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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

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.