Do you still want bombers?

[The Janitor]

The Liberator looks to be a really mean gunship; the big gun it can equip was doing some serious damage and the explosions were huge(thank you, devs <3). So the question is: do you guys still want bombers if everything can be some sort of gunship/attack craft? Would you want the Liberator to be loadable as the old school bomber it once was, or have the devs create a whole new aircraft specifically for this kind of indiscriminate justice?

Personally, I wouldn't mind just having both the Liberator and the Galaxy be loadable with bombs. Solves the problem of having to create whole new models and yet adds another way to play the game.

The advantage to bombers over gunships would be allowing them to drop their payload at high altitudes and not having to drop low into the range of ground-based AA fire. Of course, being unable to see exactly what you're dropping bombs on is a bit of a hindrance, and can lead to accidental cases of mass friendly fire. But hey, how many times did that happen with an Orbital Strike in PS1, right?

What do you guys think(based off all the recent footage)?

[Malorn]

No, new liberator is awesome. I love the change. Lib looks like an absolute beast and much more effective than the old bomb mechanic.

[Raymac]

I wouldn't change the Lib. I don't think we need to add a bomber, but I would like to see the ES fighters be able to carry a powerful dumb bomb as an option.

[Timealude]

i wouldnt mind it....theres just something about that sound when a bomb falls from the sky....like make it a trade off have them be stronger then the shells but less ammo in a clip or make them harder to aim with

[chanic]

I think most Liberator crews will be operating at higher altitude than what we've seen in the E3 demo. I'm pretty sure the bombardier will still see friendly markers, and once people learn to spot enemies he should be able to rain down death in a fairly accurate manner too. Plus the turret arc on the mortar seemed pretty small, so being higher would mean being able to fire on a lot more area at once.

Considering all this, the benefits of dropping bombs is pretty much nullified. So no, I don't want bombs to be added.

[Malorn]

I wouldn't change the Lib. I don't think we need to add a bomber, but I would like to see the ES fighters be able to carry a powerful dumb bomb as an option.

This. Being able to swap out rockets for bigger payload bombs and turn ES fighters into dive bombers would be quite cool, and seems reasonably balanced given that they would have to sacrifice missiles & rockets to have them.

[Knightwyvern]

I like the current gunship style. Combined with the Galaxy's customization options that will probably allow it to do something similar, I'm happy. I do like Raymac's idea of powerful one-off dumbfire bombs though. The more options the better.

[The Janitor]

This. Being able to swap out rockets for bigger payload bombs and turn ES fighters into dive bombers would be quite cool, and seems reasonably balanced given that they would have to sacrifice missiles & rockets to have them.

That's a cool idea. I had considered that but I wasn't sure if anyone would take that over rocket pods or if the bombs could be made powerful enough to justify the necessary skill to dive bomb well consistently.

[Zenben]

I love the changes they have made. The liberator works great as a dedicated gunship. I think maybe they should allow the ES fighters to carry a couple bombs. I also don't think the GG really has a place now that the Lib is the dedicated gunship, it feels like there's too much overlap in the roles.

[Sirisian]

I made a post along the similar lines of this a while back (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40617).

Personally I'd prefer a specialized vehicle for the role. I would hate to fly the Sythe as a bomber since it's so agile and unbomber-like. However, with the Liberator having essentially bomb like ground pounding cannons I think people would be confused with another vehicle. When I made my post I was under the assumption that Liberators only had a gatling gun, but now it looks like they can effectively still be a bomber. My only design problem is I'd prefer to drop the bombs and have a tailgunner as a 2 person vehicle, but the amount of role overlap to allow that would be insane at this point with the Liberator's implementation. (I should say I don't care about role overlap at all, but in the past it's been people's complaint toward adding new vehicles to the game).

[Knightwyvern]

Perhaps equipping the bombs could slow the ES fighter/bomber? Seems fair to me, a good tradeoff, and realistic insofar as it should be in a Sci-Fi FPS.

In fact, a squadron of bomb-equipped ES air vehicles could be a great supplement to a Outfit's OS ability, and would require a good amount of coordination to pull off properly, with big rewards. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

[Haro]

I'd be totally fine with a liberator that had the option of using normal bombs, though I do love the new cannon design. I really do like the idea of the fast-paced, nape-of-the-earth flying fighter bombers. Or even keep it for another, new aircraft!

End of the day, I'd take nearly anything. Why not have as many weapons as possible in the game?

[ParisTeta]

Just add Bombs option to Lib and maybe Gal and Divebombing for Mossi,Reav und Scythe!

[Arokel]

I think it would be kinda cool to be able to customize the Galaxy into a strategic bomber along the lines of the irl B-29 was at the end of the WWII.

Probably won't happen but I think it would be kinda neat to see bomber formations with fighter escorts bomb a base to prepare for an attack.

[JacksonFatBack]

I am disappointed that there does not seem to be a true bomber in PS2.

I like the new Liberator. I think it has a very good role to play. But the excitement I had when dropping huge explosives on furry Elmo heads cannot be duplicated by a gunship.

I especially liked the dive-bombing Vulture. It was capable of eliminating full-health MBTs in a single dive, albeit this was very difficult.

[NewSith]

Bombs would be great but "Who needs bombs when you have mounted cannons?"

[Greeniegriz]

After seeing the Liberator in action with mortars and what not.

No.

Cheers,

GG

[Xyntech]

I gotta say, I was kinda perplexed that they weren't adding a true bomber, but after the E3 footage I'm sold on the new design.

[Turdicus]

The cannon does the same shit the bombs did but now with a much larger firing arc. So I don't understand why anyone would want bombs unless they preferred to be in a less active and arguably less effective position. With the cannon you can still go really high up into the air and bombard bases with large explosives...same thing as bombs.

So...I like cannons :)

[Hmr85]

Yes, I would love to see the liberator reclaim its orginal role as a bomber. If not the liberator a aircraft similar to it. There nothing like see a squad of libs carpet bombing a objective. If you want a idea of what it looks like because your new to the game go watch the end of the Band of Brothers PS1 video.

[Sirisian]

The cannon does the same shit the bombs did but now with a much larger firing arc. So I don't understand why anyone would want bombs unless they preferred to be in a less active and arguably less effective position. With the cannon you can still go really high up into the air and bombard bases with large explosives...same thing as bombs.
That's why I'd make it a separate 2 person vehicle for bombing and allow the pilot to drop the bombs with no front gun. It makes it more on par with the tank mentality of having a driver with the main weapon then the secondary person with a secondary weapon (tailgun/rockets).

I think we could have both implementations. Even something as simple as different resource costs. The concept of a gunship and a dive bomber are somewhat unique. The Liberator would be the epicly armored gunship for 3 people and the Vulture would be a more medium armored aircraft the 2 person dive bomber with no front gun.

Personally for me there's a level of skill involved in flying and dropping bombs from a plane and perfectly dropping/throwing them with velocity inheritance that you don't get from a point and click gunship.

[RovingDeath]

I took option 3, assuming, of course, that the mortar/howitzer/whatever they decide to call it can aim straight down. If that is the case, I don't think we need the bombs. You get a similar destructive effect that you can actually aim without the pilot having to scoot this way or that.

[Fenrys]

A full platoon of glide-bombing libs was a terrible and beautiful sight to behold.

A gunship may be more effective in most scenarios, but I don't think it's as cool as carpeting an entire courtyard with bomblets.

It would also be cool if libs or gals could carry a laser guided bomb that would steer for a infiltrator squadmates' painted target. Limited ammo, slow rate of fire, requires a cert, and it would replace some other weapons system.

[Talek Krell]

I think the Lib still fills its old role very well.

I wouldn't be immediately opposed to giving each faction some sort of heavy variant of their ES fighter that had the option to drop a couple of dumb bombs. Or alternatively just make it such that equipping the bombs lowers speed and maneuverability a bit? Something like that.

I think it would be kinda cool to be able to customize the Galaxy into a strategic bomber along the lines of the irl B-29 was at the end of the WWII.One of my friends suggested that to me. I have to admit I love the idea of having a flying fortress style carpet bomber, although I've yet to put any thought into whether it could be considered balanced.

[Aractain]

I support the idea of freefall bomb weapons for fighter aircraft to create the "dive bomber" role. The unguided nature of the bombs lets them be powerful. Could even have disrupter bombs that shut down implants/radar/weapons with a large low damage AOE blast as a support option.

Im not opposed to a carpet bomber option for the lib either.

[SixShooter]

I was kinda bummed when I saw that the bomber function was being removed from the Lib. Seeing it in action with that badass cannon changed my mind completely. That thing it awesome!!!

[Fanglord]

Having not played PS1 I though the idea of bombing quite boring, but that mounted cannon footage of the lib on the e3 stream... just :love:

[Kurtz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bGepZsKc4

50:41

This thing is a beast as is.

I do like the idea of a single bomb on the fighters.

[IMMentat]

After seeing the new Liberator secondary gun, its firing arc, its #impact# and its area of effect.
I don't see bombs being needed unless an arbitrary range limit is put onto the ground firing monster cannon.

The advantages of bombs are that they do full damage no matter the distance between the plane and the enemy and to some extent the suprise factor.
The main disadvantages are time to reach the target and the inaccuracy due to pilot related movements.

As a pilot sidegrade bombs could potentially have some use, but bombs being so tightly reliant on pilot dedication seems a bit unfair to the average F2P vehicle gunner.

[CutterJohn]

Never wanted bombers in the first place. I've been a fan of the change to the lib from the start. The bombardier position was the most boring vehicle position in PS1.


I'm all for dumb bombs for aircav, though balance will be difficult. The damage can't be too great, because people can get really, really, really good with such things.

[Sifer2]

If they added back in bombs maybe just give it to the Galaxy instead of the Liberator. Since the Liberator is now a powerful dedicated Gunship there really is not a reason for the Galaxy to be one too. But imagine the fear people will feel when they see a Galaxy coming, and don't know whether its going to drop soldiers or lots of explosives on their heads lol. Kind of makes it the all purpose support vehicle.

[DayOne]

I think the gal would make an excellent bomber when spec'd into one. Only 2-4 crew members, no extra armour (maybe less) and of course highly susceptible to AA it would mean you'd need to fly high (inaccurate bombs are a must really) and you'd probably need an escort.

Also, think of all the new things you could do with a bomber!

Carpet bombs, incendiary, minefields, cluster bombs, carpet/cluster jammer bombs. The possibilities are ENDLESS (probably).

Apart from all the obvious balancing that would have to be done I think it could add a cool new factor into gameplay, e.g. jammer bomb a facility then rush before the turrets come back online.

[AssassinGT]

As much as I love the liberator, I love diversity more. Faction specific diversity would be even nicer. Make something new so we can have even more aircraft in thr skies

[AssassinGT]

As much as I love the liberator, I love diversity more. Faction specific diversity would be even nicer. Make something new so we can have even more aircraft in thr skies

To reiterate a bit more on that, it should be more bomber focused. For example, high altitude flying, stealth and can be armored for more payload and slower speed and vice versa

[Shade Millith]

I also like the idea of a single, large unguided bomb on the fighters to turn them into dive bombers.

Limitations - Has no rockets/missiles, costs extra resources, and turn rate is lowered while the bomb is attached?