seriously, especially with how they dealt with bombers the first time (nerf it into oblivion)
Rule #1: Marry rich
Rule #2: Buy know-how
1 Like
Mhm - i am not a qualified to assess your level of GDD…and imho this not an adequate place for such discussions…
In case you mean anything else than:
Global Development Disorder
and it is topic-related, I might change my mind…
1 Like
xD
once again, your comment does not benefit the discussion at hand
As highlighted in my B-58A Hustler (Project Bullseye) suggestion, the B-58As did use conventional bombs at one point for evaluation, as evidenced by these exceptionally rare photos and excerpts below.
Whatever your takeaway is from these, the B-58A can be flawlessly implemented in the game and equipped with conventional bombs. It would function similarly to the Yak-28B but faster and capable of carrying far more bombs.
As an off-topic aside: While I love the B-1B Lancer and give it +1, I’d prefer to see top-tier (above BR 10.0) jet bomber reworks first before implementing the B-1B in the game.
3 Likes
cant wait for sekrit document leaks on it
No, none of us want to see anything like that.
I want to suggest another option to this aircraft, if added. This aircraft was originally designed with the capability of a very considerable external load which would make its total payload 150% of the heaviest B-52 conventional bombload. This capability was lost as a result of the START treaty as it was negotiated away. Soviet monitors witnessed the structural metal fabrication and sheet metal coverings which replaced any and all external load options for the bombers.
My suggestion is that, through tech tree advancements, the plane can revert to prior to START modifications and truly carpet bomb Mk 82s.
There was actually a formal proposal for the B-58B which would have both Strategic Nuclear missions as well as conventional Tactical missions. However, the airplane was already so very expensive and operational use had revealed her to be a massive maintenance hog so no funding was ever provided. Nonetheless, it wouldn’t be the 1st time Gaijin added a model which never saw production.
Bro honestly, I’d pay Gaijin $2M (USD) to get your post to be real! I just want this in-game
can we get the A model b58 ?
The survivability of an aircraft in ground matches is entirely up to the player flying it.
It’s no different than taking the A-10A Early into 12.7 GRB matches.
And at least the B-1B gets a modern Sniper TGP and JASSM or SDB or SDB-II.
I think B1 would be a nice addition as a squadron vehicle
War Thunder give you the possibility to play with a lot of plane, and not all of them are suitable, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be added in the game
The F-117 isn’t a really good plane, but it’s a fun addition and people that want to use it will research it and play the game, it doesn’t cost anything and if it can make people happy then why not ?
2 Likes
Ok i know how to make this fit the game, hear me out (B-1R):
1 Like
I doubt so, as it was only preposed and never a thing as a far as im aware
Absolutely not. The B-1A could be an Event or Squadron vehicle. Not the B-1B, that deserves to be in the tech tree since us bomber mains have been wanting to fly them since before 2013.
-100
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a cool as hell aircraft. One of my favourites. But it just can’t be balanced. It’s possibly the worst bomber for addition to the game.
It’s essentially a bombs-only 4x larger F-111A. Yes it has countermeasures but realistically it’s utterly defenseless against anything that can catch it. So either you’ve got an untouchable XP printer or a useless XP piñata depending purely on the speed of aircraft at it’s BR.
And I know many will argue that it should follow the F-117 as a squadron vehicle. But this isn’t a good solution.
First off, it doesn’t actually address any of the balance issues, unless it’s at a BR where it’s literally useless. Those that spend months researching the vehicle will be unhappy and demand an ever-lower BR until it’s broken at its own tier- while still essentially useless in any sort of uptier, and also fighting decades-older vehicles.
And second the allocation of squadron vehicles to useless vehicles is just terrible in general. Squadron vehicles should be decent all-around vehicles, especially those with somewhat unusual features, available as a free alternative to premiums for faster tree research. Not ugly, useless, or hyperspecialized vehicles, that’s what events are for.
The only way I can see the B-1 added is as an AI target. Because really B-1 players wouldn’t be any different from bots- all you can do is full throttle, head for a base, spam the “nuh uh” button when attacked, and die to guns after a frustratingly long chase.
The problem I have with your deduction is that there are jet bombers ingame that have only countermeasures or less that work very well ingame for us bomber players and are not seen as useless when it comes to being a bomber.
These being Arado’s, Canberras and Buccaneer S.1 and S.2 to name a few.
Bombers not having defensive weapons and only having speed as their advantage is a very old and normal strategy for bombers of mamy tiers. There are even strike aircraft just like the F-117 that you mentioned that work well. The only reason the F-117 was made a squadron vehicle is because it only carries 2x2,000lbs of bombs making it unable to destroy a base with a single run.
I myself and many others have been playing the game for bombers specifically since around 2013/2014 and every year new bombers where added with larger payloads all you do is increase the base hp, and reduce the sl and rp per individual bomb dropped, to balance it out.
And if the complaint is that bombloads above the B-29 and F-111A at 20-33,000lbs is too high for ground rb you can restrict bombloads. There already is a system where you cannot pick loadouts because of spawn points. So gaijin just simply greys out those loadouts just like when you have not researched them yet. Failing that you can limit bombers of a certain br and above to air rb, ec and sim only and grey them out from ground rb just as ships are.
There are extremely simple and easy workarounds to these bombers being added in future and none of the reasons mentioned make those future additions impossible to balance.
Currently in air rb unless you are in a hedghog of a turretted bomber and fast enough to shoot the player whom is too afraid to shoot you, you will always die in encounter unless we start gaining ECM finally to bombers that had it going forward.
If you have any counter thoughts I would like to hear them. But there honestly is no issue with these bombers other than restricting them to air rb, ec and sim as mentioned by making them unavailable like ships are in ground battles or restricting loadouts.
Similarly if the argument is: what about bases being too small for these bombloads.
Answer: scale the hp up as has happened since bases where added as respawnable with around double the damage required for those.
And to reply to your last question. Actual bomber players don’t just fly streight to bases like F-4 phantom players do. And those that sadly do that tire easily for obvious reasons with their lack of research and sl reward for not landing after bombing.
There is alot of skill required in bomber specific gameplay to predict enemy aircraft movements, learn specific climb and avoidance patterns to assist your flight towards the target. And finally a great deal of skill to land and rearm to do more bombing runs without being killed. If you have defensive gunners you learn the very steep experience hill to shoot down enemy fighters or bombers coming after you, and if you are facing enemy jet aircraft with missiles you use maneuvers plus countermeasures if you have them to evade.