I’m afraid we’ve gone well and truly far past that idea and are now completely re-working how Air RB works lol
Question with adding bases for different types of aircraft: how do you stop the easy to kill heavy bombers from attacking the closer smaller bases meant for the attackers because they are easier to hit without getting intercepted?
1 Like
Another alternative solution is that all missions use the destroy the airfield base bombing system, just with health bars altered to accommodate the larger bomb loads.
Another alternative for base bombing:
All objectives would bleed at most 50% of the ticket bar. A2A, CAS, and Bombing each would bleed only half the ticket bar’s original total - every round ends by “best 2 of 3.” This makes nonfighters useful in a way that doesn’t bring back the hated bomber & attacker zergrushes of years past burning maps down before fighters can even climb to altitude. Also intentionally punishes the fighter mains who got us into this mess by endlessly complaining that bombers were relevant at all despite being “skill-less,” where now those very same fighter mains will have to either 1) make sure nonfighters on their team survive to the conclusion of the A2A phase or 2) go get their hands dirty cutting grass themselves.
With a system like that in mind, I would increase the number of simultaneously active bombing targets, and turn off respawning on all of them. The number of targets would increase with the BR. Destroying all of them would bleed 50% of the enemy ticket bar, a sizable chunk per base kill. Low ranks could start with the 3-4 bases of old maps, growing to 20+ in the highest BRs with how prolific multirole planes become.
Because this is what the game mode sadly needs. Toxic fighter mains complaining that bombers were able to affect matches at all despite being supposedly “skill-less” got us into this mess, then such people have the audacity to complain bombers are dead weight?
Moving the mode intentionally the opposite direction from what the toxic fighter mains want (a pure dogfight mode) is the only way to save it at this point.
2 Likes
Fair Point. You could do something with attacker aircraft targets being dynamic moving targets, like “high value convoys” or something.
Maybe make it so that bombers spawn too high to be able to accurately hit the target, or do something with spawn placement that makes it too hard or time consuming for the heavy bombers to try to take them out.
1 Like
Facepalm yeah it shouldn’t oh wait THEY ALREADY did that stuff irl anyway. So the logic is flawed, just because an aircraft was designed for a said role does not mean it cannot do another role.
This occurs a lot irl, throughout history. “OH B-25s don’t have any airstrips to be able to bomb Japan since they lack the distance”
Doolittle Raid anyone?.
So while we should get more bombing points, no one should be required to magically know their limits on what they can do. This is something people should learn on their own but the game encourages you to learn it.
1 Like
I still think this would be limiting to how useful bombers could be if there are faster bomb carrying aircraft. I’m trying to reduce limitations in gameplay, not add more.
Very much agreed. I think my infinite health idea would help remove limitations giving the players more freedom to use their aircraft as they like without compromising other players on their team, and it should be fairly simple for Gaijin to implement.
Possibly, but this is becoming harder and harder for Gaijin to properly implement in a reasonable time frame.
1 Like
yeah, too true
Simply put there are a lot of issues with WT and one of them is that bombers serve little to no true purpose. Not in the Air and Not in the ground.
I don’t see how the Ju 87s could have bombed the steel factories in the Urals, which were 2,500 km away, while evading anti-aircraft fire at low altitude; something that a He 177, designed specifically for that task, might have managed. Of course, these considerations are only relevant in a historical context. What’s the point if in the game everything is within 15 km?
Another concern is that the excessive simplification of historical aspects also contributes to making bomber gameplay too one-dimensional and, consequently, unappealing to the players. The role is reduced to a monotonous and trivial “Press space on some of those points at random and then repeat.” At least by adding some specification to the bomber’s task, we would provide a more complex experience. If we could narratively provide missions orders: specifying the mission objective, the route to follow, the target’s characteristics, expected defenses, and any other relevant instructions for the mission; it would add a minimal sense of challenge to a role that is otherwise so lacking in action.
Continuing to treat it as a mere “grind” resource, used only to make RP with minimal effort, where there are only “standard-sized red circles” that sometimes seem like factories and other times like indigenous camps (nobody seems to care), will keep leading it to the abyss of boredom…
There’s your answer.
Perhaps, but giving the players control over whether they live or die and are of use to the team would be a good place to start.
Bro, that thing wouldn’t withstand heavy AAA fire on a raid at 2,000 meters altitude nor against simple fighters. Even if it managed to reach the other side of the continent, it would only have dropped a measly 500 kg bomb. Don’t be so rigid; the engineers had their good reasons for aiming for a robust design with massive loads that fly at the edge of the stratosphere.
-_- ok and the Germans didn’t expect TB-3s strapped with I-16s or even I-153s to manage to get that close into german-occupied territory while Luftwaffe sorties and anti-air were available however none of it opened fire cause they didn’t expect the Soviets to get that far. Which occurred repeatedly and German aircraft were almost always in the air.
You can say what you believe and history has always proven these statements wrong. Undermining has always existed and this is always going to remain a flaw in humans but this is also why we are human.
I suppose there would be a forced availability, and the assignment of each type of base depends on certain parameters, such as the weight of the bomb load selected, which is directly related to the amount of potential reward. In other words, higher bomb loads result in greater distance (and therefore, risk) to the target. This would not, of course, prevent a strategic bomber from taking the minimum available load with the intention of bombing the nearest and easiest bases; however, this would not be a problem because the risk-reward ratio is balanced.
Perhaps. I am personally not convinced, but I do appreciate your input on this topic.
I think the best part of this suggestion is the way the bases are spread out. Since Gaijin seems to be totally unwilling to even consider making even ace crew gunners do anything at all in RB or revert the huge nerfs to bomber durability this would make it difficult for bombers to just be XP piñatas. With reasonably quickly respawning bases in large quantities it would be an unprofitable use of time going bomber hunting at the start of a match. Since we’re well passed the days where bombers could end the match prematurely if left alone I see no reason why it’s a problem if there are more targets to make it harder to know where to go to intercept them. It is a serious problem that everything that isn’t a fighter can so easily be subject to there literally being no way for them to satisfy their role or contribute.