You point your mouse in any direction and let the instructor do the rest. Ships don’t have an instructor, and unlike aircraft they don’t have to watch out for islands.
Meanwhile fighters will have to plan their moves further ahead because tailsitting a bomber WILL get them killed, regardless of how much the bomber mains in this thread are pretending otherwise.
So they have to use their better speed to plan an attack from a favorable direction, use their knowledge of individual bomber turret coverage to pick an approach (some bombers have very good nose/belly turrets), and then they get ONE PASS.
All while the bomber player can just perpetually turn away and force them into a tailsitting position if that fighter has no teammates to come in from a different angle, at which point the only option is to spend a significant amount of a match’s time climbing above that bomber for an attack from straight up - as an attack from the bottom can be countered by that bomber player simply reducing his altitude to get the fighter stuck between their gunners and the ground.
Well, I mostly play Air RB, I only played arcade recently to see how well Wyvern performs in it (not great :D), but that’s it.
My bomber issues happen in Air RB
It’s overestimated. The B-29 has a mediocre firepower compared to any fighter at its level. Its belly defense consists of just 4 x 12.7 mm, but due to its disastrous convergence, only 2 x 12.7mm will reliably hit the enemy (that’s like 2.0 br average firepower) In contrast, the G8N1 sits at 6.0 BR with its powerful 4 x 20 mm cannons, capable of downing a plane with just 1-2 hits, while the B-29’s 12.7 mm require up to 10 hits to achieve the same. If the G8N1 doesn’t cause any controversy with its superior armament in props br, why would the B-29?
Faster and heavily armed opponents. What the hell can 2x12.7 mm turrets do against a 4 x 30mm MK 108 beast coming straight at you from below at 700 km/h?
And follow an incredibly predictable flight path that makes you an even easier target?
Neither do ground vehicles. Aerial combat has an extra dimension of complexity.
This is just false. Tailsitting on bombers is one of the literal safest 1-on-1 combat scenarios you can be in currently.
Fighters can attack from literally any direction with impunity.
The vast majority of bombers have a massive firepower disadvantage compared to fighters at their BR.
They get as many passes as they want. What fantasy matches are you playing?
While being slower than the fighters?
Which again is one of the most advantageous positions to be in.
Or ground pounding, which is much quicker.
An attack from the bottom ends with the fighter gunning the bomber down easily, due to the massive firepower disadvantage bombers have and due to AI gunners not doing anything at all.
Exactly.
Highly doubt that.
Since when do bombers ever reach their top speeds anyways, since they have to spend the entire match climbing just to die to a fighter they had no chance of defeating?
Compared to the heavier bombers, yes, but not in comparison to the lighter/medium bombers around the BR.
You know what the issue with convergence is, right? The farther apart the turrets are, the worse the degree of divergence in trajectories. The B-29 is longer than the G8N1.
I’m not sure if it’s actually faster in practice (reaching 9,500 m with a B-29 is still quite a challenge after all). But the G8N1 definitely climbs better and is more maneuverable. If anything really matters for survival, it’s the ability to perform evasive maneuvers. That’s why an M.B.162 is stronger than a Pe-2.
Also, the G8N1 can do something that only airplanes with revolving cannons can: take down an B&Z interceptor before it gets close (If you didn’t know, B&Z tactics counters bombers). The B-29 can only has a chance if the engagement drags out into a low energy persuit ,that any enemy with brain cells tends to avoid doing.
With a low closure rate, being a stationary target, and putting yourself in view of the most amount of defensive turrets? Again, delusional.
Damn its almost as if you could just control them manually like every other vehicle in the game, aside from ships which have TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF GUNS.
The B-29 has two belly turrets, two dorsal turrets, and a tail gunner position.
The G8N only has one turret on belly/dorsal positions, alongside a tail gunner and a nose turret. The B-29’s turrets offer much better coverage as they’re closer together and any turrets on top/bottom (4/5 defensive positions) can shoot in a 360deg arc. On the G8N, only 2/4 can do the same.
…which the G8N is not. It’s as slow and big as a heavy bomber.
I doubt dropping from 9100m to 7600m would cost it 120kph in top speed (640 to 520). And the G8N has a much lower G limit, +2.8; B-29 can do up to +4.3.
Sure, the guns are better, but it has much less of them with worse coverage.
So what? The B-29’s turrets are just simple and useless machine guns. Sure, they might have twice as many barrels as the G8N1, but you also need ten times more hits to bring down a plane. Just watch how long it takes to kill a fighter with this gun:
And given that between the lower-aft turret and the lower-forward turret of the B-29, there is about 22 meters of separation.It is practically impossible for a B-29 hit a target approaching from the 9 or 3 o’clock positions unless the target passes through the convergence point, which is fixed at 250 meters. Can you imagine the trajectory divergence when the mounts are separated by what amounts to two wingspans of a P-51, with the line of sight being exactly in the middle?
I mean, there’s a reason why the B-29 had a ballistic and gun harmonization computer, and why it was considered the principal feature of its gunnery (which the game stupidly forgot to include)
