The TIS-MA didnt deserve the new bomber damage model.
This plane is equipped with 2 bomb hardpoints, 2 45mm APHE autocannons, has fairly good maneuverability and speed. And all of this at 4.7.
TIS-MA is literally a better CAS plane for its BR than pretty much most if not all CAS in the game.
Now, with it receiving the bomber damage model, its a nightmare to fight in both air and especially ground battles.
SPAA has a very hard time shooting it down and other ground vehicles straight up just cant defend from it at all.
TIS-MA was oppressive before already, now its straight up overpowered.
And before anyone yaps “oooohhh its based on a bomber oooohhh its supposed to have a bomber damage model oooohhh!”, shush. The new damage model is not realistic in the slightest anyway. Its literally a balancing tool. TIS-MA can and should realistically have its bomber damage model removed.
The bombers’ damage model update is realistic. If you could share how many bombers where shot down in the air in comparison to those that was forced into a emergency landing you could start a reasonable argument instead of something based on whataboutism; TIS-MA, Tu-1, Tu-2, Pe-2 and whatever based on a esque Peshka are dedicated bombers.
In case of the TIS-MA as it’s based on a improved Pe-2 but reporpused to a heavy fighter, that’s up to Gaijin to label it as a bomber, fighter, or a strike airplane as it’s right now. I doubt that will change. In contrast Tu-1, which is the closest similar vehicle to the TIS-MA in-game should be somewhat in the middle as well but it’s labeled as a strike airplane. A handful, not most, vehicles have unrealistic labels.
The TIS-MA is literally an attacker. It can only carry 2x 500 KG bombs and is armed with 2x 45mm autocannons that can shoot AP and APHE.
Its literally an attacker. By all metrics.
Also no, the current bomber damage model is NOT realistic. Have you even seen what the current bombers can survive? Have you played the game after the update?
Also about your argument about irl statistics: I am 100% sure actual WW2 pilots had neither a reticle to show them where their guns are aiming, nor 3rd person view, nor the same indifference about fuel and ammo.
They should definetly deactivate the new damage model in ground battle modes. SPAA vehicles can’t defend themselves against these new class of planes. One TIS MA can tank and dismantle severy SPAA tanks a row.
Its also not as easy to hit planes with ground units. If you manage to hit a plane with your 30mm SPAA, it should better matter.
If it’s an attacker, I’m not aware of, and labels in War Thunder for a handful of vehicles are not accurate. Give sources. New bombers damage model may not be realistic but it’s something to make the class of underplayed vehicles somewhat more interesting or at least worth the time to wait until bases respawn again.
I don’t like that War Thunder is heading to a selective realism, semi-realistic, sim-cade environment instead of pivoting in one way or to the other. Gunner didn’t had third person view in real life but what this has to do with the matter of bombers being more survivable in the game? Never mentioned the issue being the parallax between the camera and the guns. On the development stream they showcased and mentioned that bombers now require precise shots on specific spots to successfully destroy and take it down.
You’re not expected to shoot something and it goes down like a ball of fire, like in naval battles and ground battles you’re expected to know where you are shooting. Air battles, in my perspective isn’t known for thinking where you should shoot, this change makes a class of vehicles more fun to play because you, as the pilot, has time to pilot a huge plane, and as a interceptor you’ll have to know how to place your shots, just like real life pilots, they didn’t mindlessly shoot at whatever with wings and it exploded into pieces and done.
I am not going to read all that. You just want to justify the TIS-MA being an overpowered bias machine.
Edit: i read all that. But you still want to justify the TIS-MA being an overpowered bias machine.
Okay but the TIS-MA is NOT A BOMBER. It was already EXTREMELY oppressive in ground and in air battles. Now its straight up overpowered.
I dont know man, you tell me. You used real life stats to justify the new bomber damage model.
With the new model, the window to actually shoot the bombers is extremely small, as their gunners will just shred you if you take just a second too long yellowing one of their 4 engines.
This should not apply to the most oppressive ground attack planes like the TIS-MA.
Did the Tu-1 get the new damage model? If not how could this be explained from a realism point of view? Anyway it’s ridiculous that classification and not physical structure is a defining factor here.
Boy oh boy, I enjoyed fighting TIS MAs with current survivability changes (/s)
Has been spading the new Ki-93, the thing took my 57mm HEF like a champ – not like it’s a unique problem of TIS MA, but bombers and alikes in general right now (I have Tu-1 – haven’t yet used it but gotta try it)
Reality is, even before all TIS MA user had to do, was get the fighter inside its rear gunner’s firing arcs, as Soviet 12.7mm is absolutely devastating and has insane range.
Now TIS MA is simply dominating the game. Hardly surprising, though, as it’s both Soviet and premium.
Also I highly disagree with the OP, there should be zero selective realism. I don’t care if it is OP every single vehicle with a bomber airframe should get the buff
damage models aren’t something that you get to pick and choose. That’s like deciding a tank should lose 100mm of armor because you don’t like it. Use the actual balancing methods provided in game — BR. Move the TIS-MA to 5.3 and Tu-1 to 5.7, then call it a day.
TIS was a new design from Polikarpov, it isn’t based on the Pe-2. You could maybe argue it is based on the previous Polikarpov design, the VIT (or at the very least incorporates things from it), but that still isn’t a bomber.
I shot a TIS MA to the face on Sands Of Sinai the other day while playing the Panther F, and I only got a “hit”. This was a head on shot at a relatively short distance with a 75mm APHE. I somehow doubt the TIS MA is supposed to have 180mm+ of effective frontal protection.
