Yes.
A bonus for killing enemy fighters within 2km (ish) of a friendly bomber.
And make it good so fighters want to escort.
1 Like
Tu-4 best air superiority fighter, go afk and kill half the enemy team. Botters rejoice!
2 Likes
Yeah I remember the bad old days where AI gunners would open up at 900m and smash your engine and set you on fire.
I’d rather bombers got a damage model buff, but the gunners got left alone.
Players should need skill to get kills, not sit back drinking beer while the AI gunners keep you safe.
6 Likes
900m is being generous, they could do it a lot further if you were unlucky.
Anytime someone wants gunners to get buffed that’s my exact thought. Everyone else has to manually aim their guns to get a kill of any kind, but bomber players want to just go afk or play with one hand with zero situational awareness and get rewarded for it?
Maybe, at most, implement what someone else suggested above where you have to assign one target at a time for your gunners to shoot at.
Bomber damage model buff 100%, they need a lot more damageable sections and more section health here and there.
1 Like
Exactly, plus even with M/KB you can’t control flying well (you’re stuck with max pitch, roll, yaw controls).
They had a similar amount of inaccuracy as a fighter, with mouse aim both fighters and bombers should be equally accurate.
I’ve looked back at people’s gameplay from when AI gunners were actually useful and it was not bad at all. If anything, it was just balanced. AI gunners could still only shoot at one target at a time, bomber pilots could actually focus on flying and bombing, and fighters had to actually try and dodge rather than just point their nose at a bomber for a second or two.
1 Like
One of the few reasons to help bombers in this game is to add more lower tier vehicles.
Because this will make sure there are more br decompressions around these br’s, making bombers more viable.
I made a poll on it too.
1 Like
Bombers are, garbage, except in one thing, simulator, so, there’s that I guess, the Su-24 coming will practically be a bomber, but it has LGB’s and LDR’s like the Kh-29’s. So, I mean, bombers can be good, it’s just, you got play them strategically.
Like when I have burnout from fighters, either being too efficient (just making everyone look like their KDR is a dumpster fire) or not efficient (My KDR looks like a dumpster fire), I greatly enjoy switching to the B-17E, Me-264, and other bombers.
Considering we now have, massive radar emplacements in some air RB maps, maybe we see the rise of HARM’s or any anti-rad missiles:
Trying to dodge incoming fire with mouse/pointer aim whilst using your turrets manually is rather useless - as auto-pilot off in gunner mode.
You need to switch from mouse/pointer aim to Simplified Flight Controls - then u can still use your turrets with your mouse whilst you are able to dodge incoming fire properly.
and gaijin would here and there randomly make AI crash themself, making players lose SL for nothing (not to forget they already shit themself after taking most minor damage)
the only real solution, that would not only help bombers but also fighters and strike aircraft is the re-introduction of RB EC and maybe even removal of ARB as we know it
1 Like
So you only want the historical enemy that suits you, right?
The B-29 can destroy most if not all of the bases in the game.
I’m just giving you an example. You want to make a crazy change without thinking about the negative consequences that would bring. Something very selfish in my opinion.
1 Like
The bomber problem is difficult to solve without breaking the game or redesigning air battles. I agree with some of the comments I’ve read from other users before, such as putting more modules on the bombers. This done in a logical way could balance the scales more, but it’s also true that any player with a minimum of experience using gunners will know how to defend themselves well with them. The complaint is that many “interceptor” planes, called because their function is to intercept bombers, destroy them easily. But what they don’t understand is that any other fighter plane can be easily shot down by gunners, since either they don’t have good performance at altitude, or they don’t have good weapons or armor, so in most cases two things happen:
1- You shoot them down
2- They don’t go after you because they know they can’t and that you have the advantage
2 Likes
Historical enemies as so far as it improves gameplay, where the historical enemies (props) also improve gameplay. Exact historical enemies (MiG-15, for example) do not improve gameplay, they make it worse. There are some countries that still use T-34s, and the US currently fields the Abrams, should these be the same BR even though they historically could (and I’m pretty sure did) fight against one another?
And that is why I said the B-29 should be lowered in BR and the base HP adjusted.
I have thought about the consequences, and since there are plenty of other aircraft that could take out the B-29 outside of the A6M, moving the B-29 down is fine.
The above two statements are false.
2 Likes
7.0 is enough
You can already destroy almost all the bases, what else do you want me to do?
Lowering it to 7.0 is more than enough
If for you they are false, then the problem is not with the bomber, it is with the skill issue.
1 Like
And by that you actually mean they could afk for half the match and get rewarded for it
3 Likes
7.0 is the same BR of the first jets, that isn’t going to make the B-29 face mostly props.
Gaijin can just adjust the amount of TNTeq needed to destroy a base for the prop BRs (as most bombers’ BRs should be dropping in addition to the B-29).
It is not, 7.0 is a jet BR.
I’m sure that even if I did have a skill issue, I would have seen at least one bomber player capable of effectively defending themselves in their current implementation.
I stand by my opinions.
You should NEVER have the chance of seeing a B-29A in an A6M5.
They only benefit base trucking. It makes them much more difficult to deal with than they already are. I hate having to go shoot down some dumb bomber at the end of a 5.3 air game, and making that harder is an absolute no-go.
Korean war:
Imagine being one of two or three left on your team, and the other two are bombers hovering in the stratosphere. You dont have a choice.
3 Likes
I could swear, back in the day, we had maps with destroyable bridges and stuff. While the impact may have been minimal, it still felt far more dynamic than the whole clustering of everything in the middle of the map.
I also recall there being a map where there was like, a forward airfield in the middle of some sort of city. Like between tall buildings.
4 Likes
Agreed.
I disagree. Assuming that fire control systems were modeled on everything and not just bombers, it could make the engagements with bombers far snappier, and give the average joe playing a bomber a decent chance. This would also encourage fighters to get into position to attack bombers, rather then just tail sitting and dying. However before this happens bomber gunners in sim would need a rework
B-36.exe has joined the fight. The B-29 and MiG 15 fought because the air force refused to send better, faster, higher flying bombers to korea. So to talk about the B-29 facing props in most scenarios is valid.
This is an incredibly specfic scenario that will not happen 99% of the time. But the A6M should be moved down.
1 Like
i think it is interesting how clearly you can see in this dicussion who is a seasoned bomber-player and who is fighter mafia advocate. And also how there are like 7 main arguments in total which get thrown around without making any new points really. And also, unless gaijin does something to the gameplay, arguing like this will not do anything. Since the two main perspectives “I want bombers to be weaker cause they are to OP now” and “I want bombers to be stronger becasue they are to weak now” are opposite to eachother meaning you CAN’T have any compromise. Of coure unless the fighter mafia changes their mind.
4 Likes