Naval bomber

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Naval bomber

      The naval bomber is a mix category of two entirely different concepts and roles. The picture and unit descriptors talk about long-range patrol, reconnaisance and submarine fighters (Condor, Sunderland, etc); the close-range surface ship attackers (torpedo- and dive bombers) are missing, while these played a key role in many naval battles, both Pacific and Atlantic. Their omission is the reason that air power is struggling to keep the upper hand over navy (while any WW2 fleet's nightmare was an attack from the air).

      So I propose introducing these: short range, relatively slow, hard-hitting against surface ships, zero against subs, a bit of land damage as well, though not as much as tacs. At the same time, increase (current) naval bomber range drastically (talking strategic bomber proximity here), while removing most of the surface ship damage. Cost could come down a bit as well, not because they're cheap planes, but because their squadrons would be smaller and usage more spread-out (single plane operations). This could be reflected in decreased hit points and/or air-to-air values.

      (As a side note, naval bombers have earned a place in my research schedule on the bigger maps usually. I used to never even research them, until I was thoroughly beaten in several naval battles by people who DID use them. Key thing: don't expect a single one to do a job; build SBDE-compliant stacks of them just like you would any other unit - then they'll deal with navies quite efficiently, especially when operated from carriers. Scouting out a transport route for enemy subs is very useful as well.).
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • This is SO needed. I love using submarines to make a huge wall in the ocean to block convoys, so it's my absolute nightmare when someone with high level destroyers attacks me, because my submarines turn to butter and my planes can do NOTHING. In real life, one well-placed bomb could sink a warship of any size, so it doesn't make sense why all existing planes are such garbage against ships.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel
    • Perhaps the roles could be this:

      Spy plane: For discovering stealth submarines and long range recon of both land and sea. Very weak on attack against anything. Slow, and a wide patrol zone. Too fragile to attack with, and not a lot of hit points so that players don't use them to add bulk to other plane stacks.


      Naval bomber: For actually attacking ships and submarines.


      Although keeping the submarine attack role for the one unit that can see them is probably wise from a gameplay perspective. It would be annoying to have to research and build two units for that role.




      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Key thing: don't expect a single one to do a job; build SBDE-compliant stacks of them just like you would any other unit
      Truer words have not been spoken :)

      If you construct an air group of 5 interceptors,, 5 tactical bombers, and 5 naval bombers it is quite formidable, particularly with level 4 naval bombers. The wide patrol radius of the naval bombers is nice for cleaning up scattered individual units when they are trying to flee like ants.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • I suggested 6 options, not necesarily a total of 6 added units.

      Haha all I'm saying is that you objected to 'more units' yet suggest one yourself. I just thought that is funny.

      As far as your suggestion goes, I think you make a valid point. The air branch is the most limited one out of all the army branches. Some diversity would be welcome.

      My personal preference would be a scout plane or a different type of fighter/bomber. Hadnt considered a naval fighter but yes, you make an interesting suggestion. Would definately make a difference in how naval vs air force battles will be fought. Could be interesting.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Edepedable ().