I mean,if people die from bomber gunners,its a you fault,you can kill the gunners and the pilot with ease even with smaller guns,if you stand still behind a bomber thats a you fault,hit and bail exists,most bombers are just too heavy and chunky to properly move around
What they gonna do anyway?Evade?Barely can turn 3 degrees left or right
No need to use insults. YOU need to learn to accept that not everyone agrees with you, and you will NEVER get everyone to agree with you. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, over, and over, and over, and over, and over. Especially in this thread.
Just because YOU feel like you are “right” does NOT mean you are right.
Its just the basics,if you actually flown a diversity of bombers you would know that even if you get hit by stuff you lose control of your plane over time,sure you still count as an alive player but for long,ive survived over 14 Fox 3’s in Nuclear Thunder in my B52H and for what,i couldnt control my plane after the first hit,i was just going down very slowly so i was dead anyway
But if no one says anything opposing the people who say the current state of the bombers is fine, it will be seen as things being fine the way they are.
Or should everyone who feels things are not okay the way they are, just stay silent and accept it?
It’s a 2-way street my friend. You should extend this and tag everyone here who has opposing views to someone else.
I have not insulted anyone in this thread who I disagree with. You are trying to blame shift, instead of apologizing for your attitude, or editing your post.
Grow up.
Strange, as you focus on players more than the bomber itself
Guys I would like to remind everyone that they’re to debate the the topic not the user nor are you to challenge them to a duel when said debate doesn’t go your way.
Thinking your right =/= being right.
They just need to remove the APHE like before and there will be zero issues.
As for how real they are, they did infact mount the 45mms but the recoil would be immense. It probably wouldn’t be as bad as the Yak-9K due to them being heavier, but there would be a lot of forces/issues that aren’t modelled in WT.
I don’t think it’s right to be selective and cherry-pick which aircraft get the survivability buff (the Me 410 interceptor gets it, but the Me 410 ground attacker doesn’t). Otherwise, it just feels random.
It should be based only on the aircraft’s dimensions and structure, with proportional buffs across the board.
Thank you, edited the post. Any thoughts on it?
Meanwhile tis ma
There are no other variants of the TIS MA in the game.
I think he meant that if only the Interceptor Me410 gets it, but the ground attacker doesn’t, it feels random.
Fair enough
Literally people who said that tu-95 “tanked 6 missiles” or something. This “tanking” is always “I hit him once and he did not evaporate, so I sent 5 more into his already falling body to be surprised that there is no “aircraft destroyed” text yet, so I get mad that I did an overkill!”
I’d add weight to that as well as it can also be indicative of the size of an aircraft.
And +1 for the proportional buffs. Smaller attackers/bombers shouldn’t be as strong as Lancasters or B-24s, but they should be stronger than single engine fighters.
It’s not bad that the TIS MA got a buff; after all, it’s almost as large as a Pe-2 bomber, so it shouldn’t have the same durability as a single-engine fighter. What makes no sense is that this specific plane got the buff while something like the P-61, which is even larger, didn’t…
True
Well i must have missed the post where that was said. And surely it’s not always like you describe.
Anyways, sounds weird that people who are shooting missiles at a bomber, would need “passes” against that bomber. Like was talked about in the post i replied to.
1-2 missiles are enough, the bomber will fall anyway. Only if you want a hard kill you can send everything, even yourself into an enemy bomber and then it will evaporate in mid air.