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.
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.
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.
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.
I want bombers to be stronger, but shooting down enemy players should require the bomber player to do SOMETHING instead of flying around with no awareness and letting their gunners do all the work for them, as it was many years ago.
Why?
Making bombers useful shouldn’t be a no-go.
They first saw combat in WWII. There are T-34s in active service in some militaries, should it be 11.7?
Attacking ground targets is your choice.
Arguing for Historical matches but stating that the A6M5 shouldn’t be seeing B-29s just doesn’t make any sense.
B-29 - First flight Sept 42
A6M5 - First Flight June 1943
I make that 9 months with the Zero actually being later of the two. They flew in the same combat theatre and there are documented cases of them encountering each other - surely this is definition of historical matching?
So on one hand there’s an argument against the B-29 not facing jets despite doing exactly that in combat, and the flip side is that late A6Ms shouldn’t either. That doesn’t leave much wiggle room.
…and first combat mid '44. Maiden flights have nothing to do with combat.
My little boy
Use it and find out for yourself
But I’ve already said there are plenty of planes around the B-29’s BR that can take it out. Plus, the A6M5 could still win the match through ticket loss through ground targets.
If the entry to combat is the one and only defining definition then say goodbye to a huge number of vehicles of all types that never saw combat.
Imagine no prototypes, no test vehicles, removal of many post WW2 types, and may as well wave goodbye to Sweden and the former Axis powers.
The only common factor that all vehicles (bar the papers/projects) have is a first flight/running/commission.
Historical matchmaking is a terrible idea. If the B-29 were to be moved down, id argue 6.3 at most. That way it can stil face jets in uptiers, and the props at its BR will be able to reach it. But to argue that the zero should remain 5.3 is absurd
7.0 is where a lot of nations’ jets are, so it should move to 6.0 (like I’ve suggested).
the B-29 should be able to face some weaker jets like the 262, kikka, a21rb, etc. There is no reason for it to be purely facing props
It seems you don’t understand the point of this debate.
You just said an outrage
7.0 would be perfectly fine for it, it would face late-war props and early jets.