Infinite health for respawning bases in air battles

[Would you like to see bases changed in-game?]
  • Yes, change all respawning bases to infinite health in their current format
  • Yes, add more bases (as per JokerSamHAHAHA‘s comment, which is quoted below)
  • Yes, add more bases (as per Gnza10091441‘s comment, which is quoted below)
  • Yes, add more bases (as per USthunder‘s comment, which is quoted below)
  • No, leave bases as they are at the moment
0 voters

An issue with the game that I have recently become quite aware of while grinding through the British bomber tree is that, while the long range bombers have awesome bomb loads, they lack the capacity to deliver them. This is in part due to a lack of defensive capabilities (more on that momentarily), but is primarily down to the faster light bombers, striking aircraft, and even fighters at their BRs wiping out all of the bases first. The result of this is lone long range bombers have to linger around enemy lines at high altitude waiting many minutes for these bases to respawn, and instead just becoming an easy kill for enemy fighters after making absolutely no contribution to their own team. This makes flying said bombers boring, repetitive, and incredibly frustrating. This is further exacerbated in the case of the British bombers by their feeble defensive armament, but this does not mean that it is not an issue for the bombers of other nations. After all, any unescorted bomber is to be considered a free meal. This is made worse by the fact that it is already difficult enough just to get to the bases at these BRs without being intercepted, so to get there just in time to wait for death is not particularly conducive to fun gameplay. In this case: if you reach the enemy bases, you deserve to be rewarded with the opportunity to drop your payload and help your team.
I is for this reason that I would like to suggest that such respawning bases are given infinite health, so that they are always available for people to drop their bombs on. This would work in game by utilising a system where a specified number of tickets are drained from the enemy team per 10Kg of TNT equivalent dropped on any of their bases, or some system to that effect. This means that, should you get to a base, you can drop all of your bombs on it and then go back home to survive and rearm regardless of what other bomb carrying aircraft do. This would also open up new opportunities for bombers to strategise with which bases they attack: do you all stick together and go to the same base to maximise their defensive firepower, or do you split up for the different bases to spread enemy interceptors thinner? Another advantage to this system would be that there would no longer be any competition for bases between bomb carrying aircraft, which should lead to more cooperative behaviour in game rather than team killing, further improving gameplay for all involved. Also, you wouldn’t have to worry about how many bombs of each type you need to destroy a base with X amount of health left at each BR, along with removing the problems around ‘small bomb effect’ by basing damage to the enemy purely on TNT equivalency. This would be more beneficial to the team as a whole because bomb carrying aircraft would be able to work together to maximise the bomb payload effectively dropped on bases, allowing them to actually impact the course of the match rather than trying to drop their bombs first, and then waiting to see who wins if they don’t die first!
All of these features would help make bombers in general more enjoyable and effective to play, and easier to grind with, thus allowing a greater scope of War Thunder’s diverse gameplay to be considered viable, at least in my opinion - and with any luck - yours too!

One bonus to this suggestion would be that it should (in theory) be relatively quick and easy for Gaijin to implement, as soon as it is passed of course.

An alternative option would be this suggestion:

Another option would be as per this suggestion:

Or as per this suggestion:

2 Likes

Yknow,Gajin already dont wanna put Tornado MFG or the premium one on 10.7 cause they said they are too effective in bombing, and they would have to nerf the reward from it significantly to put them on 10.7 which means your suggestion will only lead to nerf of the income from base bombing.

4 Likes

It could be interesting, these bombing bases look more like a group of Indians camped out, you can barely see them from afar, they could create bigger targets, industrial cities or large military bases…

2 Likes

Not if you get an equivalent reward per “TNT ton”. Say… 150% more for base damage to compensate for that you no longer get the destroyed reward.

Historically, this would be more accurate because bombers never knew when a target was “destroyed enough”. They just had an order to drop on this or that, and so entire air groups would drop thousands of tons on as close as they could get them regardless of effects.
So the mission becomes not “pop the bases to blow up the airfield” to bombing a target box to get whatever sliding BR reward, mission points, and score deducted from the opposing team.
This might even encourage bombers to stick together in historically accurate mutually defensive formations if they aren’t competing for targets.

3 Likes

I like the concept, and as others have said, it could use a little improvement.
My suggestions for improvement are along the lines of this:
4 Target sectors of a Large City, each sector has different rewards and varying levels of AAA
(Not the Airbase level of AAA, those things are broken)
For example, a Target Sector with less AAA or a Target Sector that is closer to the spawn have lower rewards and ticket bleed, while the ones with more AAA or are farther from spawn (even both combined) have higher rewards and ticket bleed.
Along with that, different Target Sectors have varying levels of Value/Importance. This would couple with the Above Suggestion as higher Value/Importance Target Sectors would have heavier defenses and maybe be farther from the Spawn.
The 2 above suggestions would then couple with YOUR suggestion. The Target Sectors would technically have infinite health and you would be rewarded for ‘X amount of TnT equivalent dropped on target’, along with the Value/Importance/Difficulty of the Target Sector hit.
Of course, you don’t want people bombing outside Target Sectors and still getting the same amount of reward, so it would have to be well defined where each Target Sector begins and ends, along with the area in between. Areas in between Target Sectors would have little to no reward.
And of course this doesn’t work for every Game Mode as you can’t have 2 opposing Large Cities all of 100 kilometers from each other, but it would be a welcome addition to the game.
This is my suggestion of how to improve, and I might go make my own suggestion based on this someday, but feel free to update your suggestion based on what I have written here.

Sincerely,
USthunder

To begin with, it makes no sense for all aircraft with any bomb load, no matter how small, to embark on the same route against the same target without considering their specific capabilities or the purpose for which they were designed. A Wyvern, a carrier-based strike aircraft optimized for low-altitude flight, should not be capable of bombing the same site as a long-range strategic bomber designed to penetrate deep into enemy territory from high altitude. Therefore, it is essential to assign specific bombing targets according to the type of aircraft rather than treating them indiscriminately. This lack of diversification and specialization was the reason why there is currently an excessive demand on bases bombing, and as a result, an insufficient availability for everyone.

Long-Range Bombers: [1 target in total, no health bar] Should attack a large industrial district located farther on the map, with abundant AAA protection. If an attacker attempts to bomb it from ground level, it will be annihilated instantly.

Medium / Light Bombers: [2 or 3 targets, no health bars] Should focus on smaller infrastructure facilities such as train stations, supply depots, military barracks, airfields, or ports, which have less AAA protection but carry some risk of being shot down at low altitudes.

Strike Aircrafts / Fighters: [5+ targets to choose from, all with health bar] Should target artillery batteries, convoys, bridges, or undefended installations or buildings, etc. In some maps, they could also attack hangars or parked aircraft.

3 Likes

A good idea, but I want to see what a larger sample size thinks of the initial suggestion first, and whether Gaijin likes it.

i really like this idea

This idea may be great for arcade but for realistic just seems weird but i understand the frustration. I believe more bases should be added and spread out. The fighters and strike aircraft may still get the closer bases but if you put lets say 6 more bases ( keep the 4 where they are) and have like 2 far off to each side of the map and 1 in each corner of the map this will allow bombers to go around the fighters gain altitude and still be headed for a base to bomb. Also this will allow fighters time to climb to your altitude to protect you. I love running bomber escort but i rarely make it to their altitude in time to save them. Your idea could still work in a way but i feel like they need to have one massively super sized base that has a massive amount of health and you get points on the type of ordnance your carrying. This way you have the option of flying in formation and if the base gets destroyed everyone gets a massive bonus.

2 Likes

I like the idea.

1 Like

Yea i think its a great idea. Instead of the regular run and gun for the bases and the furballs. I feel like this could be used for all tiers of game play

Everyone may wish to come back and vote again, I have redone the pole to include some suggestions from other people.

1 Like

It’s a really good suggestion and the quotes really give options to what can be done, which I feel can sometimes be lacking.
Another positive this could bring is being able to have many more bombers than just 4 bombers.
And yet another possibility is having longer maps, but keep the width the same. this would be so that the base/city objectives could be BEHIND the airfields which increases difficulty but increases time for bombers to form up and get to altitude. of course keep some bombing objectives in front as other people have suggested so ALL forms of bombers and strike aircraft can play a role

Just to clarify, I am only concerned about replacing respawning bases. In my opinion the airfield bombing missions work well because there is always a target for bomb carrying aircraft to go to, unless you have won of course!

I always wanted more varied bombing targets, including industrial districts. Long overdue!

Of course not, don’t you know there will be an additional reward for destroying bases?

But if the reward as per TNT equivalent dropped on the bases was scaled to include this bonus that would have otherwise been received, then there wouldn’t be a problem, right?

not a bad idea at all i like it with that being said the long range bomber base should have a health bar but make it very large. This way you get points for hitting it as well as even more points for destroying it. Also with having a massive health bar it will encourage massive formations, because lets face it once you land the match will be over or you will be killed before your able to climb to an appropriate altitude then having to travel to the target. I feel like adding your idea with mine would turn out some amazing dynamic and ever changing gameplay

Unless they changed this quite recently (didn’t fly bombers in rb in quite while) this already exists in game …
Just leave one base alive and after certain time others will respawn.

I’m afraid that the time for a base to respawn when faster aircraft inevitably wipe out all the bases to begin with is actually the problem I am trying to solve.