The bomber problem and airfield AAA

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

Anyone who plays low to mid tier ARB knows that there is a problem with both bombers and airfield camping. I’ve thought that there was a straightforward solution to this problem for a while, but haven’t seen anyone talk about it, so here’s what I’ve got.

People’s main complains about bombers is that they are:

  • Useless, because bombing bases doesn’t affect the game at all
  • Drag games out, because they camp airfield with AAA after they make it back to base
  • Frustrating to play, because they are not survivable, both structurally and armament-wise

It seems like the usefulness and base camping problems can be solved with one sweeping change to the AI ground units that would make the combat on the ground actually matter. Bases should be directly linked to the performance of AI units. Each group of AI attackers or defenders should be linked to a base/command post. If their command post is destroyed, those AI units should lose effectiveness and eventually be destroyed if they are not supported by players. This would be important, because AI artillery should begin to fire upon the enemy airfield and eventually destroy it (or destroy the AAA at least) after they advance enough on the battlefield. Airfield AAA should also be nerfed slightly. In a certain altitude range, say 0-100 meters, the guns should not be able to effectively engage an aircraft flying above a certain airspeed. This does two things:

  • provides an incentive to attack enemy AI units and protect your own (making attacker and frontline bomber aircrafts have a purpose)
  • places a limit of the usefulness of airfield AAA and gives skilled players that can handle their aircraft at high speed and low altitudes a method to attack base campers

Everyone can agree that base camping is an annoying strategy that drags out games that are already lost. Bombers, especially those at lower tiers, play a HUGE part in this problem, because below 4.0br, a bomber can reliably make it back to base if he uses his altitude and speed correctly. If his team has disintegrated by that point, the bomber will just camp and drag out the game because attempting to sneak out and bomb another base would be suicide. By adding this feature, a team that has dominant control of the air can help their AI units advance and attack the enemy airfield, effectively placing a time limit of how long the enemy can camp before he no longer has protection.

The other problems with bombers can be fixed by improving the structural strength of the aircrafts and setting AI gunner engagement range to about 800 meters. I think the durability changes are far more important than the gunner changes though. It is my personal belief that bomber pilots should be alert and aware enough to engage targets manually with their gunners. Being reliant on AI aiming the guns for you is stupid and skill-less. I think having the AI engagement range below 1 km is very important and would somewhat prevent planes like the Tu-4 from becoming untouchable aerial fortresses with AI aim. If a player wants to engage a target beyond 1 km, or just aim their guns better, they should do so manually.

One problem with my proposed changes is aircraft like the B-29 that have a built-in remote fire control system for their defensive armament. Because of the arcade-like control of aircraft in war thunder, fire control systems like these can be very difficult to incorporate without making them either completely useless or obscenely overpowered. I think a middle ground solution would be to slightly increase the accuracy of the AI gunners, and to provide a somewhat accurate lead estimate for a selected aircraft when firing the guns manually. This would make planes with fire control systems slightly more dangerous to engage, but it would still require some skill on the pilot’s end to figure out just how accurate the lead estimate is and adjust accordingly.

Some people say that airfield AAA in general is the problem, and that it should done away with. I don’t think it should be removed entirely, as having some form of protection while repairing is very nice, and it makes destroying the airfield with a bomber once all of the bases are gone an actual challenge. I’ve also heard some people claim that removing bombers entirely is a good idea, and I don’t agree with this either. There are truly some unique and downright legendary bombers out there that are amazing to see in-game. The problem is how they are currently incorporated, not that they exist. ARB definitely needs some changes to make bombers more useful and fun to play, and I think this goes hand-in-hand with base camping. What are your thoughts?

1 Like
2

You missed one key point - the Fighter Deathmatch objective renders all others irrelevant. There is no incentive to improve anything about Attacker or Bomber functionality so long as neither are needed to win games.

Only by removing the ability to end matches by deathmatch is there any hope of improvement.

3 Likes
3

Problems like these require a “simple” solution: air battles enduring confrontation. Despite air simulator battles being just a enduring confrontation mode, simulator mode itself doesn’t have good looks at some people’s eyes, in this mode were actually destroying enemy’s airfield is required for winning the game (and ticket draining as well, but it takes so long) could be possible the most pleasant way to solve the issue with bombers and air battles as a whole.

As much I don’t like Liniyka’s opinion, his video regarding World War Two content in War Thunder specially in the air battles segment talks about why bombers is completely disposal and optional when comes to air battles matches, maps having no objectives being restricted to aerial encounters only, which is what we’re today, not only in lower tiers but high tiers as well:

1 Like
4

You can instantly improve bomber satisfaction by removing the respawning base system and go back to the 3 base > airfield system. Even if bomber models and gunners absolutely suck, it actually incentivizes some against-the-grain playstyle by allowing for actual bomber escorts to take place since they have a chance of winning the game for you. Objective-based wins should always be the main way to win a game, not just TDM.

7 Likes
5

Leaving the current mode out to rot isn’t a good idea.

I would support EC provided it completely and permanently replaces the existing mode.

Otherwise though, the existing mode can in fact be overhauled to make things fit in a lot better.

We need only a single good aircraft mode, not a bunch of splintered pieces because certain fighter mains cannot comprehend being placed on an equal level with nonfighters.

3 Likes
6

The enduring confrontation should be considered as a evolution rather than a competition, I’m not a air battles player, I personally don’t like it and at the same time I have terrible performance, that’s why I prefer simulator battles, when I want or need to play air battles, because it gives me the option to play in a non-engaging position, what I mean is completely evading player versus player encounters and focus on ground strikes which actually have some position in simulator battles, it’s not completely based on team deathmatch; reads: I can help the team by not engaging in air-to-air encounters.

3 Likes
7

I fully agree.

Maybe the playerbase has changed too much but i remember a lot more teamwork and planning being done when teams had 3-4 bombers that had the ability to win the match if protected.

2 Likes
8

I remember playing the past iterations of EC when it was “tested” for Air RB. Lord were those days fun back when EC had the oldschool Air AI ground units and not the 360noscopeWTF convoy AI.

I feel like Air RB EC should have either the oldschool ground units or a mishmash of both oldschool and player tank ones. Because relying just on player tank unit models means the majority of attackers and bombers hardly matter due to all the ordinance nerfs to service the folk whining about CAS. All those same weapon nerfs apply to Air modes too.

9

From my pov it looks like that you mix up these 2 issues as af aaa camping is usually a fighter thing and bomber survival rates are further decreasing thx to air spawns for fighters on all 3 bases maps since a few days.

  1. There is no problem with af camping by bombers - and bombers are intentionally nerfed by gaijin.

  2. If you see a B-25 circling his airfield - no problem, with smart game play you can maximize your SL/RP rewards without any risk.

  3. You have a problem if the (last) enemy player uses a Yak-3 or Ki-44 as af aaa allows a complete reset of the fight and these fighters have the performance to out-energy a lot of opponents.

  4. Every half-most decent player goes for bombers last as they are no threat regarding the outcome of the match. Smart players keep even one enemy bomber alive and farm enemy ai planes or ground units in a premium aircraft supported by anti-mech / -air orders.

  5. With a booster and an anti-air order in a premium plane you get insane amounts of SL for killing a few bots. And: The longer the game lasts, the more RP you gain.

  6. There was recently a suggestion regarding ai gunner engagement ranges forwarded to the devs - let’s see what happens.

Correct - and as a side effect no decent pilot has an incentive to play a bomber in its intended role as there is literally no point to do this due to the missing game impact.

I exclude the few experts able to use bombers in a PvP role from that - you see every 50-80 matches guys in stuff like the Ki-67 racking up 5 air kills thanks to excellent gunner skills and outstanding pilot skills, but it is very rare to see that.

It is way more common to see Pe-8s at 4.3 killing 2-4 fighter rookies as their two 20 mm ShVak turrets have an insane range and damage output.

2 Likes
10

One complaint about airfield camping is that it does sometimes swing battles; if too many people take the bait, a single outnumber fighter might suddenly stand a chance. My proposed change would add something that could fix that issue and add importance to the ground units. The eventual destruction of airfield AAA would prevent camping and baiting. I’ve seen multiple bombers bait fighters that think they have an easy kill into the airfield AAA circle and win the game. If playing an attacker and destroying ground units so you can more effectively destroy the enemy airfield would help you win the game, attackers aren’t pointless. That “anything that isn’t a fighter is pointless” mindset is the reason why there is no coordination or teamwork between people playing different aircraft types.

11

you could also check this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r__qiScD3c&list=WL&index=1 its so sad the situation bombers are in :p

and i wont be surprised if gaijin in the future says “Well since you guys didn’t liked the last bomber we released we wont release more bombers!” instead of addressing the fact that people dont like bombers because they have no place and it doesnt reward you

1 Like
12

hell yeah i remember those times, 2017, playing with Me 264 and flying near friendly bombers to destroy the enemy airfield. Actual teamwork and communication

2 Likes
13

So you think that plain stupid behaviour of fighters (like here getting killed by af aaa) is a problem? You can’t be serious…

It is not even a matter of taking “the bait” - certain aircraft can simply equalize energy disadvantages extremely fast - and most of the guys camping the camper are min fuel spammers and have to refuel…

Numbers play no decisive role if your aircraft is way better and/or you know what you are doing.

There is no coordination or teamwork because each of the 32 players in a standard lobby has different goals when playing wt in general - and thx to daily, special and BP tasks/challenges there are a lot different goals for specific matches.

I don’t agree that “anything that isn’t a fighter is pointless” is true. My most played aircraft are bombers and strike fighters - up to BR 4.3/4.7 they are quite good if you chose the right model & right strategy.

Use forum search for af aaa…Have a good one!

1 Like
14

Remember these times too - and asking 264s for permission to kill a base with the 190 F-8 (before the TNT nerf of the SC 1.000).

15

Only hundreds of discussions in this forum…

Most of these adressed problems could be solved or become better by adjusting the reward and ticket system in a way bombers become more valuable. At the same time the matchmaker should be adjusted, so both teams have equal preconditions.

As harsh as it may sound, loosing against a camping bomber player is pure skill issue. If he has a massive ticket advantage so you aren’t able to equal, your whole team did many mistakes early game. But this is very rare.

Additionally, as long as the majority of bomber players give a s*** of teamplay and tactic, I will give a s*** of them.

1 Like