ALL Dive Bombers (USN & IJN) should handle like the Kaga Dive Bombers...

[PerrythePeriscope]

With the release of the Kaga and its large Dive Bomber squadron size, to me this is proof why all dive bombers (USN & IJN) should have the exact same pin-point accurate drop zone when manual dropping them. 

 

Through experimentation on stationary battleships, I have found that with such pin-point accurate bombers, damage output is DRASTICALLY varied depending on where the bombs land when manual dropping. 

 

Targets were a IJN Nagato, and a USN Colorado. 

 

After testing, hitting the aft end of either ship lead to a high chance of incapacitating the rudder/engine of either ship with damage varying between 1K and 5K damage and setting fires didn't occur often. 

 

Striking the Center of each ship yielded the most damage...I got anywhere from 7K to 15K with several fires. 

 

Striking the bow end of each ship yielded low damage, with 2K-7K and didn't set many fires. 

 

I understand that the damage of the bombs is low in general, but to me it shows that even if you make the bombs larger, with the same accuracy, it really boils down to precision aiming and skill of the player predicting time ships location and time of manual drop. 

 

Why can't all dive bombers be this way? Torpedoes obviously do substantially more damage in general, but its clear that with good aim, you can improve the fire chance and the damage of dive bomber attacks. After this, I find it rather stupid...if not outright silly that other divebombers, especially the USN with dive bombing as their specialty, having such crazy manual drop zones. The larger zones do "average" out the damage, but I think that's rather unfair...

 

Maybe this is just the rantings of a lunatic...but I think that all divebombers should get the pinpoint accurate manual drop zones...

 

[pewpewpew42]

No, just USN. If they have to rely on DBs, they should at least be less reliant on RNG.

[Palladia]

Kaga or Saipan,  yeah.  I think its more important for the USN since its their main source of damage and its so heavily RNG dependent right now as opposed to IJN which are largely skill based.  Then again IJN have the ability to cross drop sooo...yeah.  

 

That being said,  IJN bombers are really only good for starting fires so its not like it'd hurt to give it to them too.

[RipNuN2]

DB are also harder to deal direct damage with due to HE saturation mechanics which torpedoes dont have a problem with though they do have TDS to contend with and the more general damage saturation.

[saagri]

DB are also harder to deal direct damage with due to HE saturation mechanics which torpedoes dont have a problem with though they do have TDS to contend with and the more general damage saturation.

 

Plus all the pen no damage that DB's have to deal with. Not sure if DB's can penetrate the turrets though. 

[TTK_Aegis]

Isn't Kaga having this feature offset by her DBs doing much lower than average per bomb damage? Plus it results in fewer fires. Usually 1 or 2 as opposed to the 3 you can see from a standard sized drop area. 

[Chief_Runamuck]

No, just USN. If they have to rely on DBs, they should at least be less reliant on RNG.

 

Perhaps WG could use this to balance USN vs IJN CV's and fix the loadout issues: Make USN dive bombers less subject to RNG and their torpedo planes more so by introducing a small percent chance of dud torpedos. The opposite could be done for IJN (more RNG for DBs and less for TBs). This seems like a more accurate way to add "national flavor" than using the current loadout scheme. WG would then be free to use more accurate  squadron numbers and sizes.

 

This could also address the lower tier "sky cancer" issue. The "dud rng" percentage could be higher at the low tiers and might allow for the return of manual drops.... just a thought....

[General_WTSherman]

 

Perhaps WG could use this to balance USN vs IJN CV's and fix the loadout issues: Make USN dive bombers less subject to RNG and their torpedo planes more so by introducing a small percent chance of dud torpedos. The opposite could be done for IJN (more RNG for DBs and less for TBs). This seems like a more accurate way to add "national flavor" than using the current loadout scheme. WG would then be free to use more accurate  squadron numbers and sizes.

 

This could also address the lower tier "sky cancer" issue. The "dud rng" percentage could be higher at the low tiers and might allow for the return of manual drops.... just a thought....

 

the USN did have a problem early in WW2 with torpedoes arming and detonating properly.  from a historical standpoint, better USN accuracy with an RNG dud rate of the torpedoes would not only solve some of the balance issues, but would also provide the appropriate stylistic difference

[hipcanuck]

 

Perhaps WG could use this to balance USN vs IJN CV's and fix the loadout issues: Make USN dive bombers less subject to RNG and their torpedo planes more so by introducing a small percent chance of dud torpedos. The opposite could be done for IJN (more RNG for DBs and less for TBs). This seems like a more accurate way to add "national flavor" than using the current loadout scheme. WG would then be free to use more accurate  squadron numbers and sizes.

 

This could also address the lower tier "sky cancer" issue. The "dud rng" percentage could be higher at the low tiers and might allow for the return of manual drops.... just a thought....

 

All torpedo's, air and ship launched, should have a 'dud feature' that occurs when torps hit at sharp angles. Not just US torps...(which was mostly a submarine issue anyways, the Germans had it too in '39).