I still suggest a bomber pilot strike.

Bombers are too easy to blast out of the sky. I have a B29 with a near-maxed crew & gunners. Two enemy planes got 1 ping each on it and blew it out of the sky. There is no sense in flying a target. If that's all it takes to blast a bomber, then they cannot be escorted, either. Grouping them up only invites fighters from further away, as there are more kills to be had.

I think we should all switch to fighters or attack planes, until they fix the bombers. A majority of fighter pilots seem to like them just the way they are, now. (I play rock! Sissors are fine. Nerf paper!) If enough of us switch, maybe something will get done. If nobody is complaining, then we can rest assured that nothing will be done. Without their easy targets, I'm pretty sure fighter jocks will complain too.

My opinions are different on this. So many times I got set on fire immediately after a single 50cal bullet made it into my fuel tanks; or so many times bombers survived my initial dive and I had to readjust my position and dive on them again, exposing my plane to the gunners for a longer time. It is not like bombers cannot even protect themselves, they CAN, but don't expect to survive from every engagement.

Also, I believe the bombers are for the 'support' role, at least in RB. A bomber CANNOT win the match by himself unless he has a huge payload like the late tier bombers. However, fighters CAN win the match by themselves if no bomber shows up in their team. (Seriously, please do not take out like 4 bombers and expect to win that match, if you are not in tier IV/V.) I don't like it when there are a lot of bombers in my team, because we have to work for extra to make that match even. This is an issue especially in Allied teams because you Americans love your bombers so much that I see at least one B-25/B-17 in every match I go in, guaranteed.

What I think should happen is, they should make it so that bombers can win the match by themselves. Otherwise you know that every bomber in your team (unless he kills an enemy) is useless for your team, and free food for the enemy team. Make it so that killing bombers matters, because if you do not kill them they will win the match. They are not the support guy in their team, they are not free food, but a threat because they can win the match. Whole 'Ground Strike' aspect of the RB needs to change in my opinion.

For example, split the game modes in half. One is a true 'Bomber' mission where one team has like 4-6 bombers and rest are fighters, and the other team has either fighters or heavy attackers to hunt those bombers. The team with no bombers will be the defending team, and will have 4-5 bases which the enemy teams bombers has to take out. For the defending team to win, they have to kill all bombers and fighters, clearing the sky. For the attacking team to win, they either have to protect the bombers, or kill all the fighters so the 'bombers' can do their job freely.

For guys who like to play normal matches, there is the second mode, 'Air Superiority' mission, where they have to win the match by getting the air superiority, killing every plane in the enemy team, much like it is in normal RB matches without the random bombers.

After that, they should make it so that protecting a bomber gives you more points. Maybe it give you points continuously as you fly in a proximity of a bomber? Maybe killing an enemy fighter which is near a bomber grants double points? Something like this is needed to make people cover bombers, because everybody loves points, and I mean it. In every Norway and Sicily match people go for those AI planes. Why? Because they love making points easily. Remove the AI, make protecting bombers give more points, voila! Those guys who wants more points will cover them (hopefully).

This will also make killing bombers more fun, simply because it is not a free kill situation but more of a risky requirement. I hate going and killing a bomber, because either I will kill a target which possesses no threat to the match or I will get burned alive in my cockpit because of his gunners. Both will accomplish nothing, the team that gets the high altitude will win the match regardless of the output of me killing a bomber or getting killed by one. Unless, if that bomber can actually win the match, hence the idea of 'Bomber' missions.

Maybe in Arcade it is different, I've seen some teams win quickly by eliminating all bases and gaining the ticket advantage. However, those games last short and are the reason why I switched to RB. Maybe that bomber mission could be implemented in Arcade. Make it so that you can't take out a bomber immediately, it has -- for example -- a 3 minute timer where you cannot get your bomber into the air. You have to take out your fighter first, and fight the guys in the air. After that timer expires, whole team can take out their bombers to kill the enemy bases. Those who still have fighters left will go after bombers, and once one teams bases are destroyed that game will end. Maybe something like that, I don't know. What I know is that bombers are somewhat useless in the game and people who fly them do it just because they love bombers, not because they are effective. I just tried to give some suggestions to solve it. (Which will never get implemented, because Gaijin won't going to read this on our clans forum, and even if they read it they don't care about the game anymore to change things so the community has fun. They will only add things which require money, and milk the game out until every god damn possible dollar is spent on it.)

TL;DR - You cannot fix the issue of bombers by just adjusting the accuracy of the bombers gunners or making them more durable to damage. Whole game modes have to change to fix the issue, to make bombers worth to cover, and kill.

1) It is a good point about the game mode needing to change. I really hate having bombers in my list then finding today's mission is air superiority.
2) It is also a good point that the vulnerability makes bombers a liability to your team, particularly when bombers make up a majority of your team's planes.
3) I still remember Warbirds, where flying bombers was about as popular as flying the fighters. I do not remember anyone complaining that taking a bomber down was nearly a 50/50 chance of dying. Here, I really do think it's more like a 10% chance you'll be damaged, if you know what you're doing.
4) The initial set-up is a pain, too. If you start in a bomber, you can fly straight to a target at your best speed, and no matter which target you pick, the enemy fighters have time to get off the ground and gain so much alt that they're diving on you, if they want to. Any effort you make at going faster just ensures you have less of a chance of any friendly fighter being anywhere near to help.

there is a simpler,easier fix to the bomber nerf issue. It fits with the spirit of the game/time period it is set in,and furthers the ideal of the game....ready for it?Waaaaaaiiiiiit for it.....

LEARN WARFARE AND HISTORY. Note that the BADDEST fighter of WWII was developed SPECIFICALLY for long-range bomber protection to/from target. *P51* This means,that fighter cover is not something to discuss,it just must be that way. Otherwise,the bombers don't win. Furthermore

Why would bombing sub-bases end a match? You have MANY more "blinking' targets,or,those that take tickets away.Sure,a sub-base takes many tickets at one go,however it may take 1-4 runs w/a bomber to drop it...unless a couple bombers are full upgraded tier IV's. However,destroying a enemies cache's/FOB's doesn't win a battle "See/Battle of the bulge" on it's own. One must destroy the front-line troops as well as the equipment,hence,bombing targets. Warfare is a multi-layered task. One must plan for every eventuality. I believe the big bombers are also a lil too nerfed,however,that was done w/the mindset of forcing fighter pilots to cover them,as in real war.

What I have not seen is a definitive listing of how many bombers were lost due to fighters, flack, or some combination of both, and whether the bomber was lost from formation our out of formation.

In Warbirds, we liked to fly bombers in formation. A single fighter approaching a set of 4 or more bombers in that game needed to be used very skillfully or would likely be promptly lost. In War Thunder, it is still possible to lose your fighter to a formation of bombers, particularly at lower BR's, but the more likely outcome with a skillful fighter pilot is at least a disruption of the formation, if not (in the case of higher BR fights) the destruction of all bombers.

My main point is that, at least in the Realistic Battle Mode, and in the BR's of 3+, I don't think you're doing yourself or your team mates any good by bringing a bomber, and that as things currently sit we should quit flying them until this gets fixed.

Sadly, the best people to ask about this sort of thing are mostly gone from this word.

What about giving bombers a high altitude air start in RB? While fighters are climbing to altitude the bombers can be moving into position. Gives each side a sense of "scrambling" to intercept bombers and those who really want the bomber kills will have to climb to get them. This will also, initially, give bombers a speed and altitude advantage over climbing attackers.

This brings up the issue of landing to rearm, I propose a rearmament zone above the bases maybe? So long as you're in the zone you'll rearm as if you're on the field. Need to repair? Land.

I could foresee this causing problems with B-29's climbing to space and staying there. Possible counter would be to put an altitude cap on the rearmament zone.

What do y'all think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AOD_Tikkakoski

What about giving bombers a high altitude air start in RB? While fighters are climbing to altitude the bombers can be moving into position. Gives each side a sense of "scrambling" to intercept bombers and those who really want the bomber kills will have to climb to get them. This will also, initially, give bombers a speed and altitude advantage over climbing attackers.

This brings up the issue of landing to rearm, I propose a rearmament zone above the bases maybe? So long as you're in the zone you'll rearm as if you're on the field. Need to repair? Land.

I could foresee this causing problems with B-29's climbing to space and staying there. Possible counter would be to put an altitude cap on the rearmament zone.

What do y'all think?

---

As you said, giving high altitude to bombers might save some players but still those who climb up to space will continue to do that 'because it is just fun' and this will greatly help them, especially in jet tier. If however, Gaijin makes something to get down those astronauts from space and make them actually play the game, I believe this might work out.

The idea of a rearmament zone is brilliant in my opinion, that way bombers will not have to land and lose all the altitude they gained in the beginning, and it also solves the issue of bombers camping on airfields to win the match. Also, it may be included in a way that it seems reasonable. For example, as suggested by the OrangeDoom on Youtube, rather than just rearming the same plane in the air -- by probably using magic -- why not make it so that a next wave of bombers arrive and you get to control a new pilot? The old crew could go all the way back to the homeland, and you can get a new fresh bomber without damaged parts and with full new payload. That zone could be at the corner/edge of the map where the airfield of the players team is located.

Something like this was made in some Ace Combat games (a Jet Fighter game series for both consoles and PC, link here:Ace Combat on Wikipedia) and it actually worked out. If you emptied all your bombs and rockets you could go back to the edge of the map, land, rearm and refuel. After that, it would spawn you on the same edge of the map and you would continue.

Jumping into a new plane might not seem realistic, but it would probably take couple of minutes -- in game time -- for a bomber to go all the way back to its base in homeland and come back to the combat zone. If you would have to wait all that time people would get bored of waiting and just return to hangar in my opinion.

Also, going back to homeland to repair kinda makes sense, because who keeps all their heavy armament at their base closest to the enemy? You know, if the enemy attacks and you lose that airfield you just gave your enemy a lot of ammo and heavy armament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AOD_Torgund

Bombers are too easy to blast out of the sky. I have a B29 with a near-maxed crew & gunners. Two enemy planes got 1 ping each on it and blew it out of the sky. There is no sense in flying a target. If that's all it takes to blast a bomber, then they cannot be escorted, either. Grouping them up only invites fighters from further away, as there are more kills to be had.

I think we should all switch to fighters or attack planes, until they fix the bombers. A majority of fighter pilots seem to like them just the way they are, now. (I play rock! Sissors are fine. Nerf paper!) If enough of us switch, maybe something will get done. If nobody is complaining, then we can rest assured that nothing will be done. Without their easy targets, I'm pretty sure fighter jocks will complain too.

---

This topic has been done to death on the WT forums and I am of the opinion that as much as I love my bombers, I cannot fly them anywhere above rank 3 in AB and not at all in RB. Fighters have all the advantages.
Bomber DM's are way too fragile. It is true that IRL bombers never flew alone. A lone bomber was a dead bomber. Formations were, aside from escorts, the primary defense with interlocking gunner fire.
Bombers can be fun in AB, but are a handicap to the team in RB. Unless they can get some air kills, one bomb load is not enough to do any significant damage to the enemy team. The basic meta of RB is TDM.

There was a time when bombers were made of concrete. The DM's were way too strong. It took forever to bring one down. Then they buffed the gunners to the point of ridiculousness. You couldn't get within 2km
of a bomber without being torn to shreds. Gaigin has the inability to do things in moderation. Maybe there is no Russian word for it. They always go from one extreme or another.

On the subject of AI gunners, at this time I think they are just about as balanced as they could or need to be. Every fighter pilot will complain about AI gunners, but not give any credit to a skilled pilot.
My AI gunners are 50/50 at best (they are all aced.) Sometimes they kill and sometimes they don't even open fire. 90% of my air kills are when I jump into the gunner seat and fire them myself. The only time I rely
on my AI is when on final approach to drop. If I see you coming though, you better believe that my plane is on auto pilot and I am in the gunner seat and vectoring your approach.

I do like the idea of reload zones in RB. They should be located far enough away from the battle that it's going to take some time to reload. If you land your bomber in the middle of a battle, the TDM meta insures
that by the time you do reload the battle is over.

My suggestion would be to buff the DM's a little, leave the AI gunners alone and establish a reload zone in RB. The best improvement for me though, would be to brighten up the tracers. Gunner tracers in game are too
dim to be seen against a white sky. When I can see my tracers, you are "in the body bag." Also, stop blaming the AI. They really aren't all that. You have no way to tell if it was the AI or the pilot that brought you down.
Give some credit to a skilled pilot and help out an old man with less than stellar vision and brighten up the tracers. :D