Yeeeees.
It is about time.
1 Like
Answer regarding DM for multi-engine fighters, from the russian forum:
“That’s how it works: all aircraft are divided by size, number of engines, and type of materials. The first part includes multi‑engine bombers and other aircraft based on them; later, the plan is to process the remaining multi‑engine aircraft.”
3 Likes
As expected, sanity prevails.
1 Like
Was just thinking about how many more bombers and bomber variants are yet to be added…
WW2 only examples on my wishlist:
British: Manchester (Mk.i, ia, ib, ii), more Lancaster variants (Mk.ii, early mk.i with lower turret), so so many Halifax variants, various American exports
German: Do217K-2, various Ju88 variants (S and H series especially), He111H-20 (and tbh the early stepped cockpit ones too), Do215, many early Do17 variants
American: B32!!!
1 Like
I can’t wait to see fighters crying about even the new DM update.
And some people are actually calling this a NERF LOOOOL, what a pathetic mindset. All it actually is, is detailing the modules to improve the damage mechanics.
1 Like
Not only bombers, but transport planes and big planes in general.
Which in turn becomes a nerf (hopefully) because making it more accurate will make them perform worse, especially in regard to putting out fires.
This is still entirely ignoring the fact that they are way too overtuned and it’s completely impossible to to kill a bomber aerodynamically in a reasonable number of bullets.
As with everything, it is impossible find a solution that would please 100% of the playerbase.
If bombers are more susceptible to damage from HE and ramming for example, it is by definition a nerf to the damage model.
Only thing pathetic here is your attitude.
3 Likes
I’m not bothered by the DM change at all—in fact, I actually welcome the news, but it’s hilarious that you guys are interpreting it as ‘finally a NERF’.
Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, this community is already dead. Nothing being discussed here reflects reality. Let anyone defend whatever they want, because everybody just wants things their own way and nobody can actually refute the other side lol, how sad.
And someone around here named Percussion will reply to me saying ‘source=Google free right?’ lol, happy gaming everyone!
“You guys”
Wow.
Well i think that’s the basis for most opposing arguments.
But then again, I don’t think anyone’s ever alone with their views, some will always agree with one another.
Im gonna need some sources for this.
2 Likes
@PercussionCap Google free right LOOOOL i love this guy
I think this guy can answer you; I vouch for anything he says.If you want a source, ask this guy; he can find anything he searches for on Google.
Yea I’m going to go to Gaijin’s building and beg them for a bomber buff.
direct quote:
“Next comes the issue of the high-explosive fragmentation impact of 20-30mm shells on the aircraft’s skin. Fragments and explosions from these shells do not penetrate the skin reliably, reducing the damage to internal modules. […] components and assemblies located inside the wing and fuselage will suffer damage if the impact is close to these modules.”
*the game does not reflect reality
1 Like
But
I’m so confused
2 Likes
Dude, do you guys seriously not understand what I’m saying? What I said was against you calling detailed modeling a ‘NERF’—I have zero issues with detailed modeling. In fact, I think the game will be much better with detailed modeling/coding and that it will make the current DM far more logical. That’s all I was trying to say.
In fact, I think we’ll be able to recreate real-life footage even better this way, allowing us to see just how consistent the current model actually is. By the way, I literally just downed a B-29 with 1 Falcon missile and 2 IR missiles, which felt pretty consistent to me lol—I honestly can’t believe there are still people who can’t pull that off. It just makes no sense to engage with people who keep spamming a single video even after their own claims were disproven in the previous topic.
Anyway, I’ve posted nearly 300 messages on this topic and talking really gets us nowhere. I guess the only option left is to just watch fighters dogfight among themselves and mindlessly shoot each other down every match lol
Any news from Gajin how long this experiment is planned to run? Its no fun to play against bombers and attackers in Air and Ground modes. Wounder how torpedo bombers do in Naval against AA.
1 Like
Read about said improvements and changes from the post.
3 Likes
Air Assault PVE mode is COMPLETELY uplayable. Impossible to win because the bombers are indestructible…
From 10 games 10 loss always. Noone can do anything about B29 waves, and if only 1 plane is able to drop down his bombs = Instant loose… THX GAIJIN for NOTHING in this game mode!!!
3 Likes
That’s always going to be what the game boils down to because gamemodes are designed around killing other players being the main objective. Fighters are made for that kind of thing, so they were destined to be the focal point of the match.
Bombers are fundamentally incompatible with current Air AB/RB format since their entire job isn’t really that relevant to progressing the battle. They could be completely immortal and it still wouldn’t change much because fighters almost always have the speed and maneuverability to avoid bombers if they wish, choosing to instead focus on the other aircraft actually affecting the outcome of battle.
For bombers to become both fun and viable, there needs to be a rework to existing gamemodes. Everything else up til that point are band-aid fixes.
2 Likes