Because it’s incorrectly modeled! Take it up with the devs, not me Xd
Ok i see what your saying now. Best thing Gaijin could do is limit it 2 or 3 a match.
If it’s labelled as a bomber, only a total of 4 such class vehicles can be spawned in one battle
1 Like
100%
Air RB is pure team deathmatch where bombers are RP/SL pinjatas and can’t meaningfully contribute to the battle. This has to change
2 Likes
Nah, I like my pinatas. My SAAB-105OE specializes in bombers. It would only exacerbate the bomber issue.
I mean, the ÖE is an attacker which happens to also work in PvP versus other planes
That’s lucky, I guess
This would also give a use for ap anti ship bombs
2 Likes
People still need some way to grind it
And from what ive heared it will have stock unguided bombs
Without any countermesures
At 10.0
Semantics. Replace fight with meet, it doesn’t really matter.
It’s not a black and white, 0 or 1 matter. It’s not the kind of thinking you should adopt. It’s about a healthy ratio of realism and balance.
F-117 at 8.7 is nowhere near the sweet spot.
Yes there are many vehicles in general that shouldn’t be here.
A prime example being modern artillery such as M109 or Vidar. We already have artillery as a call-in strike. They simply don’t fit the game the same way there is no place here for transport or recon planes.
Currently there is really no place for bombers and CAS in air battles either, but the difference is that there should be a place for them.
Right now the game mode accommodates one type of plane. I think making space for 2 more (CAS, bombers) is very much achievable. Recon planes may be hard, they would only make sense in sim maybe. Things like playable AWACS wouldn’t work.
This just further proves that you think in binary and can’t comprehend shades of gray.
Once again, the “most sensible approach” part doesn’t mean that realistic MM is the most sensible approach to MM. It means that service entry is the most sensible approach to realism in the context of MM.
It means that, if I say realistic when talking about MM, I mean similar in terms of service entry. I also added a caveat that it’s different when given planes were widely used in the same conflict.
1 Like
This already happens with trainers/light attack planes
That ship has already sailed
Common sense dictates that 1st gen jets shouldn’t be able to see stealth planes. Pun intended.
1 Like
And I want to it to sail back to port.
That’s changed, 6v6 matches are quite rare at the moment.
I do agree that it won’t be good for American teams.
1 Like
I hate to break the news to you but stealth has been being experimented all the way back to the 40s.
If you’re referring to the Ho-229, then I regret to inform you that’s a myth
That said, I’m not at all invested in this argument, just wanted to counter a common misconception
1 Like
The YB-49
And I like pancakes, but I don’t see how either of these statements contribute anything to the discussion.
1 Like
Stealth was never the intention, it just happened to have a “lower RCS” and not by a meaningful amount I would guess, since the thing is propeller driven
1 Like
Are you guys planning on expanding a bit on how the inner workings of stealth mechanics are gonna be implemented in WT? I’d like to understand if all planes are going to use available RCS analysis, or if you’re going to throw the game’s 3d models on a RCS simulation software to get those values, or if it’s going to be a static value with a bit of vector math, or a simplified 3d mesh like VTOL does… anyhow, a blog post explaining your approach to it, like we had for other mechanics and graphics in the past.
7 Likes
Yeah 100%, it would reassure a lot of critics like me who doubt the accuracy of the F-117’s stealth as modeled on the dev server
1 Like