You can’t outclimb it 2 minutes into the game. You can point your nose up and get hosed down by a rain of 20mm, and then die to enemy fighters if you somehow survive.
2 Likes
Depending on the plane you’re using, and the bomber you are facing, you can do it before the bombers turn back. Something like the Bf-109 K-4 or Ta-152s can get to bomber altitude somewhat quickly, and easily kill bombers.
Personally, the only change I’d make to bombers is making the AI a bit better, and not balancing them based on payload. Moving certain ones down in BR can also be done.
K4 and Ta-152H both will get roflstomped by any G8/Tu-4/B-29 user that has 1 working hand and 2 braincells, unless they climb way over it, which will take AGES.
Ta-152C3 has a chance but not by trying to attack from below.
If he does so, he’s wasting away his main advantage vs fighters - airspawn because P-51H will eventually catch up.
I think for bombers to be viable, Air RB would have to be completely redesigned. I’d love to see this, don’t get me wrong.
2 Likes
No, mate, 4000 meters of altitude at the start of the game is more than enough. And that “I am in favor of realism only when it is beneficial” is the most hypocritical thing I have heard in a long time. If you want realism because it brings good things, accept its bad things too, don’t accept it only when it suits you.
1 Like
Also, historically, bombers always flew in formation and, if possible, with escort, as they were very vulnerable targets. In War Thunder, if you go alone, what happens is what has to happen: a plane designed to go after you will shoot you down, although if you have hands you can defend yourself well.
2 Likes
My idea could also resolve this for realistic players…
No, you can be over it within a few minutes and all you have to do is nose down once or twice.
It’s not when fighters outclimb it even with the 4000m initial height.
Realism should be added when it makes the gameplay better, I’m not sure what’s hypocritical about that.
1 Like
b-29’s should still be brought down to 6.0 to avoid cold war jets 9while it is somewhat realistic its still unfair that a b-29 get a max uptier and have to face missiles.
2 Likes
They don’t outclimb the bombers.
In airspawning Fw 190 F8 I only score kills if bomber user refuses to climb. If they do climb and go a bit to the side - they can hose me down just fine.
1 Like
The B-29 at 7.0 would be fine. Bombers swing more because of the bomb load they carry. A B-29 can destroy all 3 bases by itself.
often they cant even get to a base without being shot down by jets at 7.0, and I know that from experience.
2 Likes
Just no
This is not what you said before. If you want to add realism to benefit gameplay, you are bound to ruin the gameplay of something else. You would have to restructure the entire RB. Just imagine a poor A6M fighting a B-29, it would never shoot it down. It is true that bombers are fragile, but if you introduce “realism” you turn bombers into the most op thing in the game, more than half of the planes that are already in their tier, and even worse, those that would be in their tier if they were put in 6.0 as you want, would not be able to do anything to them.
1 Like
agreed, but the b-29 should still not be fighting jets other than the ME-262 (cause that’s historically accurate in regards to the time period). besides, the zero is at like 3.0-4.0, I’m pretty sure, and the b-29 would just need to be put low enough to not face most jet fighters.
The B-29 did not fight in Europe. And if they put the B-29 in 6.0 it could be up against the A6Ms of 5.0 and 5.3.
1 Like
I know that I said in regards to the time period, not theater, and the b-29 gets uptiered more than downtiered
1 Like
That happens with all vehicles.
1 Like
unfortunately yea
The problem with using time frames as a BR measure is that it can be argued it completely voids the notion of the B-29s going down.
The ugly truth is it not only would have faced WW2 opponents such as the Me262 and fighter variants of the Kikka if conflict hadn’t ended, but it also served long enough to go uo against Mig-15s in Korea. Is this to be completely ignored despite being historical fact? What was powerful in 1944 was obsolete the moment n Dec 47 that the prototype Mig flew. Additionally the RAF Washingtons that arrived in 1950 would certainly have gone up against the latest Russian had the cold war gone hot.
So if time frames are used to limit opponents and remove OP opposition they would have to be very restrictive and fluid - months, years, entire decades for modern types that take years to get to service… But that brings in other issues as a lot of vehicles throughout the game (eg armed trainers, swathes of naval, ground support and light armour) would also lose their artificially low BRs.
Imobombers are too problematic for a one stop fix. Treating them individually for balance purposes is far more likely to get results than simple period matches.
yes that’s why we started strapping jet engines to bombers.