The health increase would be Unrealistic but i am a supporter of the aces high solution for years.
It’s also very scalable. So if bombers are weaker in RB than AB you can easily tweak it by the number of squadmates. This way you don’t hqve to balance the DM for three seperate gamemodes and keep it realistic.
Still hasn’t changed but seems like its planning to be changed. Cause i remember one of my pilots getting killed and i still was able to fly. The left one that is so the main.
I think they were nerfed cuz i vividly remember them being kinda hard af to kill, could also be that the gunner AI was better back then so it is harder to get shots in.
The DMs were nerfed because they were horrificly overperfroming.
There is actual research of irl aircraft durability. And it doesn’t look good for durability.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA800394
So the current durability seem roughly correct. So drastic changes would be unrealistic.
The gunner nerf was due to bombers being very OP in sim. Why it spilled over into RB is anyones guess.
What we actually need is a ammunition re-work.
Stop this non-sense of planes falling appart when hit by 12.7 or 20mm explosive rounds.
I don’t really know how you came to that conclusion when:
Simple, the amount of rounds to kill a plane fit the numbers of the research. It really doesn’t matter how the plane dies as long as it dies. So sure let then burn or loose control.
It won’t change the fact that the plane should be dead. I don’t care that much about the visuals how they die.
If bombers were more tanky it would be near impossible to shoot them down with gun-based SPAA.
In that report, if a 20mm hits the oil tank and the engine burns up after 5 min the plane is destroyed.
So should your plane explode everytime someone hits your oil tank with LMG or HMGs?
Because “WT is a game and in real life you can’t fly back to an airfield that is 2-3 min away and in 5 minutes you would be dead anyway”?
Why should 20mm cannons shred planes into pieces with explosive rounds because of some supposed average number but small calibers don’t?
Instead of potentially hitting a plane 300 times with LMGs, they should just explode because after 100 hits since chance of causing damage to engine, water and oil tanks is likely.
What you are saying makes 0 sense because just because you hit or can hit a plane a certain amount of time, doesn’t mean that we should just crank up the damage so that were rounds hit isn’t relevent.
You can not seriously say: Based on the vulnerability of one plane, all other planes should be equally vulnerable without considering how exactly the plane is vulnerable to damage.
How does it make sense that an IL-2 gets it’s wings and tail easily shot off from 20mm HE rounds, based on the overall vulnerability of less armored planes from 20mm HE rounds?
I never said anything of the sort. What’s your issue?
First of all, it’s a long tailed distribution, so obviously not an average number, since that doesn’t make sense. Also the study gives probabilities for each shot ( under certain conditions).
I also said nothing about calibre size not being allowed to have an effect.
You are arguing against stuff noone said, that is all in your head. Care to explain your issue first?
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why create a deterministic limit when chane is involved. Can you detail your thought process? This makes no sense.
I never said that, like at all. I said that hits that kill a plane should kill a plane but i don’t care about the visualization. Loose tail control or have the tail fall of? The result is the same. You morph that into hit locations not mattering.
You also didn’t read the study properly. Since that is very clear on not taking cumulative damage into account. Which is a major weakness of the study, but understandable since the couldn’t destroy an infinite number of planes for a study.
So that needs to be extrapolated.
What you are doing is comparing your WT experience that does have cumulative damage with a study that doesn’t… No idea why you think that is a good idea.
An honest person would recreate the study in WT to check whether it is correct instead.
No, and nowhere did i say that. What’s your issue?
The thing is this is the only actual study that exists, it’s the only empirical.evidence on the subject.
So what you can so is chech the material strength of the tested vehicle and the stresses and extrapolate how materials of different material strength react. Since you have 2 planes in the test you can make a linear approximation. Which is faaaar more useful than guesswork or “feeling” how the DM should be.
What’s the alternative? You have no other data, it would be guessing. So this is faaar better than guesswork.
Extrapolation. Again what is the alternative? You feeling what the value should be?
The cumulative damage isn’t really necessary.
We know the effect of a 20mm HEI shell and we know the effect of a 37mm HE round that has 5 times the mass and explosive amount.
So obviously two 20mm rounds hitting at the same time can’t be more damaging than a single 37mm HE, however they clearly are in WT.
In WT a 37mm HE will destroy a P-47s wings or tails in a single hit. Just like 30mm Mineshells.
Yet in that report the Mineshell has the highest chance of scoring a structural kill.
We also know from A to B damage that kills through strucural damage increase with time, so it’s not like the planes are suddendly falling out of the sky from loosing a wing or tail, just that due to areodyanamic damage the plane can’t stay airborne forever.
So if two 20mm hits deal less structural damage than a 37mm and a 30mm deals waaaay more strucural damage even compared to a 37mm, how are planes losing wings and tails from 20mm hits all the time?
There’s clearly an issue with the game not representing the ammunition types right.
In fact there’s so much wrong with performance of shells and the damage to components that it isn’t even worth discussing how the current performance of guns stacks up to real life.
A 12.7mm API in real life makes it’s incendiary burst on impact, causing a flash of extremely burning material. That flash travels maybe 20-30cm, depending on the bullet velocity, igniting flamable material in reach. In WT any API will just deal RPG fire damage, so the bullet can travel 20m from a bombers tail all the way to the wings, igniting the fuel tanks based on RNG.
In real life a bulelt starts to tumble after impacting an aircrafts dural skin, turning the nose away from the armor plate it’s going to impact.
10-12mm of armor is enough to protect against .50cal bullets from 300m at most but in WT you can get pilot sniped from 800m because the rounds don’t lose any penetration.
20mm are just bigger .50cals that do everything they do but much better.
A Hispano SAPI won’t be stopped by plane armor.
A 20mm HEFI round will have much better incendiary effect on the plane, as well as causing additional damage through fragments and blast.
→ .50cal overperform
→ 20mm overperform
→ 30/37mm overperform
Heck even 7.7 can sever wings and tails for some reason.
The damage of 20mm HE rounds makes both bombers and anti-bomber guns useless.
realShatter made blast damage useless, HE made AP useless and Incendiary rounds were never useful because they are just a downgrade to API.
Yes, because the chances are calculated by taking the surface area where a hit would result in a kill divided by the entirety of the surface area of the plane (from the specific angle).
So of course the mineshell has a higher probability, since from the firing position the wings and tail areas where this would be the case are not that big percentage wise. You cannot just look at the tables, read their methodology as well.
And when it comes to the fuselage of course the mineshell is better in creating a structural kill there.
The special thing about the mineshell is it’s absurdley large HE filler. The 30mm mineshell has 82g of filler 132 tnt equivalent. While the 37mm only has 42g in early versions and 48g in later ones. The mineshell has almost twice the explosive mass.
So of course it performa better here. What did you expect?
Sure, the plane is still a writeoff. It’s destroyed. Gaijin shortenes the time it takes for the plane to fall apart, by making tails fall off instead of controls just being disabled. That was an anti killstealing method. As long as the written off plane counts as killed i am fine with reverting it… It’s still destroyed, again i don’t mind the visuals but they are just that.
Overdramaticizing of the visuals by gaijin. Again i never said the way the plane dies is correct, i said the number of random hits needed is roughly correct. So why bring up stuff i never said?
Yes the deaths got the micheal bay treatment, i agree… So what… they should still be dead.
With the severe damage mechanic they can revert the micheal bay stuff in my opinion. I even supported a suggestion to do so.
My point isn’t that the death visuals are correct, my point is that the survivability of bombers seems fine. The simple question “should the plane be destroyed” is answered mostly correct.
I never said the question “should the plane be destroyed in that manner” is correrct.
Do you understand the difference?
My point is even if the damage gets more realistic visually and the planes die the way they actually did, the bombers will not become beefier.
That was the point.
Sure i never argued they did.
I can even give you a short list out of the top of my head.
-SAPI is modelled as HE filler even though the chemical filler is purely incindiary.
-He explosions loose all there momentum the moment the detonate and they expand spherical with no distortion (even though they should be distorted equally to the shells relative momentum at the time of detonation).
So yeah i agree, the portrayal of the damage is wrong. But the survivability and abstract amount of damage seems to be correct.
So fixing the DMs should not result in higher survivability but simply in different deaths.
And that’s what the thread is about: if bombers need a buff.
And i showed the study to show that the real situation for bombers wasn’t any better than in WT, not to say the WT Damage modelling is perfect.
I reiterated this in several ways now. I hope it sticks.
Guys… Take it easy!..
Imho the OP “Bombers need a huge buff” is comprehensible - but it faces not the real problem - as even in ideal conditions the average bomber pilot lacks the necessary experience or will to survive.
So in standard matches (=clear sky, contrails, interceptors and respawning bases) the points made (damage model, damage output of HMGs/cannons) are somehow right, but imho they are irrelevant for the average user.
I played my last match in BR 4.0 B-18B in Air RB on the Operation Britain map:
Gaijin Entertainment - Single Sign On
Perfect conditions for a bomber - heavy clouds, 3 non-respawning bases, a “killable” airfield and late match a comfortable ticket lead in a 3 vs 1 (3 bombers vs 1 enemy fighter) in a 3.7-4.7 match. Small map (= high chance to drop) and all options to make a bomber useful.
The enemy team had a B7A2 (which dropped his bomb to play interceptor and died whilst killing our B-17) and a B-25 which managed to miss his drop point and died to af aaa in an attempt for a low attack of a base, an Il-8 dropped on a base without killing it; enemy and own fighters killed each other leaving me together with a B-25 and a B-26 vs a 4.3 Typhoon - after ~ 9 minutes.
Seeing the rather low experience level of my team mates and the favorable conditions i decided to stay high as i knew i would end up 1 vs 1. In order to win the Typhoon had to kill me (impossible due to alt advantage) or to go low to kill the late 3 x 6 vehicle spawn, making him vulnerable for a BnZ attack. I managed to kill him (24:06) as he went low (as expected).
My 2 bomber mates died (as expected to enemy airfield aaa) - despite i warned them that they need 4 km alt. I mean they had all options:
But they decided to go the easy way - fly direct to a target (here enemy airfield) and died to the well known af aaa. From a technical pov i could have won this match with a very rare airfield kill - my max payload killed roughly 25% of the af health and as at least the B-26 managed to drop before getting killed by af aaa the remaing 15-20% would have give me the opportunity for a decisive blow.
But why should i trade the benefits of a ensured win (= 100% RP bonus, 47% SL bonus) for a potential opportunity to kill the airfield? If the B-26 would have died before his drop i might have ended the match with the Typhoon with an alt advantage closing in fast at my six and would have had a maybe much more stressful game.
And this is my main point in this whole debate:
Lmao - this tpost was flagged as spam.
I mean it is extremely easy to create a second account and add a second flag in order to hide a post if you don’t like deviating opinions…
When will this nonsense end / when will gaijin punish false flagging?
As @Pacifica was 2 times active in this thread - how would you answer my question?
Best to ask in PM, since it can derail topics… short answer… Staff preview flagged comments and can take actions as necessary
Not related however has there ever been any consideration on figuring out how to deal with people flagging comments they do not like leading to it being hidden although really shouldn’t have been?
Because you said that the number of hits in-game corresponds to the amount of damage inflicted a plane to bring it down.
But a 37mm in WT will always bring down a P-47 the same way as a 30mm Mineshell.
So obviously the damage from WT nothing to do with the damage inflicted to real life planes.
Because I’m fairly certain it doesn’t match. Just if we take that example from the P-47.
In WT a 20mm HE will always severly damage the engine, even though a .60cal API is rated to have a 4 times higher chance to take it out within 5 minutes. Only in the B kill scenario the engine kill chance is higher, most likely due to the incrased chance to damage the oil system.
The chance of a structural kill is also similiar.
How can the 30mm Mineshell have 3 times higher chance to kill a a P-47 with structural damage compared to the 37mm when in-game the 37mm will do the same?
So I don’t see a single case where the results of random damage would apply to the damage from rounds in the game.
Simply because realShatter fragments deal way too much damage to any component, be it engine or structure.
Different in general means harder to achieve.
There’s obviously a difference whether your best way to take down a bomber is to set it on fire or if you just load a full HE belt and hold down the trigger to saw off the bombers wing, or even tail.
which wouldn’t have happened in real life.
However in WT a wing is made from several wing areas, which after a certain amount of damage just make the wing break off.
I disagree that the number of shells is accurate to real life.
Even if it was the case, it would practically be equivalent of having an HP bar on your plane.
So why even bother to represent the behavious of shells and different ammo types when everyone can just load HE and bring down the enemies HP bar with a set number of hits?
What you have said is basically: Instead of setting a bomber on fire and have it burn down in 2-5 minutes, have it explode immediatly.
Which results in the following issue:
Which means that bombers have very little chance of achiving anything, unless they are the kind that can get to bases before they get intercepted.
And it’s the same with fighters. Instead of being critically damaged, losing fuel, oil or water the plane gets killed instantly by over representive structural damage.
With wings and tails being the largest area to hit, these shells just start killing planes more easily then they should.
If a SPAA can just shoot of the wing of a fighter with a single shot, then that’s not going to match with the expected damage that would lead to a kill.
Which it does. Roughly
Shoot a randomly and you should get similar kill probabilities. Of course you would need to recreate the study. If you test something different in WT it would be ridiculous to expect the same result.
So you cannot just say “oh when i hit the wings 3 times they always come off”… Since the study doesn’t say anything about that Situation.
Always? A single shell will always do that? Regardless of hit Location?
Sure center of mass it will be 99% (100% is scientifically Impossible to claim so i don’t and neither should you)
Ok again the probabilities are determined by hit location…
An engine block is massive like armor on a tank and he will do less damage but API will deform engine parts. For HE the location on what is hit is far more important while AP can penetrate the engine block even partially to make it stop working.
So of course that makes sense.
I doubt that a 20mm engine hit will always severely damage the engine.
But again you are focussing on specefic parts, i do not understand why.
Since my claim was never that every part of the plane is modelled correctly, i reiterated that several times.
So again:
The number of random hits on an aircraft roughly corresponds to the number of random hits needed IRL.
Random is the key here.
For specific areas i agree that WT is weird. My point was that there won’t be a survivability increase the more realistic it gets.
What you can argue for is a decrease, since WT players are muuuch more accurate than real ww2 pilots.
Does the 37mm really do the same?
By hit area?
Have you any evidence that this happens in WT?
This is just your anecdote.
This is just an unproven claim at the moment.
But let’s assumeit is true
It changes nothing since i also never claimed that structural damage is correct, my claim was far more abstract.
In a regular WT match it doesn’t. But why would you expect that.
You wouldn’t compare your WT matcg experience to the study. That would not.make sense.
You would recreate the study in a controlled Environment in WT. Everything else would not be reasonable.
To compare the real world.experiment wit WT, you need to make an Experiment in WT, not just play random matches. This should be obvious.
Especially since the study.
First i doubt you shoot controlled single shots on your 20mm andn.50cals. since the study only uses single shot kill probabilities and calculates the rest from there you are not allowed to hit twice for the comparison.
Then there are closing speeds and range. Both were controlled in the study. The energy of your round is very different depending on closing speed and range.
No it doesn’t. It stands to reason easier to achieve. Since the calculation in the study assumes random hit locations. Since the study assumes random hit locations for each round. So the first hit might be the fuselage the second the left wing.
While in WT you fire bursts with shots landing roughly in the same area, hitting already weakened spots.
More detail by hit locations means that the singe spots that are vulnerable become weaker. Since wt players are faaaaaar better shots than real pilots due to mouse aim the effective number of shots will be significantly lower than the study suggests. And the numbers of the study are already low.
So no kills would likely become easier. Because the study assumes the fighter doesn’t know what area to attack and he just rolls the dice.
Not really, they will adapt after a day. Also the kill chances on random areas are given they will just shoot a different spot with the same ammo for the same effect. HEI is still extremely effective by the study.
Without cumulative damage and hitting random parts of a b25 it takes just median 12,5 hits to take it down.
If you take 100 b25s that were shot down the majority would have died to the first hit according to the study. The only reason the median is 12,5 is that it is a long tailed distribution.
^This is according to a real life study. Even with .50cals
If anything the bombers are to tough because try to one shot a b25 by hitting it at random Locations and tell me if you get the same p_k. I doubt it.
WT leans more into cumulative damage. Which is fine since there are no studies on it.
Wait what?
How?
The entire model is probilistic, with no cumulative damage. A health bar that automatically refills if it doesn’t get down to 0 on a hit?
What the hell?
How do you draw that conclusion.
This makes no sense.
Yes, you present it as my opinion which it is not. It is the Situation we have right now i was just describing it.
But yeah, that is what i menat with micheal bay kills.
They wouldn’t irl either, they would bail.
Yep, which makes it less likely for a teammate to swoop in and steal the kill. Which was the reason we have this.
Again the kill chances were by location. They were the largest area in the study as well. So they did hit the wings as often as you would if you select the location randomly.
Yes :)
Aim at a P-47 from the front and below and try to find an area that wouldn’t instantly destroy wings, the tail, engine or the pilot.
90% of the area is a kill shot, which doesn’t correspent to the study at all.
But do you expect? A single 20mm can blow off your wing, so what do you think will happen when it’s a 37mm in-game?
It makes sense in RL but it doesn’t make sense in WT when HE deals the same damage to an engine as does AP…
Why shouldn’t I? How can you say the single hit damage is correct when in-game the shell is much more capble.
Do you really think that there’s just a 12% chance, and that’s for a B kill, that a 20mm HEI shell is going to take out a P-47 when aiming from the direction as in the test???
That means that 88% of the area wouldn’t result in a kill, which is simply not the case.
That might be the case when you compare it to AP, because in-game the AP will only knock out the engine and the pilot but will have no affect on the rest of the plane.
The engine alone makes up 12% of the projected area from the front, if not more.
I already explained how there’s no way that several 20mm hits would have better chances to destroy the plane over a single 37mm, if we consider they hit the same area.
In WT planes die from dead engines, fuel fires and dead pilots all in addition to the main killer being sever structural failure in form of wings and tails getting shot off…
