Are we perhaps entering the… era of attackers?
Attackers meta begins…?
Microsoft Flight Simulator. It’s a great game where you can fly to waypoints and airports while enjoying the view and empty skies for hours at a time. This is starting to sound familiar.
1 Like
oh that, alright!
Did Grok write this too?
Because I refuse to believe human being could have ignored the part where I clearly mentioned I’m talking about fragmentation.
Damn, You even cited that part, but still acted like you did not read this.
It’s not a slow process with well over 100 hits, probably at least 25% of those being AP, unless that was stealth belt?
They were plenty useful in doing what 20mm AP is doing best - punching 20mm holes in stuff.
Also, there were a few types of fuses with varying sensitivity, but indeed, APHE was more for attacking trains, ships, lightly armored vehicles and to deal with f.e. IL-2 armor, and not for destroying airframe.
But its funny to me 😂
The Hopkinson-Cranz cube-root scaling combined with plate thickness parameters is a standard explosive engineering framework. It is you who has a complete misunderstanding and it pains me to see 8 likes on your reply, representing 8 people who dont know better now CONVINCED the work is invalid (despite them still lacking the tools to disprove it). The formula used was perfectly appropriate for pur application…
That being said, if you do have a forumla that you believe would be better for this calculation, by all means, show your work!
1 Like
You read through 800 messages and missed the tutorial getting spammed on how to single pass bombers where its a video of just flat out single passing bombers in various single engined fighters?
1 Like
there is a very big difference between a carefully cut hole and something punched through it by a cannon shell, fragment or not
which vulnerable components
You must also remember, these carefully cut holes were decided by engineers, people smarter than us, who were tasked with making a warplane made to resist damage, these holes and the remaining material are cut in a way where they have reserve strength for damage
1 Like
Cool, and likewise there were plenty of engineers successfuly figuring out how to bring them down in the shortest time or even with just “one direct hit”.
1 Like
As the thread with this quote was closed - my reply here:
-
Imho you have to distinguish the types of players in Air RB in order to come to such conclusions as the motivation of players might differ (like kills. mission score or pure grind) but their actions are steered by the reward structure (SL & RP) and imho understated effects of daily / special tasks on player behaviour.
-
That means if you play for fun, mission score or SL/RP it is even today (at least in Air RB) a wise decision to ignore bombers right at the start in order to ensure / hope that the last enemy alive is in a bomber. You can signaling him that you will go for ground ai or ai planes in order to maximise your income with specific orders and everybody wins in this process - and it is not even forbidden as killing of those ai targets are mission goals too.
-
But: the pictures change if you have re-rolled your daily/special task too often - if you then have the choice between 26 fighter kills or 8 bomber kills for completing a 5 point BP progress special task it seems logical that bombers become a preferred target.
That’s why why this whole survivabiliy increase narrative by gaijin is pure fake - if they would actually care they would reverse the number of required kills (=26 bomber kills vs 8 fighter kills) to put pressure away.
Not sure if you have read my summary - by flying defensively (allowing your own fighters go first) you can reduce the number of potential enemies by default. When i have a 35:22 kill score in 97 matches and a 75% WR it seems obvious that i flew it defensively and i was just shot down 11 times - i lost another 11 planes due to breaking wings a 2/3 g…
Besides that - jets came rarely above 5 km.
Have a good one!
They’re hoping your formula is wrong because none of them even know what the guy wrote LOL
1 Like
It’s so sad that they immediately like anyone who says something against you.
Pure fake 👍
2 Likes
Context matters:
What i noticed:
- Gaijin has a long history of being unable to balance prop bombers. From my pov they gave up latest May 2020 when they introduced respawning bases. Imho a direct reaction to the F-4E Phantom IIs ending matches even faster than 4 Tu-4s/B-29s/Me 264s…
- This topic “survivability” is imho just dealing with thousands of forum posts addressing highly unrealistic damage models - without mentioning that gaijin created these effects on purpose. All you have to do is to watch older Air RB vids from various content creators to notice that bombers were way more robust 8 years ago.
- Before that there were a hell of delayed (B) kills - classic example was “lost tail control” - and gaijin replaced these B kills with instant (A) kills in order to satisfy the majority of their PvP player base to ensure that enough dopamine gets released - way earlier.
- So trying to create a narrative like here (“we looked at historical evidence”) looks nice on paper - but is imho not really convincing as gaijin proved long ago that they are fully aware of that they did a way better job in the past. Referring to historical data makes zero sense - there is a reason why the USAAF lost 10,000 bombers in Europe - or the RAF BC the same amount.
The idea to reduce the whole topic “bomber survivabilty” to damage models is deeply flawed - survivibility is a way more complex topic and consists of way more important topics.
2 Likes
The fact that the game kicks out out with the “Lost tail control”, even when you can still somewhat control the plane will never stop bothering me
Everything you wrote happened because the fighters were crying about staying behind a plane for +30 seconds longer than they should have been. LOL, there was no basis for anything that happened, it was entirely because of the fighters’ crying.
Furthermore, even the AI weakening in bomber aircraft was a result of fighter jets complaining (I’m not talking about the days of sniper-type AI).
Look, I’m saying it again and again, this topic needs to be locked, deleted, or closed, whatever it takes, because in my opinion, it has already deviated from its original purpose.Nobody reads what anyone else is writing, nor do they try to understand or comprehend the other side.
We’ve already discussed every possible reason; from now on, discussions will simply be about different people repeating things that have already been said.
1 Like
Anything 20 and below shouldn’t be killing bombers as easily as they do is the thing. If there is no reason to use aircraft with heavier armananet to fill that role, then there is simply no purpose if rifle caliber ammunition can do effectively the same job as a 20mm.
Your earlier comment about M2 Brownings only lighting fires and doing no structural damage to the plane. That is consistent with how M2 Brownings operate. It’s not very fair and balanced if 6 brownings is doing structural damage of what bigger calibers should be doing it. What you end up doing is making those bigger calibers for their intended role pointless and a certain class of vehicles pointless.
Now I understand current dev server damage models are overtuned, but if you seen my previous videos I posted a little ways up of current live server damage relative to a 2006 game that does a way better job modeling it, you can arguably see there is no point in carrying bigger calibers or vehicles designed for that explicit job if 2 measly 20s can do it without much effort.
You also have to consider it is much easier to aim in this game thanks to third person. If we’re talking about gameplay, this should be a factor that is accounted for, because that means you can put more rounds on target and build up damage against an already fragile bomber in live server. Having a respectable damage model and respect for caliber in use helps to balance out those situations.
1 Like
Look, I’m saying it again and again, this topic needs to be locked, deleted, or closed, whatever it takes, because in my opinion, it has already deviated from its original purpose.Nobody reads what anyone else is writing, nor do they try to understand or comprehend the other side.
We’ve already discussed every possible reason; from now on, discussions will simply be about different people repeating things that have already been said.
1 Like
Key thing to pay attention too in this comment.
PVP
And Dopamine
For the average player, anything that isn’t strictly PVP and deviates from that role is annoying too them and majority always seem to want it to only push towards that.
So bombers or heavy fighters that deviate from this role and can’t directly brawl and use more passive approaches seem to frusturate them.
Which leads into the sub-sitation with the Zero. Keeps going up in BR because people keep dogfighting them, a realm almost all planes are outclassed in by that plane. But see when you don’t dogfight a zero and use a more energy-based/passive approach, all of a sudden it becomes unfun for the zero and “unengaging” gameplay.
It devolves into a meta that only favours “engaging”, dopamine fed gameplay, which ends up sacrifcing a great deal and creates a whole span of issues that only favors a specific class of vehicles and gameplay, while leaving the rest shunted.
The focus mainly should’ve been on structural integrity rather than the broader term survivability.
2 Likes