Oh ok.
You get taken out by fighters like I said before.
That is different. He wantd them to just increase the damage that bullets do. But only for bombers
Example: mg151 does X damage when on a fighter but does Y damage when on a bomber
Which is what I think as well, it can’t be implemented in game currently.
Why shouldn’t it? In WWII the ratio of bombers to interceptors was ~2.5-17.1:1, doubling the damage to compensate for at least some of the deficit created by the lack of formations would help to make bombers actually capable of defending themselves.
Yes. Bombers in game function as single planes, where they were designed to be in packs numbering in the dozens. Increasing the damage done by bomber MGs would actually help to fix the issue, because there quite literally is no other solution to it besides making the AI gunners laser-accurate (and we all know how much fighter players hate the AI gunners functioning in any capacity).
Because that is not how the game works. In fact, it attacks the very base of the game. Every mg151 does the same damage because it is the same gun.
The very base of the game ahistorically nerfs the ability of bombers to defend themselves, therefore ahistorical buffs must be given to compensate for the nerfs.
If you have some sources showing that those bombers had more gunners, or larger guns/cannons, than the they have currently, make a report.
Neat, then i think the 76mm sherman should get 200mm of frontal armor or make the 76mm gun have 180mm of pen because they face more tigers than they historically fought.
Nah, give it it’s historical reload. The buff doesn’t even need to be ahistorical
Fair but missing the point. OP wants ahistorical buffs. He wants the same gun to have different damage output depending on what plane it is on
Yeah, I saw that, still wanted to point out a historical buff ;)
The Shackelton is pretty fun. The forward mounted 20mm can take out other bombers/fighters in headons and the rear mount 20mm can do work but you need a slight upward incline to use it.
1 Like
He doesn’t understand that making the same gun with the same ammunition do different levels of damage makes no sense for Warthunder. Same with the bombs. I don’t even understand why he suggested that bomber’s bombs do LESS damage to bases. He wants them to get buffed, but wants their prinary purpose to be nerfed considerably.
Just gave it a looksie and I’m very confused why it has sooooooooooooooooooooo many gunners, but only two turrets??!?!!?!?
Not sure there. My thought is the crew reflects the number that would be required to operate the sea radar that isn’t modeled completely in game. I haven’t used it in a while, but I’ll have to give it a look when I get a chance to see all these crewmembers.
He thinks this is something like WoT or battlefield where they can just change whatever stats they want for balance.
That is my theory at least.
Someone mentioned how the heavy bombers would dominate the 3 mini base maps so that was his reactionary response
Hmm okay. I thought maybe there was a mod that added turrets
Not having formations (which would multiply the firepower of the B-29’s) doesn’t make sense either, but they aren’t in game. Copy-pasting M2’s or whatever MGs to make bomber-specific versions that do more damage would help to make up for the lack of formations. It’s also a much simpler solution than implementing a new mechanic where multiple vehicles are controlled at the same time.
Because the main reason the bombers are so high is because they can destroy so many bases, therefore the solution to that (if Gaijin doesn’t actually want to change the gamemode) would be to implement different base damage multipliers based on total bombload.
Gaijin literally does that: reload rate, fire rate, ammunition count, and penetration/spall values are all examples of things they ahistorically change to balance vehicles. Them adding a formation-compensating damage buff would not be unusual.
You also don’t have a wingman by your side all the time either in a fighter, but fighters in real life did. This game doesn’t take in to account doctrine and intended design. Bombers could stick together to make them all harder to kill, but noone does. That is a player issue, not an issue Gaijin needs to address.
No… No… No… Adding random weapons and features to things that didn’t have them isn’t how this game is operated. I don’t understand why you can’t accept that.
This is even worse than adding random extra weapons to things that didn’t have them. Controlling multiple vehicles at the same time would be rediculous. You wouldn’t be able to properly manuver them, and the guns would never have the same aim point and trajectory. Would be the biggest waste of time if attempted.
You understand this would destroy bombers usefulness, resulting in NOONE ever playing them. You’d effectively HALVE the rewards attainable and give strikers a MASSIVE advantage to destroying bases over bombers. I’d rather the B-29 and Tu-4 be useless floating turds at 12.7 than have every bomber in game lose its effectiveness at the thing they are designed to do.
This is beside the fact that making the IDENTICAL bombs deal different damage because of the plane that it dropped from is REDICULOUS and doesn’t fit in Warthunder’s design concept.
Yes it would. Changing a tanks reload slightly or ammo count or spall damage modifiers is a case by case thing because tanks have leway on how they are made or operated as a whole. Usually cannons that are in the same chassis/turret have identical fire rates. Look at the Shermans with the M3 75mm cannon. They all have a 6.5s base reload rate because they share the same cannon and basic turret layout. What you are suggesting would be changing one specific Sherman’s damage compared to the others, which doesn’t make sense.
1 Like
Imho your statement is not backed by reality.
The only way to balance the BR of a bomber is to consider the potential damage (so total payload / TNT output ) in connection with probabilities of dropping the payload and actual in-game results.
It is obvious that the potential damage is most decisive - best examples are bombers with very low survival rates like Stirlings or G5N1s - so despite it is rather rare to see them able to reach a base, it took ages to see a slight reduction of their BRs - despite they were shot down like turkeys.
The probabilities of successful drops increase statistically when more experienced players are using the bomber more successfully - best example is the BR increase of the Ju 88 A-4 from BR 2.3 to 3.0 within 6 months - just by adding the Finish version to the Swedish TT.
On the other side we see bombers with rather small bomb loads, but rather high drop chances at lower BRs (like the P1Y1 at 3.3) - or my favorite the B-18B - which was severely undertiered at BR 3.0 and became 4.0 within 6-8 months in 2022 (also thanks to more experienced pilots grinding the tree).
At least since May 2020 parameters like WRs for bombers make no sense as thanks to respawning bases prop bombers became not longer decisive for the outcome of a match.
So even if the fellow player has rather strange views on certain things, the payload is the most decisive factor, followed by actual score on average.
not been true since you could end the game by bombing