Vidar, Turm III, and others disagree
It would be raised as soon as the number of new buyers decrease
1 Like
Yeah…those are rare cases…Vidar is only going up 0.3 BR, I dont remember that Turm II was on original BR. And i still remember when they raise Su-25s after few days saying that the original BR they put it in was “mistake”.
And it is boring, always the same pattern, we know exactly what is going to happen before the round has started.
It is sad to put so much effort in models and aesthetics but having boring match rules.
I have started another topic about applying a ratio on the gain for bombing targets according to their distance from the friendly airfield to invite faster bomber with higher survivability to take more risk going deeper into enemy zone. And if they don’t, well it would leave the further targets for slow birds as it is now, but for higher retribution. It would not force anyone to play one style, but the higher risk you are willing to take the more points you are going to potentially make. Exciting?
Your topic raise another idea, the team could get a sort of penalty if one/the bombers are killed, to invite fighters to protect their friendly bombers. Or the all team could get an extra reward/medal according to the number of bombers still alive at the end of the round for example.
Promoting team work or team spirit can only be done by incentives. Otherwise no one cares!
1 Like
This is simply not true - the Ju 288s had simply not enough TNT loadout to kill an airfield in “minutes”.
Back in the old days you needed 10-12 SC 1800s to kill the enemy airfield. That meant 2 complete runs for all 4 (without any loss) of them if u considered the 3 SC 1800 needed to kill the 3 bases into this theoretical view.
In practice a classic af kill by just 4 Ju 288s was extremely rare - i guess around 1 to 2% - and happend mainly as matches lasted 1 hour.
With the current quality of Ju 288 pilots (on average) an airfield kill is almost impossible within the 25 minute timer. First they are not working coordinated and second the skill requirement to complete 2 runs to the enemy airfield is simply too high for most of them - you had to climb outside the view of the enemy, flying long and wide detours and you needed some luck. Alone with the new contrail mechanic this is impossible.
The main issue were B-29s or Tu-4s (and to a certain degree 264s when they were at 3.7 as airfield health was lower there) able to kill airfields in one run. Just look at the BRs of both and you get the idea how gaijin handled this issue.
You might want to look at this thread - dealing with Bomber escort:
We also know thousands didn’t…
That´s correct. Statistically the Luftwaffe in ww2 lost one fighter for one bomber-kill. Of course kills by fighter escort are included, and flying in bulks more than one bomber usually could fire defensive bursts against the fighters. You name it, also the attackers were usually not single airplanes.
Yup. I have the official US AAF Statistical Digest for WW2 and heavy bombers did pretty well in the mid-war years, but naturally it tapered off as better tactics and better-armed planes took to the skies.
That said the Pacific in 1945 when the B-29 and its radar-directed and gyostabilized turrets took to the skies it was no contest in favor of the bombers.
1 Like
You are aware of that gunner kills of 8th and 15th AF bombers are even a bigger myth than USSR kill claims of German tanks during the battle of Prokorovka on July 12, 1943?
Prokorovka myth
Initially the USSR claimed (for 40+ years) to have killed several hundred German tanks in this battle at this specific day, wikipedia still claims today 40 to 90 - but the actual losses of the 2nd SS Pz Division were 5 tanks vs ~ 200 USSR tank losses (confirmed during short opening of USSR archives after 1991)…
The overclaiming of bomber gunners is common knowledge - and also that any official data or combat diaries of 8th and 15th AF have to be seen as rather unreliable. Example? Just try to match the gunner kill claims of the 8th AF in 1942 with the actual combat losses of their main opponents JG 26 and JG 2 in 1942 and you might see why…
Back to topic:
A quite interesting vid about the B-17 UK (UK bias!!!)
1 Like
I don’t understand why you are interrogating history to seek justifications to proceed or deny the balance of certain components in a video-game primarily designed to deliver a highly competitive gaming experience (fair) rathen than a highly historically immersive gaming experience (unfair). If the win rate of bombers is significantly below 50%, they should receive an improvement as soon as possible; there is not much to discuss here…
There i
The main point is that gaijin is just not interested in having a fair gaming experience for players interested in flying those bombers. And the game relies on intended imbalances, a f2p game is not designed to be fair.
And gaijin is advertising with “realistic” vehicles - and thereby giving the illusion of “realism” - and a lot of players are disappointed if iconic vehicles like here bombers underperform in the game.
From a holistic pov bombers above BR 3.0 - 3.7 (Air RB) have no real purpose in this game (except being victims and pushing the number of playable planes) - therefore players try for years to give them at least the possibility to actually contribute to win a match.
I mean gaijin itself creates the myth that they are presenting in their game “historically accurate” vehicles and force players to bring “historical evidence” in order to change something. Following the game for ~ seven years now proves that they implement what they want and not what is accurate.
So seeing all of those points it is logical that basically all discussions about vehicles and their implementation in the game will deal sooner or later with historical views on certain aspects…
I assume you are a RB player. This is the worst possible mode for bombers. If you really want to play with bombers, try arcade or simulator.
1 Like
Terribly unfun for you. Speak for yourself. I enjoy playing with bombers in both AB and SB. Also, no one will remove them. Why should they. Players can voluntarily choose whether to play them or not.
Depending on what you like, they are fun in RB too. But I see your point: If you want to matter, then RB isn’t your choice.
I find the bomber’s abilities quite limited in RB. In an arcade or in a simulator, you can theoretically first clear your way with a fighter and only then take a bomber and bombing with it.
Of course then there are special cases like the Ju 288 which is better play in RB.
In RB, Bombers kinda give the “Silent Service” feeling. You are vulnerable but destructive, just like a submarine. If you get through, you earn big. For some, this is actually fun. However, usually, it doesn’t matter one bit.
In AB, a well trained bomber can singlehandedly win the match, if the enemy team is reluctant to climb. Unfortunately, this kind of win happens less and less - not because the bomber is intercepted but because the match ends too soon.
In RB, Bombers kinda give the “Silent Service” feeling. You are vulnerable but destructive, just like a submarine. If you get through, you earn big. For some, this is actually fun. However, usually, it doesn’t matter one bit.
For this I play simulator. It’s much better there because you are not so often disturbed by enemy fighters and when you are, you knows better defend yourself.
In AB, a well trained bomber can singlehandedly win the match, if the enemy team is reluctant to climb. Unfortunately, this kind of win happens less and less - not because the bomber is intercepted but because the match ends too soon.
That’s why I focus more on bombing the front line (bunkers, artillery, tanks, AA positions).
Correct.
Thx for your recommendations.
I am fully aware of the hordes of B-25s active in Air SB - using the aiming advantage of gunner view vs fighter pilots cockpit view and racking up thousands of kills with them.
Even as i fly with joystick, SFC and instructor off only - I just find Air RB with all his aspects and ofc with markers much more convenient to play.
Arcade game play was never my cup of tea…
Anyway, have a good one!
1 Like