In my view, both the B-52H and the Tu-95M could be better in a 7.3 or 7.7 br that would make them more balanced in their current configurations. It may seem absurd at first glance, but I think a 7.3 or 7.7 might be more suitable for them. I take into account that in real life, they depend on escort (which is difficult within the game) and also the anti-aircraft guns they can face in the 7.3 and 7.7 engines, which are consistent with those they faced in real life. For example, ZSU and BTR-ZD, in addition to others that are also from the 50s and 60s. (of course, I’m referring to land battles, I don’t know if this in aerial mode could have a different dynamic).
I think if we get a selectable spawn altitude to be stratospheric at the start, and give a proper radar guiding system for the B-52 an Tu-95 reag gunner, it would be already much suitable for this BR. And if they later add the ECM, it would be I think even pretty good.
Spawn both at max altitude and max speed will fix the issue. Currently both planes are spawning at a really low altitude making it a extremely easy target.
2 Likes
Well the TU-95M needs to go to 8.0 or get a payload buff, even a fake small yield nuclear warhead (200,000) base damage would be perfect.
Because as it stands the B-52 has about 2.38x~ the amount of payload… which in grb and sim can have a drastic impact.
Perhaps they could lock it so that bomb couldn’t be used in Ground battles to balance it.
lol the TU-4 is at 8.0 (what a joke), gaijin doesn’t care about bombers if they did they would had moved all B29s in 7.3 r and model in all bombers that had it ( B-29s + almost all after ww2) the aim assist for the gunners, and move the TU-95 at 8.0 the B-52 at 8.3 and the other jet bombers at 9.0 get a reduction on their br, but only if they cared (that they, dont i had a game with only 2 bases what does bombers supose to do then? )
I agree the bombers are hated… but, the B-52 is better in almost every way over the Tu-95M…
So making them only one br gap doesn’t make sense.
Read this:
1 Like
No it isn’t, I explained this to you before
This is your opinion.
Factually the B-52 is better in every way.
How are you trying to debate a fact?
Probably B-52H is better than Tu-95 in PAPER STATS
Still, I told you countless times that it is invalid on the current meta
But you are just obsessed with ‘buff tu-95 only because errrrrr anyway they have bigger payloads and somethin’
1 Like
Because you continue to thing it’s null and void that a bigger payload matters, that’s on you.
I’ve explained it time and time again.
Acceleration & speed is better on the B-52
Payload, and individual drops is better on the B-52
It has a radar
It has an airbrake.
It has 2.38~ times the payload of the TU-95M. Enough to take out an entire runway while missing several bombs. (Meaning 3 runs and the enemy team cannot respawn).
Meaning in game modes like sim, they’re overpowered by a long shot.
The Tu-95M has better 360° protection.
It has one thing better.
Unless they: fix the payload issue, by adding a dumbed down single drop small yield nuclear warhead…
Then there is absolutely no reason for the Tu-95M to be an 8.3
these are facts, you cannot dispute them
No?
It is Gaijin’s problem that effectively killed the effectiveness of the payload in Air RB
That is why B-52H has a slightly higher BR than Tu-95
And quite a few of better points become worthless, especially when a single F-104 or such want to shoot them down.
I never knew that we didn’t have separate BR options for different game modes. /s
You are commenting ambiguously, and in the context of Air RB, every better point of the B-52H is not worth enough to make the gap wider.
Both the Tu-95 and the B-52H need extra care to be useful in current gameplay. I wonder why you just want to bully the B-52H.
There is also no reason for Tu-95M being the same as Tu-4.
If you have documents? Make a bug report.
If you don’t? Keep your hands off with your ahistorical idea.
These are ‘takes’,
I believe that you want to believe that your ‘take’ cannot be disputed.
I might be on your side if you want to fight for the overall improvement of bombers in this game, but you are just coping hard about the Tu-95 needing exclusive special care.
1 Like
Stop coping bro.
You can admit the B-52 is way better at this point and save face.
They aren’t equal, and likely never will be for various reasons.
Vehicles with even a minor difference in performance can see a br gap.
In this case, there’s a massive gap in performance.
It’s hilarious you mention the F-104 when the only country that will actually have one against you if you’re playing RB, is china. All other’s F-104s are too high in br.
Therefore that point is invalid and an extremely bad take.
again since you clearly cannot read, or purposefully ignore that I’ve said the TU-4 is way over br’d as is.
The B-29 is 7.0 and has 12.7mm defensive armament.
It’s 118,000 base damage (TU-4) vs the 122,400 base damage (B-29)
- they go the same speed
- have the same climb
- same armor
The only difference is the DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. So how does a 12.7mm vs a 23mm warrant a whole 1.0 br gap?
Time and time again, Soviet vehicles are over br’d merely because people like yourself complain about balance of them
- it is factual the TU-4 should be 7.3
- the TU-95M should be 8.0, because its overall performance is worse than the B-52 in all modes, and in all respects.
Take your bias else where. I’m not hating on the B-52 at all. There’s a fundamental problem here I’m pointing out about over br’ing Soviet vehicles for no valid reasons, particularly in this case… bombers.
I agree bomber gameplay is not great.
Considering your lower level of matches played, and considering you have no simulator matches played…
Your “take” or opinions and null, and void. You fundamentally don’t understand 1/3 of the game, therefore you have no way to tell how effective the B-52 can be over the TU-95M.
It’s more than justified for the TU-95m to be 8.0
1 Like
This discussion is starting to drift away from the actual topic and into personal remarks.
Both of you have raised valid points. One side is arguing from vehicle statistics and overall capabilities, while the other is arguing from practical effectiveness within Air RB. Those are different perspectives on the same issue, and neither is automatically invalid.
I’m interested in seeing this discussion continue, but I’d prefer if it stayed focused on the actual balance question rather than on each other’s player statistics or experience.
Please keep the discussion focused on the aircraft, BR placement, and gameplay impact. Match count, player level, or whether someone primarily plays Air RB or Sim does not automatically determine whether their argument is correct.
If you disagree with a point, address the point itself and provide evidence or reasoning. Personal attacks, dismissive remarks, and assumptions about another player’s competence don’t help move the discussion forward.
1 Like
Save face?
I reckon I can admit that arguing with you is pointless and I can save my time instead.
Because you are just literally ignoring my comments for months, I was really surprised that I needed to repost April’s post.
I was mentioning the most iconic intercepter and there are also counterparts such as MiG-21F and Lightning.
This is pathetic and also hilarious.
Bombers getting massacred by supersonic interceptors, simple concept. Eh?
Yes it is overBRed
But only 0.3 BR gap between 50cal and 23mm NR-23???
Mate this is delusional.
Even though the Tu-4 is overBRed, there is no reason to let them just have one step gap. Tu-4s NR-23 are way more effective than B-29’s 50cal to fight against Korean war era jets.
Yes, it is overBRed but 7.3??
I am telling that it is not ‘that bad’ in Air RB
Both need to get buffed in the AIR RB gamemode.
You want to buff Tu-95 only in EVERY gamemode.
Whoa, now you are blaming me for Soviet vehicles being overBRed?
Nice ad hominem. Why should I let soviet bombers overBRed when I spaded both Tu-4 in this game.
If I really had something like that
I would rather send every Wellington to 2.3BR.
How the hell did my take automatically null and void when I was strictly discussing the Air RB mode, and I play that game mode?
If you really want to play ‘that’ bad take, then the majority of players immediately lose the right to discuss top rank air and such because not many players in the forum play air arcade after rank 1-2.
In conclusion, I might be fine with you pushing your idea outside of air RB because your take also has a partial pair point in air sim.
The game mode in which payload truly matters.
But in Air RB, the BR gap between Tu-95 and B-52H shouldn’t be that big. I literally told you that major good points of B-52H quickly become stale on Air RB, months ago.
1 Like
It is a better plane in air RB, it’s just not 0.7 better in air RB.
Which is why the B-52H should be 0.3 higher in air RB.
This is objectively false.
It should be 7.7, or maybe 7.3, and the B-29 should be 6.7 (and that might even be too high). The Tu-4 is just so much better because it can shoot planes down with a 1/4 the effort…
This.
1 Like
Do the gunners automatically kill enemy planes at 2km in ARB or ASB?
Because for one difference you still want a full br gap which makes 0 sense
You can aim it manually and 2km is quite a good range for showing the might of the FI-T laser beam in ARB. I fragged some Sabres and Banshees with it.
50cal can sustain some damage but cannot instant kill the enemy unless you pilot snipe him
And end up with letting you get killed by their last resort.
0.7 BR gap might fit better
The only difference is a 12.7mm vs a 23mm.
So by your and @Ion_492 ’s own logic, since the B-52 has
- airbrakes
- more bomb load
- higher speed
- better acceleration
- a radar
(At least 5 or more) better things over the TU-95M…
And According to you guys 1 benefit is enough for a 0.7 or 1.0 br gap, then clearly the B-52 should be a 13.7 aircraft? Am I getting your logic correct?
please.
think about the lethality difference.
Tu-2S with soviet 50cal UBT staying 5.3BR while Tu-2S-59 which has 20mm B-20 on her top turret is 5.7BR.
23mm NR-23 produce lot better damage than bombers’ western 50cal.
I am not going to parroting all over again that those becomes stale real quick at air RB.
I won’t mind that you push your idea on air sim
No. You are not getting our logic correct, unless you are being sarcastic as intended.
By your guys logic a simple defensive armament is worth 1.0 or 0.7 br difference.
The defensive armament is in no way guaranteed to kill an incoming plane. (Aiming is way easier on M&K but regardless)
Can you land your plane in ARB? Yes.
Is the B-52 better. Factually, not opinion wise? Yes.