Where am I asking for such a thing?
This is pretty much that.
It’s not like you have much of a choice. No amount of gun camera footage beats controlled testing, and in any case the german gun camera archives were bombed in Dresden.
No, I said it was a positive change, but it obviously needs adjusting. My first post in this thread is literally criticising it
You’re only criticising it because it’s applied to some aircraft and not others. And absolutely NOBODY wants invincible Wyverns running around any more than they want invincible TIS MAs, Su-8s, and Tu-1s doing it.
It should be applied across the board to be reasonable in a balancing context. Regarding realism, it needs to be adjusted ofc. I don’t know why you are arguing with me tbh.
You’re making stuff up in order to make it look like I am opposing tweaking the current damage models.
At this point they should just revert it and redo the whole thing from scratch. Preferably without WW2 bombers tanking multiple cold war missiles this time.
Especially since TIS MA is no bomber.
I suppose players, who were promoting this change, had B-17 in mind. And ofc other WW2 heavy bombers.
Instead, things like the TIS MA were included and are the main benefactors. Also Su-8 and some others. Getting spammed out now in ARB and especially GRB.
Just look at the measurements, this prototype project plane ist not bigger than fighters and smaller than most heavy fighters. Irl TIS MA project was also classified as Heavy Escort Fighter. It was supposed to escort bombers beyond common fighter range. How ist it now a “bomber” and got this new damage model slapped on it?
(Also: The project was shelved, since it didn’t work (guns were too big, recoil not managable). Both prototypes were lost as well)
1 Like
Some attackers/lighter aircraft got the new damage model including the A-20s/A-26s, Ki-109, Pe-2s and the PBJ-1s. However, you do have a point about it being quite small (only a bit bigger than a P-38, and smaller than several planes that didn’t get it.
I think it should have the old DM purely for balance reasons.
Personally I’d just scale the strength based roughly on the size weight of the plane, with planes like the B-52s, BV-238, and any large bomber getting the biggest increases, while lighter and smaller aircraft get smaller buffs.
2 Likes
Only real bombers should get it. I guess everyone agrees that it was too easy to shot down a e.g. “Flying Fortress”. B-25 is already borderline now, but at least its a bomber and its bigger than fighter classes. Same for the A-20 types. They also can be abused a bit, like every plane which got direct fire guns and have this new op DM. Remember a match in a B-57, which also got direct fire cal50: I headone’ed 5 enemy planes, cause lol this DM makes you almost indestrucable. Maybe planes with direct fire guns shouldn’t get it alltogether.
But a TIS? Or Su? Theyre probably smaller than a Bf-110. How can they get the bomber damage model? They’re just heavy fighters in my view. And not even the biggest of this kind.
I don’t know what historical footage you’ve been looking at. But i think after that many rounds into a concentrated area at the wing root, the damage to the wing spars alone would be enough to cause the whole wing to be ripped off by aerodynamic forces. No?
As a disclaimer: i don’t advise anyone to attack bombers in this manner. I did it only for the video, at the end you can see a preferred method.
Yeah, “probably”
We can agree to disagree
1 Like
So you think blowing bombers wings away with a couple of 20mm rounds was closer to the ideal?
For me it is like this
(OLD DM) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Ideial DM) - - - - - - - (Current DM)
Overall, a better decision but it went too far in the opposite direction. Also, another problem is the double standard for “bombers” and “not bombers”, where bombers are damage sponges while not bombers are unrealistically fragile for the most part, except for some specific examples
No. The word you used was “reasonable” which it isn’t, even if you phrase it “more reasonable”
This is the way. 100% agree.
Again, agreed. With the addition of fighters perhaps needing a slight buff to their damage models. But very minor.
Edit: and strike aircraft getting a slightly bigger buff, but nothing crazy
And by saying that gaijin needs to make the DM have the same standard across the board, I mean that, for example:
A similar sized spar made from the similar materials needs to have the same resistance to damage regardless of whether it is mounted on a bomber or a fighter
I think every single plane should get the damage models but the HP per component should be directly tied to either wingspan or base weight. It’s nuts seeing the Bf110 bigger than a TIS-MA fall apart in pieces while the TIS eats 7 40mm shells and flies home. Sure a few aircraft like the F-104 would suffer if it was tied to wingspan but still. It’s better than “bombers got the buff” without any clear explainatipn of what is counted as a bomber. Su-8 certainly has no roots to a bomber while half the SAAB 18 still fall apart easily. No double standards. Give everything the damage model but tie the HP directly to wingspan or base weight
@PercussionCap this is my full take on the matter
2 Likes
by far one of the least thought out changes I’ve seen in a while, I really don’t know how someone can convince themselves this is realistic, even for 4 engine bombers they absolutely cannot just soak up the damage they currently do without literally falling apart
1 Like
I mean to a certain extent. Fire damage is too low. And I can almost understand giving a B-29 or BV238 so much survivability as they’re the size of an apartment building, but a wooden Tu-1 burning for ≈6 minutes is uhhh… questionable. This comes as an avid Tu-1 fan btw
they’re not made from concrete and rebar, they’re more fragile than modern jet bombers, should they be more survivable then before, yes, should the bv238/tu4/b29 be able to eat a salvo of 8 45mm anywhere without coming apart, no.
and I didn’t mention them eating bomber killer designed aim54
I said “almost understand it for [larger bombers]” for a reason. Keyword here is “Almost.” Tie the HP to an equation like weight times material base HP or something.
that really doesn’t make sense though, it really should be vehicle specific as the construction method would have more effect than raw wing area
I understand this is wishful thinking and gaijin is supremely lazy
Preference towards base weight then wingspan.
take the base weight, apply a material multiplier(wood is 1.3, aluminum is 2.0, whatever), then find what each components exact percentage of the plane is and from the HP total give it what it’s worth. Idk how HP works in DM’s tho. 60 HP could be godlike or paper airplane level I have no idea. The principal still stands tho