Changes to Bomber Survivability

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
2083

Well, from my POV they are absolutely miserable in maximizing their profits and understanding how to get happy customers.

They are absolutely missing the issue of the game and thats why a game with almost the same concurrent players in the same genre makes 5x-10x more money.

What makes people not invest in WT?

  • To often the feeling of unfairness and frustration (a bit is okay, that happens, but the chances to be frustrated also raises with progression or the lack of)
  • Premiums gets changed not only performance but also BRs VERY OFTEN, making it super unreliable as an investment.
  • Prices are to high for stuff that is and also feels necessary. (real price not SL, not everything people feel is necessary is also necessary but that dosnt matter as long as they feel like it)

Could say much more about it but i leave it here.

Back to the bomber topic:

Does it matter what is RL and whatnot? I see this discussion about a vid for ages…
who tf cares? Its a game, and it needs to be balanced in this ecosystem, not compared to RL.
To compare this to RL the models of planes, modules, even ammo physics are way to far away from reality.

And to add a personal touch, from my pov, a semi pro, bomber buff is way overtuned for the simple reason that theres basically no counter if the bomber player is at the same skill level. Only reason i am able to kill those pesky bombers with my F-8 and X-4 is because most of them dont manouver, they dont turn away… they just dont care. So i kill or crit them with x-4 on the way to base and attack from front with 13mm API and 20mm APHE right into their cockbit, if one pass isnt enough i rearm and do it again while fighting fighters and groundbounding for tickets…

BUT IF

  • the bombers would manouver when i fire my x-4 then even a b-17 can outmanouver that missle
  • they would manouvre and show only the rear i wouldnt be able to shot that cockpit so easaly
  • they wouldnt suck with their gunners and hit me
  • they had better crew so crew dont die so quick and gunner reload is MUCH faster…
  • they would use the corret ammo in their turrets…
  • they would go groundpount to not lose on tickets…
  • they would engange in fighter fights as support…

but they dont… or lets say… 99,5% dont. (But with time they might learn and it will be even more pesky)

edit* and i have played also the bomber side, so i dont have an onesided view

3 Likes
2084

On this thread the trend is, that people who are okay with the current state of the damage model, expect fighter pilots to use skill, finesse and game knowledge to take down bombers.

But suggesting anything of the sort to be required from bomber pilots is generally frowned upon.

But to the topic at hand

I agree with this. Im in the same category of people where taking down bombers isn’t difficult for me. But even then, i can tell that in my opinion and experience, the current damage models seem to me like they are unbalanced and overperforming. Because the game isn’t balanced for you and me, but the average player.

2 Likes
2085

Yea excakly.
And to add one additional nail in the coffin of arguments:

  • Most players are not fully Spaded, don´t have free choice of what nation and plane to use and have not a expert lvl 75 crew on every single plane.

I feel like many forget about that aswell…

Its simply not balanced throughout the skill levels.

Just because a “unskilled” bomber that only bombs and dosnt harm anyone is not a thread, dosnt mean its not unbalanced that he basically is invincible vs anyone else thats on the same skill lvl.

And because “almost” everyone that plays a bomber in WT is actually bombing, i still dont get it why they dont have dedicatet PvE mode with AI fighters they can have FUN with while flying in formation of a small bombersquad?
For some nice peacefull fun round with a squad or even solo que, that dosnt sound bad to me!

1 Like
2086

Agreed.

People that say “Just use ‘x’ plane/type of plane to take down bombers” need to remember, that buffing bomber durability so they could more reliably reach bombing targets and not get “one-shot” trying to do so, can be countered with a nearly identical argument; just use a faster plane with bombs to reach the bombing targets more reliably.

Everyone has a free choice of plane, but for balancing sakes one type of plane shouldn’t be exponentially harder to take down just because the other team doesn’t have X plane in it, with a pilot that wants to use it for exactly that role.

Edit: While yes, for balancing purposes bombers trade speed and maneuverability for a more durable plane overall, taking one down shouldn’t be reliant on the enemy team having a skilled fighter pilot or a very specific plane to take it down.

2087

Any long-term player has the same perception - me included.

The difference to gaijin’s approach is from my pov that were are both not part of gaijin’s main income group.

The key is to look at it from a pure economic perspective - the principle of marginal cost overtaking marginal benefit is real and from my pov undisputed.

  1. That means that if you data proves (example) that your main customer (in the sense of numbers and generated income) plays wt just for a limited duration and spends most of his money in an even smaller time frame it makes economic sense to tailor the game that it facilitates these needs.

  2. So if you game is dominated by short term players with specific needs it makes zero sense to invest money to keep long-term players attached - especially if their needs (mostly centered around fairness, demanding game play, immersion) are contrary to the needs of the larger group and your own income.

That’s the reason why most long-term players see the quality of the game play deteriorating and assess the game as becoming “dumber”…

Have a good one!

Edit:

Your reply to this message proved my point - and your following refusal to answer a simple question for clarification even more.

You simply assume that you would be correct regarding your assessment of wasted income potential as your reply “other game of the genre” reference looks like aimed at WoT, but can be read as reference to MSFM or IL-2 too.

In all 3 cases your assumption:

Is flat wrong as you miss core differences of wt to all 3 of them.

The “other game of the genre” is usually taken to be World of Tanks. On current Steam concurrent numbers War Thunder is actually higher; WoT’s larger historical and multi-platform base is real, but the simple “same concurrent players, multiple times the money” claim does not hold cleanly on public data.

For average WoT players WT adds aircraft as easy to use “power-ups” whilst WT itself is also attractive for more or less dedicated shooter driven players looking more arcade-style driven alternatives to pure flight sims.

More importantly, pure flight sims such as MSFS or IL-2 have always been a niche with a different, more dedicated audience. War Thunder’s dominant modes (especially Ground RB and the more accessible Air modes) place it in the broader multiplayer vehicle-combat / shooter space, not in the sim category.

Once you locate the game there, the main income group is not 1:1 the same as either a pure tank MMO or a hardcore flight sim. Design and monetization choices that look suboptimal from a long-term sim or veteran perspective can still be consistent with optimizing for the larger, shorter-retention volume segment that actually drives most of the play.

The impact of tank players on WT’s game play for pure aircraft players in popular air modes like Air Arcade or Air Realistic is significant and deteriorates the quality of these modes for pure pilots as players using aircraft as tools for AB or RB combined modes are playing aircraft differently - even admitting that mouse aim / MnK controls flattens the difference and aerial warfare is no rocket science.

The infantry mode and other decisions can of course be criticized on their own merits. They do not by themselves prove a fundamental failure to understand the market.

2088

Well,
only one i want to correct/add

The “main income group” ist 1:1 the same group as the “other game of the genre”…

So even if my theory and arguments would be off, the fact that gaijin is making multiple times less money still stands, so they do smt VERY wrong to maximize their profits. As an investor, with the ability to choose, i definitly dont go with gaijin and theyre lack of understanding the market ( i mean… infantry mode… duh…)

oh and also, i stopped giving them my money because of my arguments aswell, why bothering building a prem setup when they change it anyway?

2089

Guys! I found documentation on engine fires!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.generalstaff.org/CDA/Air/B-29/B-29_Training_Manual_15-DEC-1945.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj97rvszoaXAxVsl4kEHatVI4kQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1_VVDidHaeN5oes4AYqV7O

A B29 flight manual covers procedures to deal with engine fires, B29s engine were magnesium and if uncontrolled, burned at over 3000 degrees celcius as the metal itself combusted, I heard another document specifies this fire type on the B29 can cause failure of the spar in 90 seconds. But I believe this particular document section here covers the fuel and oil fires we have in war thunder, bypassing the firewall.

“An uncontrolled fire usually starts in the power zone. bvpasses the fire seal and burns a fuel or oil line, dumping huge quantities of combus- tible fluid into the accessorv section. Fires of this sort are usually accompanied by bright orange flames which may burn over the wing with an accompanying turbulence. This adds considerable drag and may destroy the lift. The nacelle structure burns off in about two minutes with an uncontrollable fire in the accessory section.”

Screenshot_20260924_034914_Drive
Screenshot_20260924_034914_Drive1440×3120 1.27 MB

Screenshot_20260924_034938_Drive
Screenshot_20260924_034938_Drive1440×3120 1.02 MB

Screenshot_20260924_035038_Drive
Screenshot_20260924_035038_Drive1440×3120 944 KB

We’ve got a number now. 2 minutes before some sort of catastrophic structural failure, the nacelle falling off the wing, probably crippling the wing with it.

It also specifies ways you can attempt to put out such fires, which should be added to every aircraft ingame if it isnt already

4 Likes
2090

The question still stands, would that be/make it balanced?

2091

How is that a question?

Bombers being less durable against fires and not flying around for 10 minutes with a burning engine?

And adding counterplay for ALL aircrafts to have a chance to put out some fires?

1 Like
2092

Wait? We dont ask balance questions anymore? What are we questioning then? :D

2093

I thought this discussion was about the historical accuracy of the durability of bombers, topic mustve changed since I last checked

2 Likes
2094

Historical accuracy? Man we dont even have historical accurate Ammunition… or Models, or even all Modules …

2095

Whelp, i tossed in my piece, im not gonna sit here and argue how it should be used lol

And there is bug reports to fix those inaccuracies, if you know something and can prove it. Submit it!

2 Likes
2096

Am I the only one who witnesses fire destroying the wing and its controls most of the time?

2097

Ive had that happen too, but there was also cases where it kinda just… kept burning, too inconsistent to put a finger on it

2098

I had these too, but rarer and on big 4-engine crafts.

2-engine crafts are damaged easily, my Er-2 witness a wing snap very often now(

2099

I also had cases when burning fuel killed my gunners or even pilot. Burning fuel tanks in fuselage will definitely destroy your tail controls, in wing it is not that reliable, I assume, but still.

Many times burning fuel tank destroyed my/enemy’s engine nearby and other fuel tanks.

2100

I mean, jea… accuracy would be welcome by anyone i guess…
but the game is so far off from that… i mean the reason people voted AGAINST historical accurate APHE shells was for the only reason that they feared gaijin in incapable of balancing it… if u remember…
so i also have a fear of “historical” accuracy for the same reasons… but me personally i would always risk the shot in favor of more realism… even if that means its a bit unbalanced for some time.

But thats said… a bug is a not working feature, a bug is not a inaccuracy to the real world. Not sure if reporting every bit is making the game better or the ticket people more overworked. :D

2101

No, they voted no because they want one-shot shells. Its a meta-shell, you can’t just ask playerbase if they want to change meta.

I would love to see other shells being more useful because of actual limitations of aphe shells, idk.

2102

Thats not true, the vote was in favor FOR the change untill YT started to tell people their balancing /or lack of, concerns… after that the Vote changed in favor of not implementing it