how it is now is ideal for War Thunder Simcade gameplay.
Bombers are killable, but they are mighty. We finally have aircraft that arent one shot by the 47mm, 50mm and 57mm gunned aircraft.
people need to learn how to position and aim rather than just go vertical from below and hit a bomb with a 7.7
True
Yeah, you actually have to define the fucking ballistic problem. You can’t just throw out ridiculous hypotheticals that obviously have nothing to do with a realistic scenario.
“wOuLd yOu StAnD iN fRoNt Of An R-40 WiTh OnLy PlAnE sKiN tO pRoTeCt YoU”
What am I supposed to be here? Somebody’s dead grandma after her body was donated to ballistic research?
I wonder why. Maybe it’s because we simply don’t have that many documented examples to work with.
Then that is obviously an issue from a realism perspective.
That said, I severely doubt Gaijin is ever going to completely remodel missile damage together with their fragmentation cones and ballistic behavior. And even if they did, I’d bet a significant part of the community would reject it anyway.
Until something like that happens, there really isn’t much that can be done. At that point, it sounds more like a missile-damage modeling issue than a bomber-specific issue.
I don’t want to be that guy, but of course flak cannons scored kills. That isn’t really the question.
What we generally don’t know from a random photograph is how many shells were fired, how many detonated nearby, where the aircraft was hit, what damage accumulated before the fatal hit, or what exactly caused the aircraft to be lost.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t some convenient damage log for every random B-17 photographed on October 15, 1943, telling us exactly what happened shell by shell.
Listen, man, I cannot deduce every variable required for a physics-level ballistic analysis simply by looking at a screenshot.
Seeing the aircraft, general aspect, and weapon is not the same thing as knowing the exact distance, impact geometry, detonation point, relative velocity, fragmentation distribution, structural interaction, and every other variable involved.
I already know about that collision. No need.
And yes, obviously the examples I posted involve survivorship bias. My point is not that aircraft generally survive catastrophic collisions.
The point is that they demonstrate how simplistic War Thunder’s structural modeling can be. Aircraft skin is not the primary structural support system of an aircraft. Spars, frames, longerons, bulkheads, and other internal structural members are what actually carry much of the load.
As far as I’m aware, War Thunder does not model an aircraft’s complete internal structural skeleton with that level of detail. In the example I posted, the relevant internal structure was still sufficiently intact despite the extreme external damage.
That is the point I was making.
I’m not against teamwork, but in as anti teamwork of a game that is war thunder it would not be liked by the masses
Gameplay should 100% be seen as more important than realism. WT is not a simulator.
Sadly people disagree with this.
I think the main thing should be that specialized bomber hunters should be very effective against bombers while ones armed with only 20mms smaller weapons should definitely have a hard time dealing with bombers.
30mms would be a middle grounds, being able to destroy a bomber without too much effort, but also not being able to one-shot bombers.
Small guns should have to rely on fire damage and module damage, medium sized guns should be able to destroy wings and tails with good aim and a fair amount of hits and large guns should be able to deal critical damage with just a few well placed hits.
More importantly, ticket drain needs to be fixed so bombers not going down shouldn’t prevent a team from winning by causing ticket drain.
You should be able to ignore planes that you can’t properly attack or destroy, as long as you deal with the alternative objective:
Destroying bases and AI targets.
And this opens possibilities for more cooperative gameplay. Mainly driven by economy, but still, can look like an actual players cooperation (with recon mechanic as an example).
When bombers cannot be just one-shot by a stray bullet - defenders can actually defend them, bombers can fly normally, not climb to space to just survive, interceptors can find their niche… Ah, the utopia. Gaijin just has to make players want that economically.
Yeah, there is a reason heavy fighters were created in the first place.
If gaijin makes an economic incentive - they will like it. Recon drones as an example. No one used them before an addition of a reward. (Except me, I used them and liked when teammates said thx. Now they take reconnaissance for granted and no longer say “thank you”… I miss old times of “0% Activity, 0 SL reward” but a chat full of “thank you recon”…)
I agree that gaijin has more control over the player base with economy than anything else, and they can use this to encourage more team work
It’s a slightly different opinion, but in my view, the ticketing system is the most ridiculous reward system possible in War Thunder.
Careful. cant be dropping slurs like “cooperative gameplay” too often here. The major nation players (and every premium plane user) will recoil in horror
Reward system?
It’s the mechanic that decides who wins a match lol
its so annoying losing on tickets because there isnt enough ground targets and the last guy is airfield camping.
Its gonna be really rare to see me away from NE from now on
Translation error sorry.I didn’t mean that.
I kinda want NE-like for ww2 era. Change SAM sites to FLAK sites, small nukes to just big bombs (lancaster, pe-8), add a big nuke at the end of escalation (b-29/tu-4 with a nuke), smaller map for lower speeds.
Gaijins original plan was (and probably still is) a new mode called “Aerial Warfare”, which would be a more advanced version of the EC mode that still shows up in regular ARB (the bigger versions of maps like Afghanistan, Spain and Vietnam).
Nuclear Escalation started out as another stage of testing for that mode, similar to Deep Strike.
It would be a shame if Nuclear Escalation ends up being the only new mode and Deep Strike and other concepts just get scrapped, but at this point, I’ll take anything that isn’t just a glorified deathmatch mode.
Id like to see this style of mode replace “classic” entirely, just dont have nukes until the bracket that gets B29/Washington. The gameplay loop is far more free and doesnt punish you back to hangar isntantly like classic, honestly the mode could be ass and still be better just from that.
Smin confirmed that its bracket based BRs rather than “screw you heres an uptier” so we will need to wait to see whats in what bracket too
hope that NE is just the 8.7+ version of this.
The perception of unfairness is quite malleable, though.
Make killing a bomber yield the reward of four kills, and suddenly everyone will shift from “This fight is a waste of time, I quit” to “this fight is a high-value opportunity,” somehow reframing the difficulty as a desirable challenge
I bet they can do a “Nuclear Escalation: Korea” for 6.7-8.3 and “Nuclear Escalation: World War” for 4.7-6.3 or something. Or at least the first one as it could theoretically have the oldest SAM site variants, without the need to make a flak site logic (tho it won’t be historically accurate but who cares, S-25 is cool as well).