Do you still want bombers?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Kurtz]

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.