the game should be more realistic, like in historical records.
I’ll just skip to the point.
fighter planes, had different roles during the time line of ww2
in the earlier point of war, planes will swoop down and start dropping bombs, dive bombing, or dropping torpedoes.
However, as they r already naval bombers, I would not emphasise too much on that.
However in the earlier point of the war, there were also planes made for dogfights instead of sinking ships.
in the later part of war, 1945, p51 mustangs were used for strafing ground units, airfields, naval bases and Other buildings. They were multi use aircraft, Not only it was able to support ground troops by diving down and destroying troops, but also destroying factories.
Thus, there should be a new unit for the mustang that does damage to buildings and ground troops.
hi
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
33 Replies
15 Jul 2020, 16:07
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
I really don't know what you're trying to prove here. I have acknowledged that some fighters were really good at close air support. 30% of my time in War Thunder has just been using American Fighters to blow up surface targets. But, as I have said, GAME BALANCE PURPOSES. It doesn't always matter about realism, the game demands that fighters suck at ground attack.
Also, napalm wasn't used in bombs until 1944.
16 Jul 2020, 09:18
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
Also, napalm wasn't used in bombs until 1944.
p51s were not use till 1945, so the timeline fits
hi
16 Jul 2020, 17:42
Nn gg wrote:
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
Also, napalm wasn't used in bombs until 1944.
p51s were not use till 1945, so the timeline fits
A: P-51's came into service with the 8th airforce in late 1943.
B: My point was that Napalm came into service relatively late in the war and wasn't a thing that made fighters magically amazing at ground attack for the whole war. They were mounting heavy bombs and rockets long before the introduction of Napalm.
17 Jul 2020, 01:48
This sounds more like you’ve got issues with the graphics/animations and less so the actual units they chose to make.
17 Jul 2020, 09:56
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
Also, napalm wasn't used in bombs until 1944.
p51s were not use till 1945, so the timeline fits
A: P-51's came into service with the 8th airforce in late 1943.
I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!1Do you not get the whole 'it's a game' thing?
yes but to make it more realistic and not so fake, so increase fighter damage.If u say that then troops will die too easily, increase their hit points. Simple.
... What's the point of increasing the damage if you're just going to nullify it with increased HP? Game is balanced really well right now, if HP gets increased then every attack/defense value needs to be increased, and we're back to where fighters have low attack.
Again, this is about how game balance. Fighters need to suck at ground attack for the game to be well balanced.Also, you are focusing an awful lot on mid/late-war American fighters, which were better than average at ground attack. Most German, Italian, Russian, and Japanese fighters could only carry a small bomb or two, had limited guns & ammo, and were very vulnerable to ground fire when flying low level. Fighters have to represent BF-109s & Zeros just as well as they represent P-51s.
19 Jul 2020, 01:05
I just feel that it should be increased. Fighters were a crucial part of air support.
hi
19 Jul 2020, 04:11
Ok if it is increased i would stop using tactical bombers since fighters would be good at destroying infantry more than tanks which means it will be less diverse and tactical bombers would be that troop that is just taking up space like miltia
19 Jul 2020, 04:20
Seaexplorer99 wrote:
Ok if it is increased i would stop using tactical bombers since fighters would be good at destroying infantry more than tanks which means it will be less diverse and tactical bombers would be that troop that is just taking up space like miltia
1.0
actually I would want fighters to have increased infantry damage, but same for tanks. Tac. Bombers would blow the tanks up if u r sacred of no use of tac bomber
1.5
Fighters deal more damage to infantry, tac bombs take on light tanks and Attack bombs take the heavys
hi
23 Dec 2020, 04:12
z00mz00m wrote:
The only things wrong with fighters is that they take ground to air damage on patrol.
A squadron sent to provide air cover and maintain air superiority in a region does not attack random units and get shot down.
At least make it an option. When I send 6 interceptors out on patrol, the default mode should be air cover, only.
Absolutely. I want to put bombers on patrol at night to protect my troops. But then I want to put fighters on patrol to protect the bombers. But that only works if they are air-only patrol; otherwise my enemy could literally camp a bunch of anti-air against my patrolling fighters and kill them all for almost no losses. That would be ridiculous.
