Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
misanthrope0

Do Bombs under perform...

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

109
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
910 posts
6,119 battles

… VS torps?  Reason I ask is I blew the dust off my Saipan and decided to run a couple games in Co-Op and went with the oversized Bomb squadron instead of torpedo bombers. Despite 14 out of 24 hits including the enemy CV for two strikes I got 37840 damage of which 3040 was fire damage. One of the hits was non penetrating.  Now torps are almost 1000 potential damage less than bombs yet torps seem to score more towards their max damage than bombs do.

True?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[BUNNY]
[BUNNY]
Members
96 posts
1,858 battles

I just started playing Langley and I've noticed the same thing.  Bombs usually seem to do very little damage, but almost always start a fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
1,564 posts
16,962 battles

 Bombs are more susceptible to RNG.  Once you get the AP bombs in T8 plus our BBs hate you.  Until then, they are for spotting and fire damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[TBW]
Members
7,380 posts
13,558 battles

I have only 100 or so CV battles, but even I know, that you don't use the bomb squadrons with Saipan. Well maybe in Co op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,968
[RLGN]
Members
10,033 posts
19,426 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

HE saturates quickly.  TB saipan is the better loadout.

This has so rarely been the case for me it’s not even funny.

Saipan’s TBs have basically been nothing but whale torpedoing AA targets.

’So fast they shouldn’t be exposed to AA very much?’

Tell that to all the Skyraiders I’ve lost trying to attack even ‘easy ‘ targets.

Autodrop and get 1-2 hits; or manual drop and everything gets shot down for 1-2 hits...

...that’s how Saipan was for me....

...such fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,383
[HINON]
Members
10,646 posts
1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

This has so rarely been the case for me it’s not even funny.

Saipan’s TBs have basically been nothing but whale torpedoing AA targets.

’So fast they shouldn’t be exposed to AA very much?’

Tell that to all the Skyraiders I’ve lost trying to attack even ‘easy ‘ targets.

Autodrop and get 1-2 hits; or manual drop and everything gets shot down for 1-2 hits...

...that’s how Saipan was for me....

...such fun.

I drop from further out and use the convergence to land more hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,968
[RLGN]
Members
10,033 posts
19,426 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

I drop from further out and use the convergence to land more hits.

All I ever saw trying that were players that understood the meaning of WASD.

Apparently the players continually crying about OP carriers have almost always been in other battles, because the ones I usually see almost universally know how to defend themselves; even when attempting seal-clubbing in Bogue with a 19 point captain.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,218
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,980 posts
9,293 battles
2 hours ago, misanthrope0 said:

… VS torps?  Reason I ask is I blew the dust off my Saipan and decided to run a couple games in Co-Op and went with the oversized Bomb squadron instead of torpedo bombers. Despite 14 out of 24 hits including the enemy CV for two strikes I got 37840 damage of which 3040 was fire damage. One of the hits was non penetrating.  Now torps are almost 1000 potential damage less than bombs yet torps seem to score more towards their max damage than bombs do.

True?

Basically, it comes down to where you hit, and penetration. Torps hit and unless they hit torp protection, automatically deal about 90% of their max damage, or, that number minus whatever from torp protection. Bombs, however, work the same as a ships shells, despite what one player says above, AP bombs have the same pro's and cons of AP - you will have a more accurate drop, however they can richochet, fail to pen, etc, against some ships, as well as overpen. Only certain ships can more or less be deleted by them. HE, however, without penning, can start fires, but is less likely to actually pen things other than super structure and super thin things like DD's and some super light cruisers. When they pen, they can do a ton of damage, not to mention resulting fires. This is actually part of what is a problem with the "finished but not releasing it because we broke it and need to do the rework for it to be viable" version of GZ - they gave it the equivalent of IFHE bombs apparently, with super accuracy, and I dare say it's MORE effective than torps. And there was a day way back when, USN had somewhat more accurate DB's, and because AA was not so insanely overbuffed, could get more DB's through and while because it was a beta stage before damage was on the front screen, have a screen cap of my AS ranger, using auto drop, with 20 bomb hits, 15 fires, and think it's 3 kills. I have more recent after this stupid loadout change to USN CV's that my DB's on Essex and Lex, again, remember, I'm using auto drops mostly, are doing as much, if not more damage, than torps when they aren't shafted by AA or troll accuracy. and I'm talking around 80k damage between hits and resulting fires.

 

DB's were always meant more as to go after the thinner ships if you really wanted big alpha numbers, but were really more about wearing down the defenses of heavier cruisers and BB's and just burn them down over time by staggering strikes. The problem is they nerfed accuracy a bit too much cause DB's were wrecking DD's (may have been when they still had a citadel so HE DB's could do max damage to them), and in all the buffs to AA to take out manual drop TB's destroying things to easily, never buffed the HP of DB's, meaning less  and less were getting through making AS less and less viable beyond trolling an enemy CV and we couldn't properly use them without attrition being a major issue. TB's are for the instant gratification crowd and were geared to be anti BB/CV as opposed to the anti-everything they kinda became due to high damage and manual drops. 

 

If Wargaming dialed in the USN tech tree DB's closer to Saipan's, maybe not quite that level, but closer in accuracy, and gave them some actual survivability considering the AA they have to go through compared to TB's, especially because IJN attack planes of both types are faster and have more hp in at least a few cases, USN could match IJN torps with no issue using whatever raw damage they get, and resulting fires because if you make a BB pop DCP then hit him again starting 3 fires - that's at worst 31% (a full survivability build) or best (worst for the BB) 54% of the BB's health. Plus the hit damage. So a BB like say, Yamato, would be between 32k-50k damage. Say about 10k damage from direct hits/original fires, that 40-60k total is equal to roughly 5-8 torp hits from a Shokaku's 2 torp squadrons. As they are, yeah, they under perform a bit, unless RNG is kind, but the potential is there to easily match TB's with a couple changes. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,968
[RLGN]
Members
10,033 posts
19,426 battles

I’m thinking adding manual attacks in the first place was the mistake that brought us to where we are now with carriers.

All that did was start the cycle of carrier nerfs and AA buffs that I don’t think has resulted in anything positive.

Autodrops are terribly weak against aware targets, but can still be devestating if used well by a CV driver versed in use of the attack adjustment tab, (I sank two destroyers on Faultline recently by trapping them against terrain with the drops.)

Fighter lock probably could have been dealt with by some form of the current strafe-out mechanic, without actually adding the ‘press button to win’ issues of actual strafe.

In any case, without the murder-drops of manual attacks, the need for strafe seems less necessary.

National Flavor could then be added; give USN tougher fighters, IJN tighter torpedo attacks, and Germans more accurate dive-bomber.

In any case, any ideas I presented here, are likely things previously suggested over the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,011
[STW-M]
Members
2,928 posts
6,969 battles

The list of flaws with bombs is as follows:

  • Even a perfect drop on a completely still target can result in zero hits
  • AP bombs require an approach from a certain angle, and even a slight bit of deviation can completely mess up an attack
  • Dive bombers have to fly directly over the target ship (and thus into all of its AA) in order to attack
  • Bombs can only cause fires, which are much less dangerous than flooding
  • Bombs (even the 1000 lb USN bombs and AP bombs) don't hit nearly as hard as torpedoes: you can get pretty much the same amount of damage from 2-3 bomb hits (or one citadel and a regular hit) as from one torpedo hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
910 posts
6,119 battles
11 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Basically, it comes down to where you hit, and penetration. Torps hit and unless they hit torp protection, automatically deal about 90% of their max damage, or, that number minus whatever from torp protection. Bombs, however, work the same as a ships shells, despite what one player says above, AP bombs have the same pro's and cons of AP - you will have a more accurate drop, however they can richochet, fail to pen, etc, against some ships, as well as overpen. Only certain ships can more or less be deleted by them. HE, however, without penning, can start fires, but is less likely to actually pen things other than super structure and super thin things like DD's and some super light cruisers. When they pen, they can do a ton of damage, not to mention resulting fires. This is actually part of what is a problem with the "finished but not releasing it because we broke it and need to do the rework for it to be viable" version of GZ - they gave it the equivalent of IFHE bombs apparently, with super accuracy, and I dare say it's MORE effective than torps. And there was a day way back when, USN had somewhat more accurate DB's, and because AA was not so insanely overbuffed, could get more DB's through and while because it was a beta stage before damage was on the front screen, have a screen cap of my AS ranger, using auto drop, with 20 bomb hits, 15 fires, and think it's 3 kills. I have more recent after this stupid loadout change to USN CV's that my DB's on Essex and Lex, again, remember, I'm using auto drops mostly, are doing as much, if not more damage, than torps when they aren't shafted by AA or troll accuracy. and I'm talking around 80k damage between hits and resulting fires.

 

DB's were always meant more as to go after the thinner ships if you really wanted big alpha numbers, but were really more about wearing down the defenses of heavier cruisers and BB's and just burn them down over time by staggering strikes. The problem is they nerfed accuracy a bit too much cause DB's were wrecking DD's (may have been when they still had a citadel so HE DB's could do max damage to them), and in all the buffs to AA to take out manual drop TB's destroying things to easily, never buffed the HP of DB's, meaning less  and less were getting through making AS less and less viable beyond trolling an enemy CV and we couldn't properly use them without attrition being a major issue. TB's are for the instant gratification crowd and were geared to be anti BB/CV as opposed to the anti-everything they kinda became due to high damage and manual drops. 

 

If Wargaming dialed in the USN tech tree DB's closer to Saipan's, maybe not quite that level, but closer in accuracy, and gave them some actual survivability considering the AA they have to go through compared to TB's, especially because IJN attack planes of both types are faster and have more hp in at least a few cases, USN could match IJN torps with no issue using whatever raw damage they get, and resulting fires because if you make a BB pop DCP then hit him again starting 3 fires - that's at worst 31% (a full survivability build) or best (worst for the BB) 54% of the BB's health. Plus the hit damage. So a BB like say, Yamato, would be between 32k-50k damage. Say about 10k damage from direct hits/original fires, that 40-60k total is equal to roughly 5-8 torp hits from a Shokaku's 2 torp squadrons. As they are, yeah, they under perform a bit, unless RNG is kind, but the potential is there to easily match TB's with a couple changes. 

Very excellent explanation, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,065 posts
3,885 battles

RNG.  RNG RNG RNG.  And more RNG.  See one large problem I don't see people talking about is that early ships are smaller than later ships but USN targeting circles are the same across the board for HE bombers.  This means that early on you're unlikely to land a whole lot of hits even against BB's while later on it gets a lot harder to miss.  You also have things like target saturation ((Which is really going to screw with manual dropping HE bombs)) and hitting modules for no real damage,  as well as the obvious "Fire damage is fully repairable."  

Torpedoes go where you point them.  Even when under the effects of panic mechanics you can still do a good job of landing at least a torpedo or two.  A panicked dive bomber squadron is probably going to teach the ocean a lesson,  but not so much the ship its aiming at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×