Oh, ok, so then something should be done to make up for the lack of armament due to ahistorical game design, right?
So what you actually mean is that bombers should be sitting ducks because copy-paste is surely too difficult for Gaijin?
If the game can keep track of who is firing what bullets and who is dropping what bombs (how else would the game know who to give the SL, RP, and score to?), why wouldn’t it be able to adjust the hp damage done by looking at what vehicle dropped it?
Yea, the splitting of ground and air BRs for aircraft that they are CURRENTLY WORKING ON. That should alleviate this issue some if done correctly, big IF there but we have to wait and see.
This isn’t a “not possible to program” thing, it comes down to balancing and fair use of weaponry. For example, if the M2 Late used on the B-29 gets a buff, that buff should apply to ALL M2 Lates in game not just the B-29s. Consistency for vehicle weaponry is important.
The bomb load thing is the same way. It makes no sense that an AD-2 that carries the same exact bombs as the B-29 should do more damage to a base. The bombs don’t change in effectiveness simply because a B-29 drops them. That would actually make strike aircraft and fighters with bombs even more powerful than they already are in comparison to long range bombers. That logic doesn’t track because you’re making bombers WORSE at their job then they already are.
I would also like to clarify something because it seems like some people misunderstand. I AM NOT saying that I agree with how they have done things. I am saying that they are how they are and my understanding of why that is. The B-29 WAS one of my favorite aircraft, and this game ruined that because I absolutely hated spading it because it is worthless. Shit, the same thing happened with the F-111, started good and then absolutely destroyed. I still stand by my points that it can do well against 6.3s, and that the weapons shouldn’t be balanced SPECIFICALLY for the B-29 and not ALL vehicles that use them.
I am aware that the changes made to the B-29 in the past were to keep them from instantly winning games. The BR increases mixed with the bomber limit in RB to solve the problem of bombers effortlessly winning games before they could be stopped, correct @Balanced_Game? If I am not correct with this, do tell so I can not be wrong anymore.
Why? The issue with bombers is that irl they would be in formation with a dozen or more times the firepower, therefore their armament should be buffed. Fighters that use the M2 aren’t sitting ducks in game due to an ahistorical lack of formations, so they don’t need a buff.
Due to how to tickets system works, their bombload is generally too much as it would bleed the other team of a large amount of their tickets in RB and in AB they can just straight up win by taking out the airfield.
Consistency. Consistency. Consistency. One of the nice things about this game is some things are decently represented and weapons that are shared by more than one vehicle perform the same on each vehicle. An M2 Late should perform like and M2 Late regardless of vehicle, same with the bombs. Bring the B-29 down before you give it specific buffs that can’t be given to other vehicles that share the same weapons.
Yes, that would be possible but the reason it is 7.3 (and 8.0 for Tu-4) is because that used to happen quite often. As of right now, it is almost impossible to position a B-29 or Tu-4 in realistic to do anything because jet striker intercepts you before you can get to the battlefield. The current state is a poor attempt by Gaijin to balance their ground strike capability by bringing them higher than they needed to be. This is a sad reality of most of the bombers.
Bringing the B-29 down only solves the issue of it fighting jets that it (mostly) would not have been fighting against, it does nothing to solve the game-design issue of formations not existing in game. To fix that issue, the armament of a single B-29 needs to be buffed, as the only other solution would be to implement control over multiple aircraft at a time (which is a much, much more difficult thing to do that copy-pasting some MG models and buffing their damage).
Therefore something should be done to fix it (if Gaijin isn’t going to change the way Air matches work fundamentally), i.e. implementing hp damage modifiers.
Yes, I am aware that the game does not represent true to life combat scenarios for every vehicle. That doesn’t change the current state of things. I am in full agreeance that long range bombers are in a piss poor state and need to go down in BR at almost every level. Spading the German and US frontline/long range bombers has been a terrible time overall.
I don’t know why you think I would care to look into what you want to say when I am instantly greeted by this bullshit:
Have some respect for others and attack the IDEAS not the people. When people instantly go in for insults like that, I almost always ignore what they say and respond with sarcasm because it’s just unneeded trash that destroys discussion. I don’t respond to you initially by saying stuff like “you’re just a hater and should quit because cope” because it isn’t appropriate. I don’t want to insult you, I want to discuss ideas. Discussion is how you broaden your knowledge, and that is why I come here. It’s different if I constantly said “Gaijin is right, you’re dumb, they know everything, and the game is flawless” at every counterpoint, but I don’t recall EVER doing that because I think Gaijin has screwed the pooch on a lot of things too.
The fact that anyone replies to someone with insults immediately is part of the reason this community is so shit most of the time and why so many threads get derailed by pissing contests instead of actually discussing possible improvements or issues.
I agree, but I see the slower props that it would face as targets that can be defended against. In the case of the SAAB 105G, it can get into position outside of your gun range and then missile you from outside of your gun range. A Ta-152 can’t do that as easily because it can’t dictate the conditions of the fight as easily because it needs an altitude/speed advantage to be able to avoid gunfire which requires more effort in climbing and more dedication to the intercept.
That is why I keep mentioning the upcoming BR split. Hopefully it fixes some of these issues when ground battle performance is somewhat separated from air battle performance.
The issue is that the firepower advantage of the B-29 and bombers in general in game does not match the firepower bomber formations had. Irl, depending on the theater, there were ~2.5:1-17:1 (for the Bangkok Bang Sue raid and Berlin raid respectively). Obviously, giving bombers 17 times the firepower of what they have now is overkill, but doubling it would at least make up for most of the game-design issue.
True, but still the B-29 would be at a disadvantage due to game-design due to the lack of firepower.
The problem is that BR can’t fix everything, and if anything would actually create compression issues. To put the B-29 at a BR where its armament would be realistic (when compensating for the lack of formations in game), which is maximum 3.0 or so, the planes would just straight up not be able to catch it. When balancing the B-29 based on its air speed, then it would be around 5.0-6.0, where its armament is woeful compared to irl.
These planes already had a central fire control computer… So they were able to calculate ballistics (wind and gravity), parallax (displacement between the gun and the sight and distance + relative speed of the attacking plane…)
If they could model this into these machines, considering that in the game these machines are solo riders, it would be interesting…
Well, of course, night battles and the restriction of the display of markers …
But this is nonsense, so you have to enjoy these machines as a peculiarity … somehow manage to fly above the base or not, that’s the point …
If nothing changes, playing AirRB with heavy bombers is useless, because there are no more airfields to destroy and most likely the enemy bases will be destroyed before you can do so by any attack aircraft.
well, if you anticipate friendlies killing bases before you do, but you continue to straight line it to a single base, thats bad decision making on your part.
And obv you know better.
Yes,this is next problem …
I am some time ago I was looking for how the maps of air battles in Korea or Vietnam looked like … the active combat area was about 50 x 50 km … here in the game, again for other reasons, the entire game map is about 55 km*55 km …
This is how I would imagine the game map, stars - targets, for large bombers, the center of the map for attack aircraft (this would have to be tested, of course) …
I thought it was good that the attack planes and fighter-bombers were knocked out by air defense during the attack on the big bases some time ago. They are supposed to attack bunkers, AAA, combat vehicles, bridges, trains etc…
I have bought both big machines that this topic is about, but I don’t feel like playing them because I shot a lot of them myself…
And on these small maps, I would not be afraid to solve the launches of heavy bombers using JATO-RATO launch systems…
Either for the basic version of the machine, or an explorable modification…
shame for you bro.
Keep flying direct at a base into the entire enemy team knowing full well that friendlies will kill the base before you and even if they dont, the most you will do is kill 1 base due to your approach vector. :)
Maybe request that gaijin allow you to fly into the enemy team with no repercussions, whilst your at it, request they allow me to dogfight and get 8 kills while tabbed out or making the worst decisions possible.
