The new damage model of bombers is too tough

[Morvran]

It should count as severe damage if im not mistaken

[ScimitarsCurse]

@Stockholm_Blend

And every time bomber mains want to have fun in War Thunder, you show up and say, “Don’t bomb and play fighter instead.”

I know right? How dare people play vehicles they want to play.

[Morvran]

no no. Meta vehicles only, everything else should be deleted

[_Zekken]

That sounds like a you problem. Ive landed planes with various parts of both wings missing at the same time.

Heck I even landed this: https://youtu.be/fG0C1z0Iyq8

[poopooo]

I think so. The shame is that he also snapped the wing off my Fw; instead of flying level and making it back to base, my Fw just spiraled down.

[Real_K_Soze]

@Ion_492

Also this change will lead to bombers being some of the best air superiority aircraft and will push them up in BR.

That is already happening - just look at the G8N1 BR development. I recently lost my first B18B in over 100 matches due my own fault - the adaption of contrails to 9,3 km on most maps increased the survivability significantly. As soon as you manage to get to alt undetected just the I-225 and the P-38 K at 5.0 are a serious threat.

When these changes will go live - it is time to give the G8N1 another chance. Not due to a damage model buff - the damage resistance was good - but i hope that they rework the structural integrity.

Why?

I died in 96 matches 22 times - but was actually just 11 times shot down (see detailed analysis in this post). That means i managed to rip my wings 11 times due to the ridiculously low allowed g-loads (2-3g) when i used it in an offensive role. That annoyed me so much that i stopped playing it - i mean when some fighters can exceed neck-braking 12-14 g - and i rip in a gentle turn there is no point in playing this.

Besides that: The G8N1 had at least when i played it a very good damage resistance - so my 11 “non-skill issue” deaths were mainly the result of gunner reloading at most inconvenient times. Imho one of the most difficult opponents to face in a fighter…

[ScimitarsCurse]

We should only be in Turm 3, XM800T and 35mm SPAA for ground, Soyuz for naval and BI for air

[Morvran]

Yeah, some damage models are really forgiving, others are not. And not just aerodynamically.

Something like the Tonka is stupidly fragile. Basically any damage to the fuselage, you loose all power, any damage to the elevators and they stop working.

Meanwhile in other aicraft, both can go black and the aircraft doesnt feel any different.

[CommunistBalls]

@Stockholm_Blend

Nah, it changes something there.
Well, I heard console players are have hard times to aim with turret gunner, unlike PC players.

console players are not the only ones flying bombers, plenty fly other things too. yes, console is inherently disasvantaged because controllers have less precision and functions compared to m+kb but that applies to every aspect of the game rather

@Stockholm_Blend

And every time bomber mains want to have fun in War Thunder, you show up and say, “Don’t bomb and play fighter instead.”

as the game does indeed give you options if one isnt working for you…? and even then this change doesnt fix any of that problem because the gameplay will not meaningfully change for the bomber. yes i go overboard sometimes but im not the one designing the gameplay loop.

@Stockholm_Blend

Also, the current status of the new DM is frustrating.

as in the change they made to “strategic” and “heavy” or whatever they called it?

[Stockholm_Blend]

@John_Do2002

No, I say play air arcade or sim

Well, Last time I tried to play Air Arcade when I was a newbie, air-spawned interceptors flew like shooting stars and instantly vaporised my Wellington. Those arcade horsepowers…
Air Arcade has an annoying ‘Air Domination’ mode, which is even worse than Air RB. (That was a major reason why I quit playing Air Arcade)

@John_Do2002

because ARB is almost strictly a team deathmatch mode, and any bomber who tries to bomb in ARB would surely have enough grey matter to rub together and understand that it’s probably not the best to bomb in a mode where:

1. There is barely anything to bomb other than 4 fixed bases, in the direction where the enemy team is coming right at you
2. The winning condition is heavily skewed towards fighters and killing other players, and that bombing contributes almost nothing other than prolonging the game.

Yes. Playing bombers in Air RB in current situations is might even worse than bombing in fighters’
'At least fighters like F-4S or Milan can dogfight after dropping bombs /j. B-17 cannot.

@John_Do2002

That’s why I dislike the bomber changes

My feelings about this change are mixed. I liked the ‘concept’, but I dislike the current output. They should be more durable than it was, but not like ‘this’.

@John_Do2002

Instead of understanding that bombers fundamentally does not have a place in current ARB and that there should be more modes

Yes. It is quite frustrating that Bombers fundamentally have no roles except ‘match end-denial’ or ‘RP Pinata’, while Fighters have a key role in all three modes of Air. Readjusting the general game mode to make attackers/bombers contribute their way to victory was more urgent than ‘just make them tanky’

@John_Do2002

bomber players instead advocate for their spacebar sim to be stalemate machines of the past, the very reason it was nerfed to this point. People love to say “wow, its great bombers are tough again” without focusing about the again bit.

This is frustrating.

[CommunistBalls]

@poopooo

Honestly, aside from the anecdote about being able to fly without a wing, that kind of damage really ought to count as a kill, even if you manage to make it back to the airfield.

this actually used to be the case but it was exceedingly rare because the threshold for a kill is higher than severe damage. and occasionally you would be so damaged the airfield would simply refuse to repair you

[Cloudzy26160]

I dunno about air, but last time I played ground on dev they just throw all BRs into one match, I was driving a mid BR line up and getting shelled with Kh38MTs… Dunno how they figure you are supposed to actually test things properly like that.

@poopooo

that kind of damage really ought to count as a kill, even if you manage to make it back to the airfield.

I don’t think a kill is appropriate, but it should count as severe damage, you keep the reward from that even if they repair and the kill goes away. They could also add something like “battered” in naval, but I think it would be a bit redundant.

@Morvran

It should count as severe damage if im not mistaken

Severe damage is a bit weird (still), I blew a fair chunk of the wing off a guy the other day, sending him out of control and crashing, it only counted as a crit. I also had a friendly hit an enemy after I had shot a missile at them, turning them into a burning ball of wreckage before my missile hit and I still got full kill credit.

[poopooo]

That is the crux of the problem. Now there are better damage models, but only for bombers. Some planes have accurate flight models while others are pure fantasy; some retain energy correctly, while others don’t. The game is a massive hodgepodge of realism and fantasy that constantly creates unfair and downright absurd situations. This leads to certain planes being assigned ridiculous Battle Ratings (BRs); later, when their issues are fixed, they spend time being vastly superior to their competition while remaining at a very low BR. It is simply a disaster, all thanks to developers who don’t know what they’re doing and only make changes based on whether or not people complain loudly—even when those people are wrong.

[xTHE_BIG_ZAPx]

@CommunistBalls

because it isnt fun? and warthunder is a computer game intended as entertainment? i have preferences too!

But you oppose the new buffs

@CommunistBalls

can we please have an actually meaningful debate instead of you immediately losing your mind when faced with any logical opposition?

You never provided any logic, it was all your opinion. Which if that’s all what you are going to put out there, then be prepared for the push back. Lastly your position is nothing writ large but as a foil. You don’t want bombers buffed, because you are a fighter main and that is your “logic”, period. Also you spammed the topic with only quotes. You provided no proof, no reason, and it was based on your preferences only. You’re a good RB pilot, a KD ratio of 3.26 is almost too good. You talk about skill? Then why are you an advocate for easy kills? You are entitled to your opinion, but we bomber enthusiasts who have been in the wilderness for 3 years with unplayable glass planes, are entitled to ours as well.

[John_Do2002]

@poopooo

Now there are better damage models

Its not even better damage models, it’s just jacking up durability values in existing parts. Bombers, like any other aircraft, are still made up of giant chunks. Your fuselage is like 3 pieces, a hit to the tip of the rudder snaps the whole tail off. The wings are like 2 solid pieces when it should be like idk, 5 at the very least?

Only difference now is that those massive hitboxes don’t register as much damage compared to modules like engines. So on the basic level, models didn’t change. This is a bandaid advertised as “model rework”.

[poopooo]

@Cloudzy26160

I don’t think a kill is appropriate, but it should count as severe damage, you keep the reward from that even if they repair and the kill goes away. They could also add something like “battered” in naval, but I think it would be a bit redundant.

I think “severe damage” should mean losing the engine, sustaining a large hole in the fuselage that significantly reduces mobility and speed, or losing a rudder; however, having a wing snap almost all the way to the root is an extremely severe form of damage—to the point where attempting to land becomes riskier than bailing out. Another idea: they could create an incentive where, if you bail out of a heavily damaged plane, the repair cost is reduced by 15% or something similar.

[poopooo]

Right, I only mentioned the “damage model” to keep things simple. It’s just about giving the modules more health—it certainly doesn’t mean creating distinct zones on the aircraft.

[SinisterIsRandom]

._.
->occured in Florida.

B-17 crew lost lives in Jersey crash

" 1. Tactical Incident Summary

• Date & Time: December 29, 1943 | 23:03 GMT
• Location: Thomas Howe Demonstration Forest (P.G. Tipping Trail), Gander, Newfoundland, Canada
• Aircraft Model: Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (Registration/Serial: 42-97493)
• Operator: United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) / Transport Command
• Flight Phase: Initial Climb / Takeoff Departure (Runway 27)
• Flight Route: Gander, NL (YQX) – Valley, Wales (EGOD)
• Mission Profile: Transatlantic Ferry & Transport Flight
• Occupants: 10 Total (5 Flight Crew, 5 Passengers/Personnel)
• Casualties: 10 Fatalities (0 Survivors)
• Airframe Status: Destroyed (Exploded and burned on impact; wreckage scavenged over time)
• Investigating Agency: USAAF (Report lead: Major Richard Loomis) | Archaeological Survey by Lisa M. Daly (2010)
• Probable Cause: Undetermined loss of control during a steep left bank shortly after takeoff."
  
  
  
  Source: USAAF B-17 42-97493 Crash: The Thomas Howe Demonstration Forest Archaeology Site - BIC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQnj8oY5Li0&themeRefresh=1 ->B-18 Bolo.

I don’t know, bud; I don’t really see anyone surviving a tree when their wrecks look like that.

[GxneralEagle-live]

the way it breaks is annoying and your comparing a wing tip hit vs a full on crash straight into a forest

[Stockholm_Blend]

@CommunistBalls

console players are not the only ones flying bombers, plenty fly other things too. yes, console is inherently disasvantaged because controllers have less precision and functions compared to m+kb but that applies to every aspect of the game rather

Well, about his comments, I meant his comment about ‘I am a console player’ has partial points, since controlling a turret is drastically worse than controlling it with a mouse. So you shouldn’t just dismiss that with ‘doesnt really change anything here’

I understand you both are being a bit emotional, but being a console player affects bomber gameplay, and hypothetically, you cannot tell him ‘Buy Mouse/PC instead’ just like how you usually told to bomber main that ‘play fighter instead’. right…?

@CommunistBalls

as the game does indeed give you options if one isnt working for you…?

Then we should’ve advocated for ‘fix the gameplay to be fair for everyone’ instead of ‘just play fighter’ or ‘just play air sim’ (Of course, playing fighters in Air RB or moving toward Air Sim is one of the only options which bomber mains in Air RB currently have)

@CommunistBalls

and even then this change doesnt fix any of that problem because the gameplay will not meaningfully change for the bomber.

Well, reworks on bomber DM were required, since old DM of bombers are made of crepes. Even less durable than Mille crepes.
But eeeeh, like this? Was this more important than improving the gameplay loop? Probably not.

@CommunistBalls

yes i go overboard sometimes but im not the one designing the gameplay loop.

If I remember correctly, according to our last discussion about bombers a few years ago in the Dev server thread(Which now went into the void), you go overboard more than ‘sometimes’. But fine. :/

@CommunistBalls

as in the change they made to “strategic” and “heavy” or whatever they called it?

Yes. They overkilled it. Just like when they sent F-15A down to 12.7BR, or sent F-86A-5 down to 8.0BR.