I just see huge comments
Fighter planes suggestions
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
Also, napalm wasn't used in bombs until 1944. -
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
hi -
Nn gg wrote:
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
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. -
This sounds more like you’ve got issues with the graphics/animations and less so the actual units they chose to make.
-
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
eruth wrote:
Nn gg wrote:
in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
Read this Click herehi -
BabyDollx wrote:
This sounds more like you’ve got issues with the graphics/animations and less so the actual units they chose to make.
hi -
I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!1
Do you not get the whole 'it's a game' thing? -
eruth wrote:
I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!1Do you not get the whole 'it's a game' thing?
If u say that then troops will die too easily, increase their hit points. Simple.hi -
Nn gg wrote:
eruth wrote:
I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!1Do you not get the whole 'it's a game' thing?
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. -
I just feel that it should be increased. Fighters were a crucial part of air support.hi
-
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
-
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
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 heavyshi -
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.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Users Online 1
1 Guest
-
Similar Threads