Fix the a.i. gunners for crying out loud. They are ridiculous and have been so for many years. Even an expert crew doesn’t open fire until the enemy plane is within spitting distance and tearing you apart and guess what, bombers are concentrating on ground targets some of the time and can’t be bothered with manually operating the guns. Also add enemy plane call-outs like naval RB/AB call out spotted boats. This is a no brainer.
Provide more targets to bomb. The constant competition to rush one of four strategic targets before a fast mover gets it is frustrating. Some players resort to shooting down team mates to secure their bomb drop. Too many targets are already killed by strike planes long before you can get there in a heavy.
If you want to make it realistic provide one or two a.i. escorts to every bomber that continuously stay with the bomber and only break off for enemy contact. You already have the code. Apply the SB AF a.i. to bomber escort.
Much needs to be done. This part of air RB is insanely neglected. That’s not even mentioning the lazy attitude toward making a cockpit that doesn’t look like something developed during the Atari age.
The more I think about it, A.I. escorts could be a research option. Again, the code exists for them in SB when they escort A.I. heavies. They are typical A.I. but they’re not as bad as some other games and would provide a distraction to interceptors at least.
Stop trying to keep heavies weak for easy kills. There is only one reason to argue against making them more capable. They are stat padding material and I fully believe anyone saying, “learn to aim,” instead of wanting them fixed is playing a little game of wanting them to continue to be nerfed so you can continue to get easy kills. I’ve been playing 10 years and I remember they used to have effective gunners until whiners complained to loudly. I know they’re easy kills. The first thing I do in a match if I’m not bombing and need quick, easy kills, is to go after the bombers. It must be no one knows how “easy” the gunners are to aim because people manually aiming the guns at me are never a threat.
Regards to bombing. The sight/plane will wander so you have to keep the plane on course and a large last minute adjustment will swing the sight wildly. The switch back and forth comment is laughable for more reasons than I want to get into. But principally, when you’re within seconds of a target and trying to defend yourself, as soon as you switch to the sight to make final adjustments the gunners stop firing, reset positions and your shot down. Plus, most maps are set up so interceptors are attacking just as you reach the target. You really should try bombing before you comment on this like you know what you’re talking about.
It’s almost like IRL there were multiple people in the bombers specifically there to just fight off fighters in turrets. Fighters in game also don’t have to manually control turrets as their only means of survival, so why should a bomber?
Sure,… let’s talk about the last bomber i was playing in, let’s see:
a B-26C “French” Marauder
I used it for 10 battles in RB mode, in order to have full modification on the aircraft.
I killed 7 aircrafts (mostly fighters, i do remember killing 1 bomber with frontal guns, and killed 4 fighters aircrafts thanks to my Turret that i controlled myself)
Also destroyed 28 ground targets thanks to the frontal guns and turret guns.
And i destroyed about 1 base per match.
I died about 6 times and won 4 battles out of the 10 i’ve done.
1.2 KD air-air wise
4.7 KD air-ground wise
40% Winrate & survival rate
Grinded full modifications of the aircraft
I also spaded B-29,… B-17’s,… B-25’s,… lot of other aircrafts such as Heinkel’s He-111’s variants, or again Yer-2 Russian bombers at the time.
I also played something called a G5N1 (not the G8N1 “deathstar”) a lot of other japanese bombers too.
So yes,… i know how to use a fuckin bomber, no matter the size/speed/number of gunners,…
The only thing you want with this thread is that to have the easy way of having kills without moving out your pinky for it,…
Stop hidding yourself into false argues of Fighters having it the easy way → you both do have access to point and click gunnery methods in War Thunder → that’s the fair part of the game to give the same ability to aim guns at other people.
You also have the luck of having multiple angles when the bomber is covered of turrets → this allows you even more aim errors as the ennemy can’t really move out the way he like or he’ll end-up having the “lost shots” into his plane.
The bombers are really good when played correctly,… and bombing when you know an aircraft is coming → it’s a last resort thingy,… i would not recommend it since bombs can be shot down aswell creating a massive blast right under your plane
To be in that position, you already done something wrong, or the ennemy fighter is clever than usual.
I played 1193 battles in bomber type aircrafts, for RB mode
You did only 536 battles and still not understand this was made by game design to ensure a minimal player activity in bomber aircraft,…
Even on a B-29 most of the plane will only have 2-3 turrets able to aim at you max, which is about 4-6 12.7mm. That is not enough firepower to be considered equal to a fighter with a minimum of 4-6 12.7mm (or 20/30mm cannon equivalents) that is much more maneuverable.
Heavy bombers only have access to point-and-click OR manuevering. Fighters get to do both, which is why IRL there were MULTIPLE people in the heavy (and other types of) bombers to handle the shooting while the pilot does the flying.
I’m confused as to what this has to do with any of the arguments thus far discussed.
False,… use keybind and you’ll be able to turn and fire,… using this on SBD-3 is real fun.
If you consider this:
An argument,… then it’s just a way to know from which experience we all are coming from.
Who cares? Ain’t a bomber whatever the size is a bomber for the game?
Dive bombers are considered bombers not attackers, Medium(B-25;Pe-2 peshka dive bomber ; Ju-88) /Heavy (B-17; Yer-2) or Strategic (which are B-29 and Tu-4 “Tumor-4”) are still bombers in such the AI gunner systems applies to them the same way, even some attackers do have gunners, such as IL-2’s or IL-10’s,… but also Some heavy fighters such as Me-410’s,…
That’s why the current thread first makes no sense, and secondly disregards the game design.
There is no arguments here that have been said either by you or OP that is letting me think that it would be normal to Have a specific AI’s on board of those aircrafts, and not all the others.
So to say it simplier:
You and OP wants something that have been made different because it was too easy for bomber players back on 2013 (and i play since 2013, so i also know about it).
We could fly aircrafts such as SBD-3 and TBF-1c and dogfighting the gunner would pilot snipe the ennemy on our tail.
It was practically impossible to assault a B-17 in 2013 because you were fired upon far earlier.
NOW,… if you and OP would stop the non-sense about AI gunners,… and try to learn more about the game design,… you would:
Agree on me for gunner (AI stand as it is)
Agree on me that the only required change is the Damage models of bombers, of all size:
Let me explain, the problem are not the gunners but the survivability of such heavier aircraft.
They are easy to hit because they’re bigger than a fighter.
Yet, they share the same amount of areas in which the taken damages are applied to:
Control surfaces (depending on each aircrafts)
And you would agree that between a Bf-109 and B-17 the size of a single wing is not the same:
Bf-109 → about 4.5meters
B-25 → about 9 meters
B-17 → about 14meters
Therefore the size of each aircrafts for Damage model is:
Bf-109 → about 1.2 meters
B-25 → about 2 meters
B-17 → about 4 meters
Bf-109 → about 3.3 meters
B-25 → about 7 meters
B-17 → about 10 meters
In such, the B-17 wing is easier to get focused on and destroyed by any fighter.
Now, instead of applying new AI Gunner (from which i already desmonstrated how stupid it is), we apply the following rules for Damage Models:
Heavy and strategics bombers:
External wing area (x2)
Middle wing area (x2)
Inner wing area (x2)
Frame considered in 4/5 areas
External wing area (x2)
Inner wing area (x2)
Frame considered in 3/4 areas
We would have a wing seperated by multiple sized area of Damage model, similar to what have the Bf-109.
Making Damages to be more precisely shared, which overall will buff the Bomber abilities to withstand more damages, letting people time to bomb objectives, and/or use Gunners themselves.
What i just explainned is the ONLY thing i would change for Bombers.
I am one of those players when grinding with the French bombers to unlock planes. Legit called my base and they dove to get it first before me. So I dove after them to kill em before he steals it so i can secure my base, respect people’s calls. I always respect others calls if they call it first. Sorry but not sorry, hate it when they don’t respect.
I would like to suggest bringing the bases closer and adding more than just 4. I am aware that the bases respawn, however it takes a while to do so and many don’t get the chance to drop due to fighters already at high alt by the time a new base spawns. Also suggest gaijin should add how many bombs should be dropped to take out a base depending on the load we carry. Would help a lot to not waste our bombs.
Would be useful i agree, but not sure this is the most important thing to add.
There is many bomb calibers:
Over and 4000lbs/2000kg
1500lbs (i don’t think there is bomb similar size in kilos)
10kg (He-51C → very specific)
And i certianly missed some calibers in the process
And that some fighters would use more bombs instead if they know how much it require to get half your points.
Just flew a bomber and was reminded of another fun fact. The gunner reloads are unrealistically long. It only takes a few seconds to swap in a new belt (maybe 6-10 seconds) and even less time if you’re changing a magazine. I know. I’ve done it in real life with heavy and light machine guns and no, you don’t need a lot of space to do it. In game the gunners on an expert crew reload an mg like someone scared of guns, with no training, doing it their first time.
Funny enough,… cuz you’re the one harrassing me on one point and not reading the entierety of what i’ve said,… because i told you that your wants aren’t going to be implemented ever,…
And the F word used is not me loosing my temper(you would know when i’ll lose it),… but a way to distressed myself from the impossible talk i have with you, since you’re not going to acknowledge whatever i’ve said.
If you have no others arguments but trying to shut me off (and that’s your last post, honestly) then you already is the one impossible to talk to.
As i already showed to you that you’re not taking into account game design, and now you show us that you don’t wanna face reality of the game,… it is clear to me that discussing with you is everything but hard time given on my morale.
Now, either you acknowledge what i’ve told you and maybe counter-argues it,… or either you give on debates and continue blaming my whatever you’ll find to say
Acting childlishly but ignoring what is said, is not the way for normal debate/discussion