption as I don't really know if this is true, but I think it's much more difficult to kill pillboxes with bombs than it is to kill AAA and Artillery. Killing medium and heavy tanks I do know is not as easy because they aren't stationary.
  41. I guess you didn't notice that I have pretty much the same number of fly outs in the Antons that you do. If you exclude your matches in the A-1 you have almost no Anton experience. But I guess you know better than I do when comparing US planes to Germans....especially with your almost 0 experience in US planes.
  42. Firstly, 1.0 matches do not constitute the whole of tier 1. You can only achieve what you achieved in your video at a single BR match in the game. If you get into a match where the minimum BR is 1.3, you will be flying against hard ground targets that you can't kill with simple MGs. Secondly, my stance has remained constant except for the admission that in 1.0 matches bombers are not as useless as others. I've not claimed once that B-29s and Tu-4s were incapable of reliably winning the ground target objective. My opinion of bombers used in the ground attack role spans 1.3 BR to 6.0 BR matches, where 1.3 is lowest BR plane in the match, and 6.0 is the highest BR plane in the match.
  43. As I said, I'd be more than happy to see the evidence. And I wasn't really talking about 6.0+ matches. I don't think there really is much difference, as the very few times I've flown them bombers did almost nothing, but I don't fly them enough to know for certain.
  44. The same BR as the P-47N. Actually, the P-47N is a better plane. It has equal rates of climb and top speed, but is much more maneuverable.
  45. No. I concede that in 1.0 BR matches, where every ground target is soft, the ground target objective is much more important to the outcome of the match. A single fighter could do just as much damage to the tickets in less time because they tend to have higher speed and maneuverability, while also having more staying power (not reliant on bombs) As for your claims of other bombers being capable of reliably ending matches via ticket bleed.....I'm more than interested in seeing the evidence.
  46. Way too many people get forced into maneuvering because the enemy can kill them from distances up to 1.2km. Speed in this game is massively less powerful than it was irl.
  47. The issue isn't the ballistics of the bullets. Yes, irl, if you could reliably hit a target 1km away, you would probably do some decent damage. The issue is that you would never hit anybody 1km away. That's what is unrealistic about long range sniping. It's not that the bullets are too strong at long range, it's that the players are given a tool (mouse aim) that makes them to accurate at long range. You don't fly in planes that rely on energy retention. In the planes you fly, you can afford to maneuver to evade shots because the energy you lose in those maneuvers can be easily regained due your planes' accelerations. Try flying a P-47D. Try evading shots from upwards of 15 seconds after you come out of a diving attack. See how many times you can do that before you no longer have the energy to BnZ, or even energy fight. (Spoiler: It's not many) Let's bring a mechanism that allows unrealistically high accuracy to players down to a level that is more in line with reality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being able to potshot players at longer ranges breaks the balance of this game. US planes in particular are heavily reliant on energy retention, while other nations are / can be more reliant on energy production. When a US plane loses energy it will struggle to regain that energy, while other planes can lose energy and regain it relatively quickly. This is very important when you consider long range sniping. Imagine a scenario where you have a P-47D at 6km altitude, and a Bf 109F-4 at 4km altitude. The P-47D dives on the 109. The 109 pulls a hard turn to evade, and the P-47 misses his attack. The 109 then turns onto the P-47's tail and is now 400m behind the P-47. Let's say the P-47D is 200kph faster than the 109 at that very moment. Ignoring accelerations, that means the P-47D would be separating from the 109 at a rate of 55 m/s. The P-47D needs to get to at least 1,200m before it can be safe from damage. That means it will take the P-47 roughly 14.5 seconds to increase the gap between itself and the 109 to 1.2km. 14.5 seconds is a hell of a long time in aerial combat. Now consider what happens when you take accelerations into account. Go test fly the P-47D. Put the plane into a dive and level out at 600kph IAS. See how much speed you lose by simply flying straight for 14.5 seconds.... Do the the same thing in a Bf 109F4, but instead start your speed at 400kph and watch how much energy you gain in 14.5 seconds. Then consider that that 14.5 seconds is actually going to be longer because by the time the P-47 reaches 1.2km, it will no longer be 200kph faster, which means the time to reach that distance will be increased. There is an objectively true issue here. There is no denying it. Also, every moment you're maneuvering in a plane like the P-47D, you're throwing away more energy than your opponent would be. As soon as you start to maneuver at high speeds, your energy just plummets.
  48. Apologies. I didn't actually read the post in its entirety. What source are you referencing that demonstrates 9 minute climb times to 4.5km in the P-47N?
  49. Sorry, I just assumed you understood we were not talking about reserve matches filled with biplanes and soft ground objectives. My mistake. I should have known common sense would be lacking in this thread. Ultimately, you're correct. In 1.0 matches, where every ground target is susceptible to even 7.7mm gunfire, winning via ground target objective is absolutely a regularity.
  50. You're using a 1.0 BR match where every ground target is soft and easily killed by any caliber of gun in the game as evidence that bombers are effective in air RB? The fighters on your team scored 17 ground kills across the lot of them, on top of their 7 air kills. I guess we didn't specify that we were talking about hard target matches with tanks and pillboxes, but I'm a bit surprised we have to....then again, I guess I shouldn't be. EDIT: Also, you were second on your team.
  51. Firstly, you'll notice that in my post which you quoted I said "most planes." I am aware that there are a select few capable of such high-G maneuvers in the US tree. Also, notice that I stated "for extended periods of time." While some US planes can pull excessively high Gs, they can't do so for more than a few seconds, unless the pilot is intent on committing suicide by pulling a nonstop turn in a steep power dive. Any competent pilot in a 109, fw 190, Yak, La, Zero, Ki, etc. will realize that you're throwing away incredible amounts of energy, and will understand to pull out of their attack to position for an easy attack when you've lost all your energy afterwards. Secondly, the P-47N when compared to the P-47D in climb rate was flown with full fuel tanks, just as every US plane is flown when tested. The P-47N carried several hundred extra pounds of fuel in its wings which dramatically reduced its climb rate performance. Go into the game, test the plane with full fuel, and you will see that it performs pretty close to real life tests. Finally, you'll get no argument from me that the P-47N is tiered correctly. If I had my way, it would be 5.7 at the lowest. I would say the same for the P-51D-30. I wouldn't even really call it a stretch, but ok.
  52. Right....but the plane is a 1942 plane, flying with the engine settings it actually flew with in 1942....
  53. I don't understand.... Weren't the Ki-61-I's manufactured with the Ha-40? You can't say it's using 1939 engine settings if that's what the plane was being put into service with when they were introduced in 1942. They are flying on 1942 engine settings based on when they entered service.
  54. You want to pick up as much speed as you can before the enemy gets in range of you, but you're correct that you need to keep adjusting your turn so that they can close in at you from your side. It's a balancing act that depends largely on the situation.
  55. I won't get into this again, as there's a thread that's several pages long with this information, but 3 .50s were determined to be roughly equal to a single 20mm cannon in effectiveness until the Hispano Mk V and the late-war Soviet 20mm were developed (can't remember it's name off the top of my head). 8 x .50, based on those sources, should be more effective than many 20mm armaments in the game.
  56. I haven't noticed any changes, but even 8 x .50s are not even close in power to the Italian and German 20 mm's. 3 x MG151 will instasplode everything, while you still need a solid burst with .50s at convergence to be lethal. I think they are still powerful, but they've felt pretty much the same for me for the last several updates.
  57. Sure, but you'll still need to engage an enemy that has a significant initial energy advantage; a daunting task for someone without a significant amount of experience.
  58. I'm not terribly familiar with the K-61 series, but the in-game wiki says the Ki-61 didn't enter service until 1942. EDIT: Regardless, point made about the F6F-5. I still don't know what '41 aircraft it can fly against, but I was unaware it was a '44 aircraft. I guess that's because it's a very mediocre plane, imo, even at 3.7.
  59. But if that enemy simply enters a steep climb, your high speed climb will not accomplish anything other than a stalemate until you want to reengage your enemy that now has much more energy than you. Zoom climbing is only effective if the enemy allows it to be. Granted, this is 1v1. In teamfight scenarios zoom climbing is much more powerful.
  60. I don't think it's fair to overgeneralize a population of the game based on a singular extreme instance. You also can't possibly say that an F2A has never defeated a German jet. I can't argue that the US playerbase never makes stupid mistakes, but I've witnessed countless instances where US pilots were defeated by the exact situation I gave above. Getting hit from .7km away can encourage any inexperienced pilot to maneuver to avoid further damage, especially when you still have several seconds of potshots to endure before you're safe. You can't blame inexperienced pilots for making mistakes when the game is fundamentally imbalanced against them to such a large degree.
  61. When you can pull 12G maneuvers without losing much energy to evade a target that is diving on you with 200kph more speed to turn onto his 6 after he misses and win a 10+ second window of opportunity to counter attack until he gets 1.2km away from you, is it any wonder that planes which should be easy meat for US planes are actually much more lethal than they should be?
  62. Which planes are you specifically referring to? I don't think there's a single US plane flying with 1944 settings that could possibly meet a plane flying on 1940 / 41 settings in this game.
  63. I assume you mean P-51D-30 and P-47N / M. There's no way a P-47D is going to outclimb it, and I'd be surprised if a P-51D-5 could outclimb it.
  64. I excluded your bombers' stats for other nations because those nations tend to lack the bomber and ground attack spam that the US experiences. It's much more likely (compared to your US bombers) that your win rate comes from the fighters winning the air objective. In other words, if you're flying a Halifax, 1) you're much less likely to be on a team that is filled with ground attackers / bombers, and 2) you're much more likely to have some of the easiest fighters in the game to fly with on your team (Spitfires and F8Fs), which can more easily overcome your lack of contribution towards victory. I can't say with certainty that your "high" win rates in any bomber is solely because you get carried by more capable fighters, but I would definitely be curious to see how many matches you've actually won via ground attack, verses how many your teams' fighters have won for you via the air objective. I would use the same reasoning above you explain your win rates in the B-17s and B-29s. At their BRs, you will more likely have Griffon Spits and F8Fs on your teams, which are more capable of carrying you to your victories. Again, there's no way to know this for certain, but there is a strong correlation between being above or below 5.0 in your bombers, and the victory rate you experience in each of your bombers. Below 5.0, your win rates across the board are abysmal. Above 5.0, your win rates are decent.
  65. You don't see anything weird about a plane with half an elevator going from -30 degrees to 45 degrees in ~ 5 seconds to aim at a target while having half an elevator? To say I flew into the G.55's guns in that situation is absurd. I didn't fly into his guns. His guns clearly turned and intercepted my path of flight. If you don't see that in your image, you're blind, or intentionally denying the obvious.
  66. Are you that xxxx dense??!?!?!? lol I didn't "pass in front of his guns." He clearly maneuvered his plane towards mine, and then clearly pulled lead as I was turning. In what xxxx universe would that be interpreted as me "passing in front of his guns?"
  67. And you don't see an issue with that? He went from a ~20 degree dive to a near 70 degree climb in roughly 7 seconds, and then proceeded to turn inside of me, all while having only half an elevator. You seriously don't see an issue with that
  68. I don't know why I post anything that has anything to do with fixing this game on the forums. I know it will never change. The game will always be completely unrealistic when it comes to long range sniping and prophanging. I just get frustrated and this is where I vent, I guess. There's also this, likely futile, hope I have that perhaps the game will get fixed if I vent enough about its issues.
  69. He was fine enough to pull out of a dive, turn some 90 degrees towards me in less than 5 seconds, and then proceed to turn inside my turn while at speeds below 200kph. That looks like perfectly fine to me. I've seen interviews of actual WW2 pilots. I've read countless combat reports. I know that actual pilots in WW2 very rarely even attempted shots outside of 400m, much less scored hits when they did. Concerning SB in War Thunder, I've discussed this topic countless times with players that fly SB, and they all same the same thing: Shots outside of 500m are very hard to score, especially when they're deflection shots as sub-200kph speeds in climbing maneuvers.
  70. It's almost as if the playerbase in this game is completely blind and incapable of critically evaluating what's put before them. I wasn't flying straight. I didn't put myself in front of his guns. The only reason I was in front of his guns is because he pulled a near 90 degree turn to aim at me and then proceeded to turn inside my turn. Open your eyes. Get your heads out of your asses. Actually think critically instead of spewing nonsense.
  71. ..... What the xxxx does having 3 working cannons have anything to do with being able to maneuver a plane perfectly fine with only half an elevator? Why are you bringing up non-factor arguments that have nothing to do with the main point of this thread? Also, thanks for the P-47 tip. With your 16 total RB matches in them compared to my ~1800, I'm sure you know much more about how P-47Ds handle at combat speeds.
  72. Proof? I hear it all the time, but no one ever backs their claims up.
  73. Oh please.....I was at 250kph when he killed me. I didn't zoom out of my attack because I saw I destroyed his elevator and wasn't expecting him to be able to maneuver at all. That's the entire xxxx point of this thread. Don't critique my flying as if I was flying against a perfectly undamaged plane. Critique it as if I was flying against a plane that didn't have a god damned elevator.
  74. In this game, Air RB, you're right. IRL, and in Air Sim, that would have been a next to impossible to make, especially with only half an elevator.
  75. I was pulling full elevator deflection with combat flaps, and he was pulling up and ahead of me. He went from a dive to a climb and turning inside of mine. Try again
  76. When is this nonsense going to end? When are damaged planes going to fly like they are damaged? When is long range sniping going to be fixed? When is the P-47D going to get a DM stronger than a kerosene-soaked sock?
  77. Neither he, nor I may have any direct experience flying bombers, but we do have direct experience playing the game and seeing out matches to their end, either in victory or defeat. I can only agree with him that, in my experience, almost every single match is ended when one team has lost all of its enemy planes. This indicates that being able to destroy enemy planes in by far the most important quality a plane needs to be effective in Air RB, and, as I said earlier, you don't need to fly bombers or ground attackers to see this. Please don't take offense to this, as I'm only trying to make a point, but you can clearly see by your stats in many US bombers that you haven't experience much success. PBJ-1H -- 57 matches, 26% win rate TBD -- 19 matches, 26% win rate B-25J-20 -- 63 matches, 29% win rate PBJ-1J -- 106 matches, 33% win rate SB2C-4 -- 36 matches, 36% win rate From there you only have a handful of bombers with a decent amount of matches and positive winrates: B-25J-1 -- 46 matches, 52% win rate (coincidentally also the B-25 with the fewest number of ground kills and a roughly 1:1 k:d against enemy planes) A-20G-25 -- 70 matches, 54% win rate (also fewer ground kills and roughly 1:1 k:d) B-27E -- 46 matches, 57% win rate B-29 -- 26 matches, 61.5% win rate Now, unfortunately we can't really see how your matches were won in those bombers that you have positive winrates. It's entirely possible, and I'd be willing to bet much more likely, that your increased success in 5.0+ planes has more to do with your teams' abilities to compensate for your....for lack of a better term....dead weight. 5.0 - 7.0+ is where we have a dead zone in US fighter aircraft. There's really only the F8Fs, which are very different from the US fighters lower in the tree. It's my bet that you find yourself on teams with Griffon Spits and F8Fs that are more easily flown, and able to overcome flying at a numbers disadvantage than the US planes found at lower BRs. I can't possibly say for certain what explains your higher success rate in higher BR bombers, but I can say that your teams tend to struggle when you fly bombers at lower BRs. With that said, if you're able and willing to show that you can reliably (50% or more of the time) finish out matches by winning the ground attack objectives, I'd be more than happy to see that.
  78. He has experience. I have experience. Our experience tells us that there is almost never a match that ends via the ground target objectives. You don't need to fly bombers or ground attackers to realize that fact. I can share with you my match history where I was either the last alive on my team when we were defeated, or where I was alive when the enemy team was defeated, and in at least 90% (and that's a generous estimate) of those the game was ended when all planes on one side were defeated. The only semi-reliable exception to that rule is Saipan, where maybe 30% of the time the match ends from auto ticket bleed as the AI Hellcats destroy the enemy ground targets. It is as close to fact as a subjective statement can get when people say bombers and ground attackers are useless in Air RB, and are detrimental to the teams they are on. It may pain people who enjoy flying them to accept that, but it is currently the truth. It will continue to be the truth until the game mode is overhauled.
  79. I just watched the video, and there were several opportunities that you had to seal the deal. You were even able to get several leads on the Ki-43, you just failed to score the hits. Besides that, there were several instances where the enemy was stalled out, and you just didn't capitalize. An example is at 6:00. For starters you cut your throttle for too long, which cost you energy, but even with the wasted energy, coming out of that attack you should have pulled straight up in the air. The Ki-43 was at nowhere near high enough speed to follow you, and you would have been able to fall right down on top of him. Hindsight is always 20/20, but you made some mistakes in that fight. Also, I strongly suggest that when you try to perform something like a chandelle, or any kind of vertical maneuver to get above your enemy, try to get your nose straight up in the air before you transition into the dive. It makes getting your guns on the target beneath you much easier when your diving straight down on them.
  80. Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know what is required to fly US planes successfully.... It's definitely not that simple. Every attack you make, no matter how conservative you're being, will cost you energy. That is compounded by the fact that you have to avoid enemy counter attacks up to 1.2km away, so you shed even more energy as you are forced to spend excessive amounts of time in horizontal flight before you can transition back into the vertical. During that ridiculously long amount of time you spend extending from your target, your target is accelerating out of their defensive maneuvers, which allows them to regain whatever energy they lost, possibly gaining more than what they started with. In just about any US plane you will anywhere from 2 to 5 BnZ attacks before you lose any energy advantage you may have had, being forced to fly defensively. I don't really notice much of a difference with the new MG buffs.... Even 8 of them are far from the auto-win pasta cannons that the Italians have access to. Also, I question again your claims about climb rates. The only planes that might be able to outclimb Italian / German planes at altitude are the P-51D30, P-47N / M, and maybe the P-38J / L, and that's excluding Bf 109s, which I think will still outclimb them. There is not a single altitude below 10km that the P-47D, F4Us, F6F, P-38K, P-51D-5, Cannonstang, and P-40 (maybe, I haven't really flown it) will begin to outclimb anything that isn't a full 1.0 BR lower. They can hold their own in equal engagements. When they're fighting 4v8, though, as they wait for the rest of their US team to catch up, it's much harder to do anything but die. Especially when you have to fight planes that are nearly equal in maneuverability, and planes that are much faster at the same time. With all of that said, US planes can win against any nation. The players just need to be very experienced and knowledgeable, and they do need to utilize a lot of teamwork.
  81. I'll try to make a video showcasing what I'm talking about, but you want to do it quickly. Gently pull up into a steep climb. While climbing turn your plane 90 degrees in any direction. When your speed gets low (~260kph) level out and pick up speed. You want it to be quick because you need time to accelerate out of the climb before the enemy gets within firing distance. If you do it too slowly, by the time you level out to accelerate, then enemy might be too close, and you won't have time to accelerate.
  82. It depends on the timing of everything. If you need to extend your climb to its maximum height, then simply climb until your plane tumbles over. If you need to cut the climb short, you can either use the mouse to transition out of the climb, or at very low speeds you can use rudder input on your keyboard to push your nose over and down. The rudder key can get you out of the climb quicker, if you use it correctly, but it can also send your plane into some weird maneuvers that might take you longer to get out of compared to simple elevator deflections. Play around with it and see what you think works best.
  83. The high speed merge tactic really only works when you can trick the enemy plane into pulling a Split S at high speeds. At lower speeds, their energy bleed will be minimal because the G force they experience to maneuver will be limited. In the video you shared, the enemy was never really above 400 kph, which is far too low for the tactic to be effective. On top of that, the tactic doesn't really work against hyper-maneuverable planes. Because they can pull incredibly sharp turns, they don't spend enough time in the diving portion of the Split S to pick up enough speed to throw away energy as they maneuver. Instead, you'd probably have more success using a staggered spiral climb maneuver. Basically, you want to get separation like you would before you reverse into a high speed merge tactic. As you get to 3+km, you should have much more energy than your opponent. Instead of reversing back into a head one though, use your speed to enter a bit of a burst climb, while also turn about 90 degrees to your opponent's heading. As your speed hits 260kph, level out and try to pick up speed without dropping altitude. The enemy should be closing on you in a climbing turn, trying to intercept your angle, however, you should be picking up speed in level flight as they are losing speed. By the time they get within firing range, you should be much higher in speed, which should allow you to enter a semi-sharp spiral climb that they shouldn't be able to follow. As you climb, you want to position yourself so that you're directly over the top of them with your nose pointed straight up in the air when you get ready to transition into a dive. I don't have any video examples of this tactic, but I'll try to put something together to explain it in practice.
  84. I think their limits are set by plane's ability to perform the maneuvers. The "Turnfighter" planes are just more capable of pulling higher Gs. I don't think the G limits of the pilots has much to do with it. I could be mistaken, though.
  85. But most planes, particularly in the German and US trees, are incapable of pulling 10+G's for extended periods of time at medium / high speeds like the more maneuverable planes in the British, Soviet, and Japanese trees. They are generally limited to 8 to 9 Gs. IRL, every plane was limited to 6 Gs on average, with exceptionally fit pilots being able to pull 8 Gs for very brief stints.
  86. As I said, I would be very much interested in seeing an example of the maneuver in practice in any US plane, but especially in the P-47D.
  87. I'll take a look when I get the chance. I have a busy today, so I may not be able to provide feedback until tomorrow.
  88. The only card they hold (typically) is top speed. They will still lose in acceleration / climb, they will still lose in maneuverability. If you have a coordinated, competent group of players, there really is nothing that most planes can do to them. As soon as the fight devolves into a 1vX, though, you will still have to maintain a huge energy gap between yourself and your opponent to maintain safe offensive positions. Then you'll have to know what to do with that energy gap using only top speed, as any maneuver in the vertical will quickly mitigate it. It's very easy to make mistakes even at higher altitudes in US planes, in my opinion.
  89. But you also need good acceleration and (to a lesser extent) elevator authority. I've been defeated in vertical maneuvers at higher altitudes in the P-47D simply because, even at 7+km, the P-47D has abysmal acceleration and climb. In vertical scissors you need to be able to power through the climbing portion of the maneuver, and that's just something the P-47D is not very good at. A 190, unlike the P-47D, has pretty decent acceleration. Even if it's not the best in that department, it has much better acceleration and roll rate than the P-47D that I would struggle to see how they would be comparable in any kind of vertical maneuver. They both lack turning performance, but I'd say that's where the similarities end. Also, I don't think the P-47D loses energy very well. Well, it does in low speed vertical maneuvers compared to a lighter fighter if both are running wide-open throttles. If both cut their throttles, though, the P-47D will retain more of its kinetic energy because of its high momentum. If you're combating someone else who is equally skilled in throttle and flap management, you'll be hard pressed to force an overshoot. It's very possible that I'm wrong here, which is why I'm curious about your claims in your previous post, but I'd be very surprised if anyone could demonstrate that vertical scissor maneuvers were a reliable tool for the P-47D's toolbag at any altitude. Well, they have the option not to fall for the trap. I know exactly the kinds of maneuvers you're talking about, and I do agree that often times you will get people who do fall for them, but I know I wouldn't, and I've fought against players who were patient enough to not fall for them either. In those situations the fight can turn into a stalemate, where neither player is willing to make the mistake of committing to a risky attack. Regardless, the fact that players have to take the bait, allowing you to, as you put it, "lure them in," suggests that you can't force anyone to do anything. It's their decision to make the mistake, and it's not always the case that they do.
  90. I guess I need to stop saying "US planes are the hardest to fly," as the only US plane I'd say I have enough experience in to be able to say that is the P-47D. However, I firmly believe there is not a harder fighter to fly with regular success than the P-47D. As I've said before, it's all due the fact that the game (mouse aim, specifically) severely weakens the advantage of having a higher top speed, and that's pretty much the only advantage the P-47D will ever have against just about any opponent they fly against. When you have to maintain 1.2km separation from a target for fear of taking critical / lethal damage, and planes can prophang while aiming and shooting their guns until 50kph or even lower, it's so damned easy to lose any energy advantage you started with, and it's so damned difficult to regain a safe offensive position once you've lost it. Until 500+m snipe shots become much less reliable / effective, and planes actually start to obey the laws of physics in vertical climbs, I will continue to hold that position. Either that, or I need someone to teach me how to fly the P-47D's..... I would be very much interested in seeing an example of this. And they're the easiest planes to make mistakes in, while also being the most difficult to recover from those mistakes in. (The P-47D, anyways.) I also don't really think you can force anyone to make a mistake. You can encourage mistakes by luring your opponents into traps, but if your opponent is smart / experienced, there's a good chance they won't fall for them. I suppose if you have the energy advantage you can force your opponent into energy-depleting evasive maneuvers. Other than that, I'm not quite sure I understand what else you can do to force anything.
  91. Depending upon the armaments, this is how it should be. With that said, I'm still not really noticing much of a difference in the US .50s since the update. They are just as lethal as they've always been for me. Perhaps a tad bit more reliable, but I still have to put a solid burst into my targets with 8 .50s at convergence to kill them.