As @Loofah said. Why do you keep bringing up those extreme alternatives, that nobody asked for or justified, just to make your unwillingness seem reasonable?
Actually, traditional sports are perfectly comparable here.
In this dicussion, you all don’t stop talking about balance and what would make the game fairer, even if it means going against historical accuracy. At its core, what you’re really demanding is that the same sportsmanship principle governs the air combat too: meaning identical opportunities for everyone, where merit alone decides the winner, not luck, and certainly not some broken weapon.
And the whole reason a complex sport like football uses an accumulation system (whoever hits more wins) instead of an instant-win system (whoever hits first wins) is because it’s the only way to guarantee a fair outcome. When a game is packed with unpredictable variables, involves multiple skills, and has a high strategy component, it cannot depend on a single hit to determine everything. You need accumulation to filter out what could be just luck so that only sustained performance (actual skill) are rewarded
War Thunder is fundamentally the same.
Rewarding low-effort gameplay with single-hit-kill cannons completely trivializes actual flying skill.
Notice how he doesn’t say “whoever makes a mistake” but “whoevers makes the fewest mistakes” (plural). He is basically talking about performance over time: you aren’t a worse player for failing once, but you are for failing three. And by extension, you aren’t a better player for scoring once, but you are for scoring three.
War Thunder has an accumulation system, it’s called the overall score of the match and your team. In soccer terms what you are suggesting is that the same player should need to score a goal multiple times against the same defender for their goal to count. You can argue the merits of cannon strength without this flawed analogy. (Soccer defenders don’t get eliminated if they fail to protect the goal, but that just furthers my point about this being a bad analogy.)
“Nobody asked for or justified” You just stated this V
I am showing you exactly what happens when the guns are stupid weak. It’s a direct answer to this nonsense you said. Of course it applies to this situation.
That’s some next level mental gymnastics. Comparing WT and Football’s “accumulation system” like they’re even remotely the same thing. Headnaught already dissected your flawed analogy.
We have single burst kill cannons, not single hit kill ones, more often than not you are landing 4+ rounds into someone. You can hardly fire a single round during a dogfight.
Apparently to you there’s 0 skill in aiming, 0 tactical depth in positioning yourself early game or fast reflexes but there’s a lot of skill in being the first one getting shot at and somewhat turning the tables. Sounds very convincing coming from a bomber main. Spacebar pressing must require enormous amounts of skill.
That’s not true, I’ve provided literal videos of me one-tapping entire aircraft wings clean off. You can literally hear me tapping the trigger. Even aircraft like Stuka’s can have their wings ripped clean off in one tap.
Damage is broken and it needs fixing. The dev’s themselves have also admitted that it’s broken especially where bombers are concerned. If you’d like I’m happy to provide a screenshot along with a video of them literally stating this. Supposedly a fix is incoming thankfully.
There’s skill in aiming, but it’s a lot less demanding to get enemy in the sights for 0,1s instead of 0,2-0,3s.
I have won A LOT of fights in the past where the enemy sprayed at distance, landed 1 hit, and then I used my position to clobber him to death, sometimes in 2-3 passes.
Nowadays if enemy lands a spray, I instantly die. No coming back. If I get nicked while dodging a head-on, it’s just over.
And while one may argue each time I got “outskilled”, it’s pretty obvious looking at my killer’s performance in the same matches it’s not exactly the case.
Of course now I sometimes end fights faster, but I find Air RB less enjoyable overal. Energy traps got A LOT more risky and require a lot more separation vs things like Spitfire or Yak as you can no longer hope to tank 1 hit and hit the stalling enemy 10 times, now they will also spray a lot more, since they know that 1 hit is all it takes
Generally, being able to create good firing situations while giving enemy some MINIMAL chance to hit me was how I played in a lot of matches. Now I just have to be A LOT more cautious on the defensive, while on the offensive I know I can miss almost everything, all I need is 1 random hit, so when the other guy is dodging well, I just hose him down, I can keyboard tap, neg-G, land 1 shell and it’s usually over, so who cares.
In other words, we went from being able to give enemy small opening to land a big counter to not being able to give them any openings, and that is generally way more boring and tedious way of playing. It also discourages people from learning new tricks, as they have to do them perfectly to work, the margin of error is not there, while in the past my Ta-152 failed spiral climb could give me some more holes, but then I was in a good position to strike. Next time I did better, and eventually avoided getting hit in most scenarios. But if I tried the same tricks today, I’just die at 1st opening and would probably consider the entire maneuver worthless.
Just make a new shell that fits the old gun. It’s not rocket science. Even Japan with its subpar industry upscaled a Browning M1919 to fire Breda-SAFAT 12.7x81 shells. And then did the same for 20mm, and 30mm. The Ho-155 is a Browning-derived cannon.
No, you just pointed to the Ho-5 and said it’s different, and that’s why there’s somehow no issue for it but would be somehow impossible for the Hispano to receive such shells.
“I don’t understand how guns work and basic design features scare me”
There, saved you three lines.
The StG 44 is visually similar and yet internally it’s completely different other than “it feeds from a magazine” and “there is a gas system”. The Vz 58, despite also looking very similar to the AK, is completely unrecognizable internally.
…And there’s infinite combinations of different ways to achieve that. But the fact is that the AK was heavily inspired from the Garand and the similarities in the internal workings of both rifles are hard to miss.
I believe it was General Motors that was once described as having a factory that produced metal shavings, with a byproduct of M2 machineguns. Anything is “viable” if you can convince the military to pay for it.
Brandon Herrera has no formal education in engineering (last time I checked) and has had to learn everything the hard way, with far more limited funding and resources than a military project.
Regardless, the AK-50 IS objectively very similar to an AK rifle, however of course problems arise when you have a gun made for an intermediate rifle caliber and attempt to directly upsize it to something as powerful as .50BMG.
By the way, Kalashnikov also spent years tuning the AK rifle and experimenting with new production methods. He also had to redesign the receiver a few times.
By the way, the Ho-5 and Ho-155 are Browning derivatives.
You know what also could be characterized like that?
This is directly from the Kalashnikov group website. I’d like to point out the following line:
“This model is the pinnacle of AK system development”
Regardless of what you think, the people making these rifles right now say it’s still an AK.
G43 was overgassed by design, as it was understood that the soldier using it would have died before the increased wear actually became a problem, and until then this helped reliability.
Except… they did? The ADEN’s thin-walled HE shell is extremely similar.
Why would it be inferior ballistics-wise when you can change the profile of the shell without changing the thing that actually matters - the ratio of filler to total weight? The shells being inherently lighter because of this was DESIRABLE in post-war cannon development, in order to increase muzzle velocity and increase hit probability at ranges that actually matter.
The M39 and its ammo were both new. They had no existing limitations like f.e. max projectile length in the MG151/20, limiting how much you can streamline your shells without losing volume.
So we are left with two options. Either:
A) everyone is stupid EXCEPT the country that lost the war;
or B) HCHE/mineshells simply aren’t effective in 20mm caliber.
Speed bleed is largely irrelevant in an IRL scenario unless it is ridiculously excessive. This isn’t WT where you have mouse aim and 3rd person PoV to shoot accurately at much longer ranges. Initial muzzle velocity is the much more relevant attribute.
This is more true for DEFAs which use a shorter casing. ADENs have a lot of propellant behind those shells, at the cost of weight in both gun and ammo.
L
This is already the case in Air Battles - whoever has less tickets at the end of the timer loses. Or whichever team accumulates 16 deaths first.
This “accumulation” is everything leading to you getting shot out of the air/getting a kill. Which aircraft you chose, how you climbed, how you engaged or disengaged from specific targets, where you aimed and fired, etc.
By the time your shells hit the enemy plane, it’s like the ball just entered the enemy’s goal. It is the result of everything you’ve done thus far in that match.
And then you are told your goal is invalid because you were wearing the wrong kinda shoes, which happen to be the only ones your country is allowed to wear.
Keeping the above analogy, not dodging is like just letting them walk up right to your net, and then being surprised they nudged the ball in.
Either way I find it ridiculous that “you should be able to just eat cannon shells while pulling a suicidal move” is an actual position people in this thread are defending.
There’s also countless videos of guns not one tapping as well. They are strong but they aren’t always 1 tapping.
And I’ve seen that Q&A video, funnily enough it was made prior to the cannon buffs. The “fix” is likely aimed at bombers dms only, not damage in general, which should be no surprise since bombers are a joke in air rb.
The issue is they shouldn’t be doing it at all, and it isn’t a rare occurrence neither. With a lot of my videos you can see multiple instances of tails and wings falling off in single taps or microscopic bursts in the same game and with what should be one of the weakest cannons in the game (Shvak).
Also to clarify as I know some seem to think we’re German biased when we pick on the Shvak for some reason, all cannons including the MG-151 are overperforming. It all needs turning down a notch.
I shoot 2-3 round “bursts” with Shvak as I know it will work.
People fire more because hitting is not easy.
But more experienced players oftentimes 1-click people.
Also it doesn’t matter how many rounds are fired. I routinely die to 1 round hitting me and same thing happens to my targets, I fire 50 12.7mm MG rounds miss almost everything but land 4 Italian HE bullets, entire tail falls off, lmao.
I have occasionally seen arguments here that Gaijin should keep the fragile damage models because the player should be rewarded for their expectation that aircraft are fragile and die in 1 or 2 hits.
As a naval player, I can tell you exactly where that boneheaded logic caused naval players the most grief. Shell rooms, historically documented very inert pieces of ordinance where not even a nearby explosion can set them off. But Gaijin knew that the players had a expectation that shell rooms should go boom, despite documents proving otherwise. So they happily kneecapped multiple ships because they feared players would whine why something they think should go boom doesn’t go boom.
Do not excuse Gaijin for this logic when it comes to planes. Aircraft famous for their durability such as the P-47 shouldn’t be as fragile as a Zero.
This is completely besides the point. Because originally you said:
I’ve disproven that quite handily. One tap can and will eviscerate your aircraft and it’s completely wrong, gun damage is completely out of whack which is the entire point of this thread. I won’t continue to spam this thread with videos I’ve already shared but for “cherry picking” I have footage of 3x bombers being sawed in half with just taps on the trigger all in the exact same game. That’s with my absolutely terrible aim as well.
In that exact video I have another pair of clips where .303’s rip complete tail sections off of fighters in tiny bursts… both aircraft downed in the exact same game once again.
Aircraft were not made of paper and it needs fixing. Thankfully Gaijin have acknowledged there is a problem.
The thing you guys say never happens, happened again! Strangely this La-5 didn’t “eviscerate” my plane even though I was completely unaware of him and was flying perfectly straight. Even the wingtip stayed in place when he came back the second time.
What belts were you using for F4U, if air, then that’s some horribly bad luck.
Also, once again - the current way the cannons work is horribly random.
If you hit landing gear, flap, aileron, elevator or guns inside wings and sometimes even spars, the damage can be fairly low.
If you just hit “empty wing space”, it’s catastrophic. Basically 1cm difference and you’re doing some insignificant damage and there’s no logical real world explanation, only an in-game one.
how does making damage worse fix this?
like 90% of ur argument is also “well in real life the (insert whatever gun we are complaining about this time) was bad because xyz” which i really do not care about, in terms of an actual video game the current system of everything 20mm and up being strong is far better and the only reason you might think other wise is if you for some reason really enjoy stalling infront of people as a “tactic”.
