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.
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.
Fighters can function on their own, but bombers cannot defend themselves on their own - which is why there needs to be compensation for the lack of formations.
It’s the easiest solution to the issue of bombers not being able to defend themselves in game.
Exactly, which is why the easier solution of changing bomber MG damage should be done instead.
Just read this quote:
Then change the spalling so that the PoK is double what it is now, since that seems to be acceptable.
Why isn’t there formations when all 4 bombers that can spawn in a game spawn together?
No it ISN’T A SOLUTION because it doesn’t fit how the game operates. If there isn’t a model of a vehicle without said modifications then you won’t see it in game because they (mostly) only use vehicles that existed in some fashion. There weren’t models of the B-29 with 6 extra turrets in random places… An easier solution would be to spawn the at the appropriate altitude (around 9km) instead of 4 to 5 because that was one of the advantages enjoyed by most bombers is they operated at higher altitudes.
No it shouldn’t. If you can’t wrap your head around the fact they aren’t going to make the same bullet so different amounts of damage because of the vehicle that fires it, this part of the discussion is over. You have got to realise that a part of this game is based on realism, and some changes WON’T be made because of that. This is one of those examples.
This is good information, but doesn’t support your argument for less damage and making random changes to things. The B-29 currently can destroy 4 bases and a bit extra which is a massive potential damage, but it is virtually impossible to ever do that in game. It is exceedingly difficult to drop on one base in the current state. If it went down in BR, the probability of it successfully dropping its payload would go up because it won’t face jets and jet attackers with airspawns thay can climb to it with no effort and kill it because of their massive advantanes. The B-17G at 5.3 does well with it’s similar protection, other than the existence of airspawn faux interceptors like the Do-335B2s. Most fighters that try to intercept B-17Gs usually take large risks because they try to make the intercept in a slow unmaneuverable state which allows the bomber to accurately target them.
@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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
