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
Try to read my post again.
The best prove of my statement is the BR increase of the B-29 pre May 2020 (=introduction of respawning bases) from 6.3 to now 7.3.
Repeating fact-free opinions doesn’t make them true.
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 does there need to be, when individual fighter players can function on their own? Individual bombers can’t function on their own.
They cant change gun damage without changing it for all aircraft that use the same gun. If you expect otherwise, go play WoWP
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.
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.