And your thought for sim?
The B-52 can shut down an entire airfield in ASB in one pass.
The TU-95 requires 3 passes…
Well i appreciate the response regardless. I like to bomb more than anything in air tbh. Usually I use jets, but any bomber is nice.
Fighters are fun, but I like to jam music of whatever era bomber I’m in and go Bomb lol
1 Like
tu95 is pretty solid when its actually facing 8.3’s but unfortunately 8.3 speecifically faces probably the highest rate of full uptiers in the entire game. conveniently also the largest flight performance gap in the entire game. You either face 262s or f104s.
1 Like
its very very usefull in sim, but yes the TU-95 at 8.0 and the B52 at 8.3, (the TU-4 at 7.0)
This is the most balanced and fair it will likely be:
For Air Arcade / Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.3
For simulator:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7
For Ground Realistic / Sim:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7
For Naval Realistic:
TU-4: 7.3
TU-95M: 8.0
B-52: 8.7
2 Likes
Strange the B-52 is preforming better in KDr but worse in win rate, over the TU-95M, which has better 360° protection.
Id expect something with such a “better” defensive armament to be preforming far better
(ARB only, don’t care about tanks a lot, even less so naval)
I say
B-52h to 8.3
Tu-95 can come down to 8.0
Tu-4 will need to come down to 7.3 and B-29 / Washington B.1 to 6.7 ( Tu-4 uses B-29 as a reference for BR placement)
Because Tu-4 then would be at the same BR as Tu-95 which is absurd since the Tu-95 beats it in almost every aspect but payload, which Tu-4 wins by needle.
Defensive armament is pretty hard to compare Tu-95 and Tu-4, because I don’t like the convergence issues, even if Tu-4 is more armed it crosses fire and it is a lot less reliable than 2 closely packed 23mils.
In case people are scared of B-52h I understand, but plenty of jets can just climb up and kill easily because it comes apart easily and it can only defend itself from the rear. And B-52 really can’t “escape”, so much lift that it can’t come down within WT’s map sizes, its a pain in the ass to try and leave after a run to avoid repair costs.
But these bombers will be so low because they are like most bombers, modeled badly in terms of mechanics, literally too because both models look like complete ass.
Missing computers for B-29/Tu-4/B.1, Radar guns for B-52/B-66 and just tankyness in general for enormous aircraft. If those are added you would see these dudes either come up or become decent choice at their BRs.
Does Tu-95 have FCS systems? I feel like that common sense due to the Tu-4 literally adapted the B-29’s 50cal fire formulas for the 23mil, but I can’t find info on Tu-95’s turrets
1 Like
B-52’s single vulcan cannon removes parallax (can be used in first person) and convergence issues.
Tu-95’s multiple turrets create the opposite effect.
For a similar effect try to use the Il-10 1946 in first person and it is pretty easy to rack up kills via one-shots with the 20mil
It is because Tu-4 is stuck at 8.0 since it uses B-29’s BR as a reference, closer to 0.7 BR difference and B-29 could be at 6.7 BR
1 Like
B-29 shouldn’t be 6.7.
As I said previously, if the fix bomber fragility, most bombers in the game would be good at their current brs.
100% agreed the difference in realistic is 0.3 but in sim its 0.7 because the b52 has the thermals
2 Likes
Thermals, and the bigger payload with more individual drops.
Meaning more base kills / ground kills.
Plus I’m pretty sure you can scan for incoming air targets with the radar… but this may be incorrect.
The payload difference alone warrants it to be higher in sim.
it’s actually the biggest payload in the game
But if that’s not enough, the B-52 is better in all ways except defensive armament.
No, but they are a massive boost in performance since they cover such a large area, and a single hit can take down most planes it would face. Hitting vs critically damaging an aircraft means it is significantly better.
You also forget that the Tu-95 has a good defensive armament, and that the current compression means the Tu-95/B-52 should be at most 0.3 apart in RB/0.7 in sim.
In my opinion for ARB:
B-52H=8.3
Tu-95=8.0
Tu-4s=7.7/7.3
B-29=7.0/6.7
2 Likes
I like how you guys seem to skip over all the pros of the B-52 as if they don’t matter and hyper focus the 1 pro on the TU-95 and TU-4…
Like can you guys be genuine for a solid moment?
Like the others have mentioned the convergence is also an issue, something I didn’t particularly think of myself, but in the B-52 is generally far easier to destroy and enemy with its rear gunner.
Again, if we apply your same logic, many many manyyy vehicles need to be swapped around because their defensive armament is better than another vehicles.
For Air RB.
The B-52 is garbage at 8.7, and the Tu-95 is garbage at 8.3. The Tu-95 will be not abysmal at 8.0, and the B-52 would also not be utterly useless at 8.3. For the Tu-4 you are understating how big of an advantage almost instakilling your enemies is.
I am, it’s just that the pros of the B-52 still don’t outweigh the fact it is objectively an 8.3 aircraft because of how bad it is at 8.7.
2 Likes
BECAUSE it is not important in Air RB.
The majority of the pros of B-52H quickly go stale thanks to the special status of Air RB, which is not a good place to play bomber, as you know.
It would matter in Air Sim and other gamemodes, but it just won’t matter in Air RB.
I explained that countless times in here.
Yes, B-52H is better than Tu-95M in quite a few aspects, but thanks to the clusterfuck situation of Air RB, it doesn’t give a major advantage as much as you think.
so, in Air RB, B-52H can have 0.3BR difference compared to Tu-95M.
-More bomb payloads are worthless because Gaijin punish players who carry more bombs than it requires to destroy a single base
-Thermal camera is also worthless because there are no targets that B-52H will aim with that in air RB
-better speed and something is valid but not enough to save B-52H’s ass from interceptors.
This is quite frustrating, I was always being genuine for all moments.
Yes, Convergence is an issue, both B-29 and Tu-4 have struggled to shoot the target accurately, and Tu-4 is more forgiving because a single 23mm FI-T deals drastically more damage than 50cal AP-I.
And the B-52 is completely vulnerable to threats from the front, as the B-66B is.
No, it isn’t.
I am really tired of explaining the same thing
When
-I was discussing both Tu-95M and B-52H in Air RB
-iirc, originally when this topic was ‘Game Discussion’ instead of ‘Machinery’ section, this was tagged as [Air-RB]
-and I am telling why your ‘pros’ of B-52H compared to Tu-95M are not good enough in air-rb
-and explained why
-while you were the one who tried to silence me with the ‘sim’ theory, and brought sim experiences to debate.
1 Like
When I joined this discussion it was just about the TU-95 as a whole.
-
I never ignored the ARB aspect, and saying you do not fundamentally understand 1/3 of the game is a true thing, and is by no way “silencing you”, true you likely have more ARB time. But to single out ‘bombers’ is finite, as I play a lot of strike aircraft and multi-roles, which all do the same thing. BOMB. Might be a different level of bombing but it’s still bombing.
-
as it stand now, no durability buffs are coming. So adjust the brs as I stated earlier (see below) and then add the durability buffs, and if need be move them after. Good balancing is one step at a time.
- lastly, I am listening, I have heard your points, but you weigh one aspect much higher than others and it’s puzzling, as if you see below:
I can only assume the B-29 was at its higher br when you spaded it, and likely when you were needed to the game.
But it’s so fragile no matter if it’s the Tu-4 or B-29… so having a bigger defensive armament doesn’t matter because typically one hit kills the whole plane.
I did listen again, why I disagree is you weigh one aspect heavier in the Russian aircraft, than you do the USA.
If you weighed them a bit more evenly (even a tiny bit) then your view would more likely align to my own.
Again, they should adjust the brs as I put them below.
It would be nice to see the Ai Gunners be buffed back to something to be decently feared in ARB, SRB, RGB, SGB, RNB, etc.
Aka they’re actually doing their job, ace crews outside of Arcade don’t do anything.
Then add in better durability.
who ever things that the TU-4 is 8.0-7.7 material pls play it and then express an opinion
1 Like
At this moment, I am assuming that reason I rate NR-23 gunner good, while you rate NR-23 bad is
not because I am biased towards American planes
(Heck, I play all nations, and am Brit main, and a little bit excited with the addition of Washington B.1 in next update, even though I had POS experience with original B-29)
Maybe because the control scheme of us is different,
I play with a keyboard and mouse, and you probably play with an Xbox pad.
(No offence, but it gives a different experience when aiming with gunners)
I weighed NR-23 well, because I had no problem shooting the enemy down with it while playing Tu-4
While I was literally defenceless against the enemy when I was with the B-29.
(I mean, you saw my K/D of all three bombers, right?)
And maybe you probably struggle a little bit more than I do, because of the controller issue
(I tried Dualshock 4 for control long ago in test drive, and it was frustrating, ngl. especially when you need to control the gunner with a pad.)
To me, I still believe that gun differences are good enough to make them have 0.7BR(Two step) difference if we consider both downtier and uptier.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not completely dismissing the idea of Tu-4 being 7.3BR
I am suggesting that if Tu-4 need to be 7.3 instead of 7.7 (as you suggested), then B-29 also need to be 6.7BR. To me, difference between Tu-4’s 23mm and B-29’s 50cal is bigger than just one step, in air RB.
I reckon I explained that by comparing Spitfire and explaining the difference of NR-23 and 50cal.
If the ‘fragility issue’ gets fixed, then maybe we can discuss ‘make the gap narrower’ later
But currently, I believe that Tu-4 need to maintain a two-step gap with B-29
7.0/7.7 or 6.7/7.3
If you really want to keep B-29 on 7.0, then Tu-4 need to be 7.7
If you agree with B-29 going down to 6.7, then Tu-4 could try 7.3
Of course, as I told you earlier, Tu-4 shouldn’t ever share the same BR with Tu-95M.
This is a debatable thing, I mean, I would be happy that AI-gunner can see more than 200m, but I heard fighter pilots in air-sim having handicap of forced cockpit view, while bomber can view in 3rd-view while controlling guns, then if we buff AI gunner too good, then ‘old death-star Tu-4 on 6.3BR’ got ressurected, and nobody except SARH slinger ever could stop em.
So, about the AI gunner buff, maybe we need a separate topic, and a deep discussion about the balance effect of those.
The current 200m is too short, but the Air-Arcade-ish sight range is a bit too much.
You can imagine things when they buff AI gunner too much, by thinking of Naval Realistic(Coastal) experience. Those top-rank coastal boats just spam 20~40mm HE to the skies and make CAS a lot harder, and it will happen on Air Realistic and Sim if we buff them incorrectly.
But well, maybe 400~500m-ish can be tried without major effect? because the current 200-300m-ish is a bit too short.
Mate, I played Tu-4, and I think it is 7.7-7.3 material.
So, expressing an opinion.
7.7 if B-29 remains 7.0
7.3 if B-29 goes 6.7
1 Like
Perhaps it’s controller scheme, but if I play equally as effectively in both vehicles?
(Only scored an air kill with the B-52 so far, the Bluefor jets are quite quick, and the what 512~? Max speed in the TU-95M means your caught easily)
I will say for certain it is easier to aim with M&K in gunner view for sure.
As for balancing the gunners (which I’d argue is apart of balancing the vehicle)
The average engagement distance of a .50cal is about 1800 meters…
Should it go that high? No.
But 800 or 1000 meters as an ace crew seems plenty reasonable to me.
Expert 600.
Granted this is for an .50 cal (M2 browning)
Yes in sim bomber pilots, attackers, and so on get 3rd person cameras on a most aircraft, which I don’t find all that game breaking, because unlike a fighter, it’s very hard to see out of most of those planes.
And it’s like the gunners are going to ever do anything.