I don’t yet have a degree in aeronautics and mechanical engineering, however I can look at historical documents that show what was considered sufficient and insufficient to down a bomber, and heres my findings.
From what i see is that generally large structurally sound bombers with typically 2-4 engines, .30s were deemed only really good at leaking liquid storages and killing crewmen. A solid pass with .50s was deemed insufficient to dealing structural damage, while fine at targeting crew, flight equipment (Including entirely busting an engine and lighting them afire). A pass with 20s would be sufficient to solidly cripple one, structurally but the accuracy and slow firing of them often would be seen as taking away from performance. The German 30mm MK 108 was definitely enough to down one with a single pass, however their low velocity rounds made the pass engagement proximity much closer which meant that engagement time was much lower as well. MK 103 was much better for that, but its size meant that it was not adopted by many aircraft because it would slow the engaging aircraft down too much to be fast enough to catch up with the bombers or be so big that survival was almost nil before being lit up by a bomber box. Those that rocked the 37mm, 40mm, and 50mm basically bet effectiveness of a good shot over volume of offensive weaponry, and of course the courier of these weapons needed to be either much larger and heavier or much slower than they would otherwise be. And remember the inverse square cube law with these calibers btw, a 40mm round doesn’t carry twice the amount of explosive power a 20mm does it carries about 8x.
This all being said is that a big issue with bombers right now is that mouse aim makes it much easier to get a cleaner pass on a bomber that any fighter otherwise would in real life having to ACTUALLY fly a plane without some instructor doing it for them, which should be addressed.
Also I agree and know that people will not be able to appreciate the existence of nuance of how i am thoroughly unsatisfied with both the previous and current bomber damage models.
I agree, it is much easier to get a clean pass on a bomber in the game than it actually was in real life. But the same applies to the bombers, flying with heavy damage is far easier in-game than it was in real life. Not to mention aiming with gunners and the FoV you get while in the gunner view.
Not to mention a single person doing the job of multiple people at once.
Hence I don’t generally regard the mouse aim for fighters alone as a reason to buff the damage model of bombers. It’s a zero sum argument because it applies both ways.
But then again for gameplay balancing purposes i also don’t think that the old damage model was even close to sufficient to be considered balanced.
Because we already have that for Helicopters and it isn’t fun and takes forever to spade vehicles through it
1 Like
Im not 100% certain, but i think the mode was made, atleast to some extent, to have an alternative way to upgrade helicopters. Relying on spawning them in ground battles and getting enough RP to upgrade them wasn’t really a reasonable option for all helicopters.
I don’t think that spading vehicles is the goal or reason to play the game for most people.
This is your opinion.
Other than that, i see the point @Rinhord is trying to make. Atleast to those who want to fly bombers just to bomb bases in peace, and are using that as an excuse to want to make bombers nearly indestructible.
but… but… your plane didnt go into 100 diffrent pieces :( (this is a joke)
but that was a good strafe
According to some people here, this seems to be what is expected from the average fighter pilot to reliably kill bombers. (I know the Ki-93 is classified as a strike aircraft)
I dunno, seems a bit unreasonable
The only thing required from the bomber pilot is to not fly in a straight line when a fighter approaches. But i guess it’s a comparable requirement lol
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Since when?
And still they were shot down in droves.
the odds are completely in favor of the bomber
They keep getting unfair buffs that nobody else does, so until then that won’t change. Unless you want to argue the Ju 88 isn’t a bomber.
Many should go up to 50k actually.
Please go and play literally any other nation at those brs in ground vs them and then say this
1 Like
I think its time to seek a new game. Defending these vehicles like they are not even broken is crazy statements to be putting out especially when most of the community is already on about the SU-8 and TIS MA DM buffs being OP as hell in ground. Saying perc is complaining is a correct statement considering we all have the same opinion, they need the DM to be nerfed or straight up removed from the game completely. Please play the game first before typing anything aswell!
3 Likes
Did not everyone ask for the bomber buffs? why everyone is complaining about it now?
Have you played the game since the update? lol
Yeah alot, the bombers Structural integrity is as supposed to be like in real life, i enjoyed it quite often.
1 Like
The main suggestion for the buffs were to allow heavy bombers to be usable again not have every bomber in the game have the same playstyle. The main dm buffs we wanted was the B-17, B-29, TU-4, B-24, PB4Y etc. The other ones were the devs own accord which is not what we wanted in the first place and have been implemented quite sloppy and now causing issues in the game.
3 Likes
Heavy bombers maybe, but this should not be happening
This is but 1 of many examples i have since the update of this happening
While partially true, we cant just give some Previously selected bombers the new DM and leave the others behind, that would be somewhat of a bias.
And while some planes dont deserve to get their New DM such as the TIS MA due to Balance reasons, It up to the developers.
I think the DM models wouldn’t be an issue if they actually listened to the feedback on the DMs in the first place. People already said aircraft like the TIS MA and SU-8 should not have the damage model considering the issues they were causing before hand when APHE got added. The main issue is they don’t reply to the people giving feedback half the time and the feedback feels very vague when they do make changes. The main thing the devs need to do is actually read what the playerbase say on these dm models and hope that the survey puts into perspective on what needs to change in the next update or in the next patch before the next update.
3 Likes
P38, beaufighter, mosquito, BF110, brigand, P61, DH Hornet, firefly, firecrest and dozens other didnt get these buffs.
its not a conspiracy to look at the reality of the situation, a cherrypicked vehicle to get a buff is still cherrypicked in order to make it perform even better against the average of its peers.
its also not like the TIS MA wasnt already incredibly toxic and is now a guaranteed win for a team if one gets spawned into GRB or anything is it?
4 Likes
Me and a couple friends tried running 4.7 its literally just unplayable if you are not with russia
2 Likes
