100%. You could also have reinforced targets, like submarine pens or underground bunkers that need AP bombs.
1 Like
Good luck not getting eaten by enemy fighter or pseudobomber before even achieving the first base, especially at higher brs.
Also Air RB matches last 25 minutes.
Some increase of spawn heigt (not into space) and only for bombers which don’t have offensives would help a lot and it wouldn’t magically make them untouchable, since fighters have way better climb rate.
Funny enough, you’ve even made a video about bombers-cannibals, for which heavy bombers is just a meat, actually I am myself abusing this by completing kill bombers tasks in my French and Thai Helldivers (one of the easiest tasks btw, only need players in bombers in the enemy team).
Nevermind, it seems this is worthless, you are fine with bombers being easy targets and unpopular choice for the player, as well as rare additions to the game for newer nations.
Man, reading through your verbose wall of text is tough
Yes, and what exactly is the issue with that?
The idea is precisely to add some challenge and a proper learning curve to bombing so it stops feeling like a basic, monotonous grinding task where everyone just dives as fast as possible toward the base, drops their bombs, and repeats…
Introducing gameplay that can engage the player in mastering new skills - like map navigation and target recognition - and properly rewards them for it. After all, aren’t things like that what keep a game interesting?
I’m not talking about finding a needle in a haystack here. but something like “Bomb the airfield northeast of Berlin”. You’re not going to tell me you don’t know where northeast or Berlin are? Just check the map…
Attackers should have different targets than heavy bombers. Different penetration depth, you know.
Your inability to grasp the English language is your own deficiency, mate. Your responses are indicative that not only does wisdom flee you, critical thinking has never graced you with its presence. But feel free to carry on, I’m sure someone else will decide to put up with you. Or they won’t, and we’ll all be better for it.
The fundemental first question must be “What is the target?”
A large, obvious installation, such as an airifeld, or refinery is one thing, but the small, FoB type bases we have currently are a pain to locate half the time in ASB, and thats if they arent bugged. And that is with map markers.
Though even with a large installation, they would need to be careful, because on some maps, there are multiple airfields, even if they are not active, due to different versions of that map for different gamemodes. So it would be frustrating to have an objective to bomb an airfield in X grid coords, and it to end up being the wrong one (And that is 100% something Gaijin would do)
I could see something like this, added in some form to something like Air Sim, but shouldnt be added to ARB, I would like to see ARB become a little less arcadey, and would be interested in exploring some adjustments, like whether enemy markers should be removed, but as for the idea of navigation, I think I would still prefer maps to at least provide semi-accurate location, and that is not unrealistic.
But so long as we have these tiny camps, to bomb, they should retain the markers as well.
Ive played too many games where Ive disabled all HUD elements and you need to navigate via directions like that alone, and its always a chore. Now a small objective is different to finding a large installation from an aircraft, but it is not always as clean as that.
I could see map markers semi-removed and instead being an area marked on the map, and something like “Destroy the Refinery in XX coords”, but its a decently big objective.
In context to heavy bombers dropping from higher altitude, that is the most Id want to see in this regard.
Whether top tier aircraft, with high quality target pod and precision weapons could get something more, such as precision strikes against a hostile target surrounded by friendly targets, so a mistake results in TKs (collateral damage) is another matter entirely. Ive also thought that they could add a HVT objective, where you have to locate a fast moving car, with only grid coords given, and destroy said car, would give real value to both bringing guided weapons, but also assets like GMTI which are almost never used in Air modes. But that Id only see added to ASB, not ARB.
They should, kinda. The big issue is that reserve rank and top tier often have the same objectives, and gamemode design, which is kinda dumb. Until Gaijin fixes that, its not gunna change much.
But If im not mistaken, you did have both medium bombers and attackers like Stukas going after similar targets during the battle of britain.
At the moment, you have small tiny targets, which can be taken out with the standard bomb load of an attacker, and then simply a heavy bomber with a lot more bombs, can take out multiple.
Instead we should have very large targets, which attackers can only damage part of, with heavy bombers being able to deal far larger damage to the target
3 Likes
If it is going to do this sort of realistic damage that should be accompanied by a realistic possibility of actually getting a hit… espscially vs a fighter (this was a spitfire)
I’m hoping that the lessons they learn from the different Nuclear Thunder and Deep Strike runs will someday result in a mode that gives large bombers an opportunity to shine
It’s a shame that the so called “Aerial Warfare” mode is taking so long, but Nuclear Thunder in its current state already is a much more enjoyable mode than ARB
Gaijin really has the capabilities to make great game modes, it’s just a shame that so many resources that could go into those game modes is being wasted in their effort to add infantry lol
1 Like
We can only hope, but right here, right now. They could have added loads but haven’t
Heck, Modular AFs have been in-game since 2018 ,but ARB Airfields do not use them. Why?!
It would at least give a target to drop any reamining bombs onto if all the bases have been destroyed
1 Like
made a poll for fighters as they are kinda flimsy in
game right now most fighters like for example P47 can get cut in half by a 20mm but ingame its literally a paper plane which is really unrealistic
To be honest, most planes that should be pretty “tanky” are paper planes in-game
Well, either they lack some durability or they just can’t deal with the slightest amount of damage to their engine
Meanwhile you have planes like the F-5 that can tank more damage than A-10s and Su-25s
1 Like
Before the great nerfage of bombers forever into tissue paper, the TU-4 could tank having another bomber slam into it head on.
I’m hoping this update can find a happy medium somewhere between that and the current system where a NR-30 ricochet can split a B-52 in half.
If these changes aim to make survivability more realistic I’m fine with that, BUT keep in mind that crews inside those aircrafts aren’t bulletproof.
As seen in tons of gun cams, interceptors used to sit on bombers’ 6 without receiving fire because gunners were “unconscious” . So I think that this should be taken into account whilst making those changes on bombers.
Cheers
What a lovely time to uninstall the game
is this update here yet or will it be added with the next update?