@SpeclistMain Your argument is based on the doctrine of aircraft combat, which players don’t know or care about. A bomber can operate on its own, I’ve done it many times and will continue to do it, but they SHOULDN’T operate on their own. The same applies to fighters. They can operate on their own, but flying with a wingman allows ACTUAL tactics to be used, like the Thatch Weave. Bombers spawn together in a group of 4 (usually unless there aren’t many bombers in the matchmaker) which means they spawn basically IN FORMATION but players seperate in order to fly to different bases instead or coordinating. Gaijin gives you a chance to be together and more survivable, but players CHOOSE not to.
At its current tier, the Tu-4 is pretty useless as it faces vehicles that outmatch it in every way. I have attempted using it in Air rb, air ab, air sim and in ground rb, and in none of these matches has it survived more than 30 seconds to 1 minute max.
2 Likes
I don’t care what gaijin values. That is not my point. My point is that bomb load does not contribute to bomber success anymore and hasn’t in years.
Because ARB is designed so that it is a free-for-all for the bases, and therefore the average player is going to do whatever they can to take out a base before someone else. Additionally, if bomber players currently did formations, they would have to wait five minutes for the bases to respawn because fighters would’ve already taken all of them out. Also, a formation of four bombers is not enough for facing more than 1-2 fighters in the vast majority of scenarios.
I never said there was a B-29 with 6 extra turrets, and spawning bombers at 9km would only solve one of the many issues with bombers.
You quite literally admitted they change the damage bullets/shells do on different vehicles:
I mean you’re saying that Gaijin is known for changing spall values, with them usually being the same (but not always).
That’s entirely my point: Gaijin lowers the BR of the B-29 → it becomes easier for a single B-29 to win the game in one pass → Gaijin realizes this and puts the B-29 back at 7.3 because the base damage done by the B-29 is too OP for 6.0-6.3 where it actually belongs.
That wasn’t my experience playing the B-17Gs. What happened when I played them (just like with all bombers) were fighters going much faster than my bomber, making it much harder to defend myself.
A bomber cannot operate on its own - as soon as there is a single fighter chasing you, you are likely dead.
In a 1v1 between a fighter and a fighter (assuming the fighters are around the same BR), it will be an even fight. A 1v1 between a bomber and fighter is not fair (assuming the fighter isn’t 3.0+ BR lower than the bomber).
I see why it isn’t your experience playing them, and why this post is absolutely a waste of time. You labeled the post for REALISTIC battle, and you play ARCADE. We are arguing completely different things because I am arguing for realistic, and your experience is all from arcade.
That is why the B-29 urgently needs to have its most principal historical gunnery feature: the central fire-control system computer, which was capable of rationalizing the extremely complex operation and ballistics of having multiple remote control turrets. It is unacceptable and represents a significant weakness that there is no way to regulate something as essential as the gun harmonization when the mounts are spaced by tenths of meters. Can you imagine the degree of divergence in the bullet paths that results from not having dinamic correction in such a case? Currently, trying to hit a distant, parallel-moving target is impossible action for a B-29, just as it is for a BV 238 to shoot down a plane at 10 meters.
Not at all. In the game, there is an unequal treatment in the capabilities of the same guns to inflict damage. A .50 cal mounted on a defensive turret has a dispersion pattern at least twice as wider as the same gun mounted offensively, perhaps more than six times what they historically had. That is to say, the armament of the bombers was deliberately adjusted to be less precision than it should be, as if their poor firepower wasn’t already an issue for proper game balance.
There is also unequal access to belt configurations. Belts with abundant HE rounds or abundant tracer rounds are only available for fighters, but not for bombers. What is the rationale behind these differences?
To my understanding this was because bombers and their defensive armament were “too powerful” and outcry caused them to be adjusted. A stupid change in my opinion, but gameplay trumps realism in most cases.
I’m not quite sure about that, but I have seen articles that describe why B-17 crew went away from using tracer filled belts, but I didn’t have time to read it. I could see where, in formation with other bombers, tracer filled belts could cause the airpsace to be overloaded and cause more confusion than it would be advantageous. I don’t quite know where you get the info of belts not having abundant HE rounds in them. The 20mm defensive cannons on most bombers almost always get a 50/50 mix of some sort of explosive rounds (Frag/Incen/FI/APHE).
I played the B-17G and the B-29 in realistic after I started to play more fighters. I played arcade originally because bombers weren’t useful in any way in realistic outside of diving to the deck and doing a single base rush.
It needs that and ahistorical damage buffs.
Do not bring up the argument of historical accuracy only when it suits you. The fact is that certain belt compositions are more effective in the current damage mechanic for countering a fighter, to the point that they can be more advantageous than what would have been historically preferred (It stands to reason that a particular selection of ammunition with specific chemical properties cannot be expected to make sense when the simulation significantly deviates from physical reality).
I don’t quite know where you get the info of belts not having abundant HE rounds in them
The following machine guns in their flexible variant lack specialized HE/IAI belts (Air Targets, Stealth), with only a single rounds example in the Default belt (along with useless rounds like Ball/T)
12.7mm Berenzin UB
12.7mm Breda-SAFAT
13mm MG 131; Just look at everything that’s available for Fighters:
While Bombers have to make do with this:
Cool thing about Warthunder, historical accuracy doesn’t matter 100 percent of the time. It only applies to certain things. Hence why airframe model matters for defensive armament layout, but accuracy of that defensive armament can be changed for balancing reasons even though dispersion is known. There is a weird mix of historical accuracy andngameplay balancing. Sometimes historical accuracy MAKES sense as an argument, and sometimes it doesn’t. When I do make an argument because of historical accuracy, it is usually because a gameplay change DOESN’T make sense as an answer. In this situation, historical reasons make sense why all belts aren’t available to the same gun in a different airframe because it wouldn’t be difficult to move those belts over.
Again, I don’t know the difference between what fighters used vs what bombers used. The belts the fighters used for the same guns could have not been used for bombers of the same armament because of economy, doctrine, ect. I understand they aren’t the same in game, and I cannot tell you why that is.
In terms of the bomber belts shown, the 13mm doesn’t carry HE shells in any belt anyway and Incendiary and IAI are worse overall when compared to API, so you get better rounds in the bomber belt with a tracer than you can with a fighter.
The lack of IAI dedicated belts for bombers though seems like Gaijin having information to say they didn’t exist historically or it was a decision for gameplay purposes. I don’t know which, but it is also observed for some SPAA not having full HE (I, F, FI) belts.
In no way, shape, or form should the B-29 be at 7.3. This thing can fight MISSILE-CARRYING JETS at 7.3.
It should be 6.0/6.3 MAX. It only has M2 0.50 cals.
b29 is fine where it is, just dont rush in first or you will get clapped.
I usually stay behind long enough for few minutes and avoid making contrails so the fighting between fighters start and i can go unnoticed, avoid going closer than ~15km to someone so the marker doesnt pop up on you. when youre in games with starter jets the meta isnt to climb so much in there as much as people just speed away at 2-3km altitude max, if it were to go down in BR then EVERYONE would be climbing at your level. you would be facing alot more of the top end props where meta is gaining altitude at game start and doing this would become impossible.
most of the time after this i can just fly in and drop all my bombs interrupted.
Totally agree Tu-4 br 6.7!!!
That’s crazy 💀
You will get clapped no matter what, even if you side climb.
The “meta” concerning killing the B-29 is always to climb, because they have no way to defend themselves and die in 1-2 passes. Putting them against slower targets at least (so they have more time to climb) while also not facing only 30mm cannons is better than doing nothing.
Unironically, yes. 7.0 maybe.
its grind is actually not bad if you research more 500lbs bombs cause with those you can destroy all 4 bases with 10 bombs each
YOUR ANSWER IS…
Spoiler
CORRECT!!!
1 Like
AH yes, how about being trolled by a mig 15 who keeps taking potshots at you till teammates start engaging him…(yes that happened luckily all he damaged was one elevator and I survived)
my counter to this argument would be : what is the point of balancing a bomber based on bombload when you are not even going to reach your target to use said bombload cause it is going to fight jets 20-30 years ahead of it
so what is the point of it ?