Dear Gaijin Developers,
I appreciate the time and effort your team puts into refining War Thunder to ensure balanced gameplay. I wanted to address concerns regarding the B-29 Superfortress battle rating, specifically how it consistently faces early Cold War jet aircraft that far outclass it in speed and performance.
Key Concerns:
Era-Appropriate Matchmaking: While the B-29 was an advanced bomber for its time, it was designed for high-altitude strategic bombing against piston-engine aircraft, not jet fighters. Currently, it faces early Cold War jets, making engagements highly one-sided.
Gameplay Balance: Due to its large size, slow speed, and limited defensive options, the B-29 struggles against jet-powered opponents that quickly intercept it, making its bombing role frustrating rather than rewarding.
Player Experience: Many players have voiced concerns that the B-29’s current BR placement leads to unfair matchups, reducing its effectiveness in fulfilling its intended bomber role.
Proposed Adjustment:
I suggest, lowering the BR of the B-29 to a more balanced level where it encounters aircraft closer to its historical counterparts—primarily late WWII and early post-war piston-engine fighters rather than advanced early jets. This would create a fairer and more enjoyable experience for bomber players without compromising balance.
Thank you for considering this feedback, and I truly appreciate the ongoing work to improve War Thunder’s gameplay.
Best regards, Navalwolverine
2 Likes
TLDR: B-29 to 6.3 when Gaijin.
I agree only if the Tu-4s move down too.
7 Likes
Watch out, we don’t want to invoke his wrath
This honestly shouldn’t even be a debate. People who will argue (not to name any names but look at who posted that ^) are simply people who bomb in fighters due to being too unskilled to fight or too afraid to just actually use bombers.
I think the Tu-4s should go down alongside the B-29, tho idrk what the major difference is between them (nor how a 1mph difference constitutes a +1.0BR increase)
1 Like
Honesty, they need to overhaul how every single heavy bomber is given a BR. B-29 and Tu-4 are some of the worst affected due to facing jets. But a lot of heavy bombers need BR drops and its frustrating how they place them.
They also need to be placed on the Split BRs, some I think are stuck at their current BRs due to their GRB performance
Combine with a total overhaul of heavy bombers in general (Ai gunners, damage models, contrails, etc etc) and they could actually become a viable part of the team again
3 Likes
The 23mm’s on the Tu-4 hit 10x as hard as the .50’s on the B-29. There’s the “reason”.
2 Likes
Ah, so one negligible enough for a +0.3 increase instead of a +1.0. If you’re perishing to bombers in a fighter that’s your own fault (actually kinda like the AMX M4 situation from the BR change, French players were doing a lil too well)
Fr. Heavy bombers as a whole need some adjustments
Most “heavy” bombers (relative to BR)-
<3.0, +0.3
4.7-5.7, -0.3
6.0-7.0, -0.7
Tu-4 -1.0
PB4Y (all) +0.3
Buff their damage models to historical levels (or nerf damage done by rounds) and fix the ai gunners (they underperform in targeting ranges, dramatically).
especially on the B-29, it should have especially amazing gunnery due to the whole computer deal
eh, not quite. The 23mms are one shot machines. They also have a higher rate of fire and a faster velocity. I’d argue that the +1.0 BR gap is completely logical because of it. Unlike the B-29, the Tu-4 has this zone of “untouchability” where it will almost guaranteed be able to kill you, and you might be lucky to kill it.
That said, it is still WAY to high of a BR. The fact that it can face Radar Missiles like the Aim-7Cs on the F3H (which it is completely unable to avoid) is ridiculous. 7.3 might even be too high, but at least then it faces more “fair” opponents
Damage models really aren’t that big of an issue (bombers were much more fragile than most people think and that media typically depicts them, it’s largely a survivor’s bias thing) but the ai gunner range is atrocious
They’re basically B-24s a full 1.0 lower. Worse engines and annoying gunner angles, but also higher payload. Plus nose turret.
If you just look at how the damage models were back then… man it’s quite sad how they are in their current state. Small aircraft could survive high explosive rounds from 20-30mm in some cases, yet ingame a single round can tear off a tail from any aircraft last I checked, including bombers. They were structurally well built to be able to sustain damage, but can hardly do so ingame. Doesn’t surprise me with their track record of poor damage models on ground vehicles that they’d have similar issues with air ones.
I mean. Yeah? But I also dont think it would matter. At 6.3 you got all kids of props that can shred the B-29. Its just a fact that you cant make bomber gameplay fair above a certain br. One fighter can destroy a b-29. Bombers would have to go in to groups and that’s not gonna happen unless you got friends wanting to play b29s.
You have gaijin working on a bomber only gamemode rn so in the future there might be a place for them after all these years.
Bases are for stock grind and stuff as well. I die little bit inside when I see a H-5 taking up all these bases.
Dont know how long u have been playing. But remember how MK108s did no damage if you hit the enemy at an angle?
No one uses the term “spark” anymore. Used to be “I spakred off that f***ing F-84!”
Used them for the first time recently actually and had a lot of sparking with the HE shells with the lower end of high explosive filler actually. Switched over to the Night belt and had a lot more effectiveness/consistency. Slow guns but man can they hit hard when they do hit.
I used them yesterday
So either you are in a time warp or that wasn’t sparking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWgLCrbmapE night battles in air used to be a thing lmao
Again as I said it depended on the belt for me. I’ve had a round or two spark, but not so much of an issue with the optimal belt with more consistent rounds. It was very much what I would consider to be sparking, as it was a simple “hit” that caused no real damage to the aircraft.
