Stop catering to whining babies and nerf bombers.....

[gamegamegame]

Started Warthunder 2 years ago, havent played for almost a year, came back to find out bombers have been nerf so badly.
A giant bombers shot down in one burst by any plane, ♥♥♥♥ing hillarious....
I maxed out US bombers and crew gunners level and earn about 60k credit a match by bombing alone. I still can earn that now. But I miss epic battles where I bomb the hell out of them and mow down 6-8 fighters coming after me. Now that is impossible.
Just stop nerfing bombers and give back the previous damage model whereas they can take adequate damage considering their size and amor, stop making bombers paper plane.
Remember bombers are decisive factors in battles and they are not unskilled or easy win for pilots flying them. Bombing is an art and deserved not to be nerfed due to someone claims it as piece of cake- which it isnt.
I play warthunder not on steam....

[Aegis270]

Bombers are unfortuantely damn near impossible to balance properly, at least the strategic bombers are. Most fighter jocks, like myself, don't like having to waste time and energy climbing to altitude to shoot down large immobile targets. And we like it even less when the AI gunners also stand a damn good chance of crippling or outright killing our planes for the oblivous bomber pilot. Meanwhile, the bomber pilots want to be able to defend themselves against enemy fighters. We can't have it both ways with the current system. Either bombers are big vulernable XP pinatas, or they are flying Deathstars that make fighter aircraft mostly irrelevant.

My idea is this. Make an escort class of fighter, for planes that were famous for escorting bombers like the P-51. Have them spawn, if possible, at bomber altitude with a bomber squadmate to support. Then make the xp reward for shooting down fighter aircraft who engaged your bomber very lucrative for XP and Eagles. Nerf the bombers defensive gunners, and buff their armor. That way, interceptors would have to be tactical when engaging bombers, since either you go after the bomber but end up with an angry Mustang on your tail, or go after the Mustang, giving the bomber time to evade or find reinforcements. Fighers would find it easier, and more rewarding, to support their bomber teammates, making individual bomber strength almost a non-issue. Bombers would feel less vulerable in the air, and would have to think more tacticly about their position than just "Fly at the base and press space".

Of course, you'd have to make sure no escort fighter abandoned their bomber to do their own thing. I recommed implementing an XP and Eagle penatly for all engagements that didn't start within 1k of the bomber.

[Crack Pie]

引用自 MS-DOS 6.22：

引用自 Crack Pie：

And this is WT not real life. Enjoyment for playing a game is kinda expected. I enjoy war thunder but they nerfed a huge aspect of it for me.

so you're saying you can forego some accuracy if it gets in the way of what you personally think is fun...

I'm stating a problem that many here voice a concern about. This thread is over 3 pages and you think this a problem that I, just I, have a problem with? Look through the forum and you will find many who have problems with bombers.

Obviously if you are a large, slow moving, out gunned, expensive, glass plane then you will need to forgo some "historical accuracy" (which is mostly personal opinion and conjecture) for the sake of balance. Before the patch the plane could handle itself in combat but now it's useless.

It's not just what "I" find fun but what others find fun and have some gripes about. Because as it stands many who enjoy bombers find their planes severly lacking and at a major disadvantage. You seem to be fine with it, but at the same time if you are fine with it I don't believe you are the type of player that flies or enjoys flying bombers. If this is true don't ♥♥♥♥ on us because you find it reasonable to get easy kills on bombers, while we have to play with paper planes.

[The Pangaean Gamer]

I have to say, MS-DOS has a point here. Bombers aren't supposed to be able to compete with fighters in the air to air role. If they were, then what would be the point of flying fighters if you could do just as well in air to air with bombers? The point of bombers is to attack ground targets, not to kill other fighters. The point of fighters is to kill aircraft, and not attack ground targets. However, fighters have a limited capability to engage ground targets, and by the same token, bombers have a limited capability to engage aircraft. But you can't expect a bomber to stand a good chance against an aircraft that is designed to destroy other aircraft. It is for this exact reason that fighter escorts became necessary.

[ViolentRumble]

Yeh the bomber nerf went to far, certainly not worth spending any money on the game in it's current state. The increase in airbases and how much it takes to destroy them was good but the decrease in survivability is just over the top.

[Zcoot]

引用自 AussieGhost789：

I have to say, MS-DOS has a point here. Bombers aren't supposed to be able to compete with fighters in the air to air role. If they were, then what would be the point of flying fighters if you could do just as well in air to air with bombers? The point of bombers is to attack ground targets, not to kill other fighters. The point of fighters is to kill aircraft, and not attack ground targets. However, fighters have a limited capability to engage ground targets, and by the same token, bombers have a limited capability to engage aircraft. But you can't expect a bomber to stand a good chance against an aircraft that is designed to destroy other aircraft. It is for this exact reason that fighter escorts became necessary.

This is 100% correct. I would just add that in arcade they can do whatever, but in historic I want the truth and nothing else.

[SSA]

OK, we gotta get real here, no bomber is expected to dog fight but it is expected to be able to defend itself somewhat. If a fighter comes in to attack at the wrong angle of course the gunners will tear him or her a new rear end thats what 8-9 turrents are for. They are the defensive weapons. The bombs are the real offense and with damage so terrible now they never even get to target.

[Kegbelly]

it used to be so much fun driving your bomber into groups of dog fighting fighters and watching the drop like flies =p

[Wojtek the Bear]

The damage models in the most recent patch have been changed with the purpose of Gaijin making more money. They think that if planes are damaged much easier then people will use up their lions faster, as well as potentially not make enough lions in game, so that people will buy premium accounts/gold/etc. It's that simple.

[Crack Pie]

引用自 MS-DOS 6.22：

who is "many?"

"many" is not quantifiable.

your argument is that bombers not being able to perform as stand alone fortresses of sky clearing gun carriages is somehow wrong because it's not enjoyable to you. you can keep typing excessive walls of text to try and bury that but that is essentially all you are saying. vague and unquantifiable weasle words like "many people" does not change that.

......That's not the point I am making..... I do not want a fortress in the sky that can obliterate everything. I never said that. What I am talking about is having enough durability to survive 1 pass and a burst of a fighter that is not firing 30mm. As it stands a couple rounds from a 20mm will blow off a wing or make it do a death turn. Even MG's will do that in a pass. Every. Time.

The bomber is simply a free kill. It has no survivorbility anymore. You clearly refuse to see what is being discussed. Also words like "many people" are used because there is no exact number. I don't know why you are focusing on a "quantifiable" number, if you care so much go count them yourself. If you don't want to read a wall of text, then don't. You're a big boy. You can make that decision.

[Jakobb1]

引用自 MS-DOS 6.22：

lol someone's angry

Nice reply, you're really obliterating our argument. I mean your counter-points make ours look like ♥♥♥♥.

[Jakobb1]

Oh and for the record, plenty of people are having the same issues with bombers. It's not just me and him. Yeah I do think the bombers need a buff. No they shouldn't be able to survive multiple 37mm shots but to have my wings torn off or my tail torn off from one burst of a 20mm is annoying. Especially when I can put multiple 20 and 37mm rounds into a fighter and it doesn't do the same effect, that is unless I get lucky and hit just the right spot.

[Jakobb1]

引用自 MS-DOS 6.22：

引用自 Jakobb1：

Nice reply, you're really obliterating our argument. I mean your counter-points make ours look like ♥♥♥♥.

So angry.

So angsty.

So adolescent.

Coming from the guy who can't even muster an argument against the topic. Instead you just say "lol someone's angry". Yeah that is real mature, not adolescent. Unlike you I actually offer good and valid points in my argument for the bombers. You just jump in at the end and try to piss people off because you're a troll.

[Jakobb1]

But back to the fighter. It is ridiculous when the fighters can soak up more damage than the bombers. My B25 takes less hits than my naval fighters, or any other plane actually. I don't have a problem with the damage the turets on bombers do. It's just not right when you get shot down in one burst from a 20mm cannon. I mean if a B25 can get destroyed that quickly, then the same should apply for all other planes. After all they are smaller than the bombers and shouldn't be able to take that much damage.

[Jakobb1]

引用自 MS-DOS 6.22：

so

angry

You're still here? Ugh... great.

[ViolentRumble]

The more posts on this thread the better, the devs will notice it a whole lot easier.

And yes the devs read these forums, what kind of a business would ignore one of their marketing and sales platforms, especially one as large as this with 75 million users.

Ignore the trolls, stay on topic and keep the comments coming. Fix the bombers!!!