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.
They literally do.
Why not fix both problems by moving the B-29 down and adjusting the base HP?
That would only happen in a full downtier for the B-29, meanwhile there are plenty of 6.0 planes that could take the B-29 out instead.
What did I say before? Adding historical ammo belts, historical gunner range, historical tankiness, historical altitude(s), historical targeting systems, and making them face more historical enemies all benefit gameplay.
In short, don’t play War Thunder, play DCS. The “historical enemy” so to speak of the B-29 were the Japanese planes and later the Mig 15. War Thunder cannot be governed by historicity, because if not you would see the first variant of the Sherman against the Tiger 1, or the P400 against the Bf109 K4. And increasing the HP of the bombers? Do you think we are in League of Legends? And don’t you feel sorry for the poor A6M that they get an uptier? How little empathy.
1 Like
I’m talking about the historical enemies of the B-29 being props in the vast majority of scenarios, which in War Thunder translates to putting the B-29 in a position where it only faces jets in a full uptier.
I said base HP, as in how many tons of TNTeq you need to drop in order to destroy it.
Why would the A6M try to go after the B-29? There are plenty of other aircraft at 6.0 that can take it out instead.
They do not. They end up way below the bombers. Any good bomber player will shoot them to pieces.
Hormet and Ki-83 have a chance. Airspawning, twin engined with extremely limit maneuvrability.
But hey, I’m basically only playing Air RB at prop ties in fighters, and I’m pretty damn good at it, what do I know.
3 Likes
I’m a fighter pilot.
Honest question to the bomber pilots…
Why do you not want to man your own guns, and instead want the AI to do it for you?
I would have thought that would be the most fun and engaging part of flying a bomber?
3 Likes