Jump to content


Add bombs/rockets to light fighters


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

egikov #1 Posted 08 January 2018 - 04:56 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 783 battles
  • 62
  • [X3M] X3M
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I think it would be interesting and historically accurate.

Even though, the bombs and rockets would be a lot weaker than on multi-role planes.



SpiritFoxMY #2 Posted 08 January 2018 - 05:47 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 743 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

View Postegikov, on 08 January 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

I think it would be interesting and historically accurate.

Even though, the bombs and rockets would be a lot weaker than on multi-role planes.

 

I already have problems with people in multiroles scooting off to play ground attacker against Garrisons; honestly, the last thing we need is more reason for wallet warriors to go haring off to make use of their "bombs" rather than actually contesting a cap.

 

While I would have appreciated the ordnance myself once or twice, those are really rare instances which usually come about because I'm part of a Failteam ™ of bots who insist on hurling themselves against the guns of the swarm of hostiles in the middle cap rather than trying to contest the caps that are not swarming with enemies. 

 

I figure it would be alright to allow players to strap gunpods onto light fighters to give them a little more kick at the expense of performance but, please, no bombs. 


***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


egikov #3 Posted 08 January 2018 - 06:34 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 783 battles
  • 62
  • [X3M] X3M
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSpiritFoxMY, on 08 January 2018 - 11:47 AM, said:

 

I already have problems with people in multiroles scooting off to play ground attacker against Garrisons; honestly, the last thing we need is more reason for wallet warriors to go haring off to make use of their "bombs" rather than actually contesting a cap.

 

While I would have appreciated the ordnance myself once or twice, those are really rare instances which usually come about because I'm part of a Failteam ™ of bots who insist on hurling themselves against the guns of the swarm of hostiles in the middle cap rather than trying to contest the caps that are not swarming with enemies. 

 

I figure it would be alright to allow players to strap gunpods onto light fighters to give them a little more kick at the expense of performance but, please, no bombs. 

 

I disagree with you. Bombs and rockets help a lot multi-role planes when you are getting upgrades and can't fight planes well. Light fighters would benefit the same way.

_Bruiser_ #4 Posted 08 January 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1424 battles
  • 52
  • [TWE] TWE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postegikov, on 08 January 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

 

I disagree with you. Bombs and rockets help a lot multi-role planes when you are getting upgrades and can't fight planes well. Light fighters would benefit the same way.

 

and that is why there are different classes. If u add bombs/rockets to LF then whats the point of MF?

mnbv_fockewulfe #5 Posted 08 January 2018 - 07:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 102 battles
  • 1,901
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
MR is a fake aircraft class Persha is intent on having in their game. Most all planes we're able to carry some sort of ordinance, and we thus classified as fighter-bombers (that is, when they had bombs and rockets mounted on them, without them they were just called fighters.).

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


pyantoryng #6 Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:16 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 881 battles
  • 7,258
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

What you are saying is..."Remove Multirole Fighters designation".

 

Remember the old times? Remember the Mustangs carrying HVARs and Zeroes' bombs? Those were meaningless back then as air combat was king...they could use them more than ever...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

SpiritFoxMY #7 Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:45 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 743 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

View Postegikov, on 08 January 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

 

I disagree with you. Bombs and rockets help a lot multi-role planes when you are getting upgrades and can't fight planes well. Light fighters would benefit the same way.

 

Light fighters have an easier time fighting other planes - better turn and climb. If you're looking for assists in a stock grind, the amount of XP you need to unlock particular ordnance would have been better spent unlocking other aircraft upgrades anyway. 

 

Personally given the inevitably smaller bombloads on an LF compared to most of the others, you're unlikely to make much of a dent on the targets anyway. Useful for cleaning up perhaps but again I feel LFs are better used fighting other airplanes than trying to snipe ground targets 


***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


Mercsn #8 Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:34 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 965 battles
  • 2,838
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013
This is how it used to be.  I used my Lagg-3 as a ground attack craft because it was (way back) such a dog to fight in the air and chewing up ground targets was useful in that it did push the supremacy meter.  It had the 37mm nose cannon and rockets under its wings.   The P-51's had rockets, the zeros had bombs, the Bf109's had access to their underwing "field kit" gunpods, etc.  I think WG misunderstand aerial combat.  All "fighter" classes in the game should be attacking aerial targets first, regardless of whether they can carry ordnance.  But, I see nothing wrong with allowing players to customize their loadout for what their playstyle or flight makeup works best with.  I also advocate for bringing back noticeable performance penalties for equipping such extras.

Edited by Mercsn, 09 January 2018 - 01:35 AM.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Bobby_Tables #9 Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:48 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1057 battles
  • 755
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostMercsn, on 08 January 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

This is how it used to be.  I used my Lagg-3 as a ground attack craft because it was (way back) such a dog to fight in the air and chewing up ground targets was useful in that it did push the supremacy meter.  It had the 37mm nose cannon and rockets under its wings.   The P-51's had rockets, the zeros had bombs, the Bf109's had access to their underwing "field kit" gunpods, etc.  I think WG misunderstand aerial combat.  All "fighter" classes in the game should be attacking aerial targets first, regardless of whether they can carry ordnance.  But, I see nothing wrong with allowing players to customize their loadout for what their playstyle or flight makeup works best with.  I also advocate for bringing back noticeable performance penalties for equipping such extras.

 

That was a very well thought out, concise, and easily readable post.  Are you OK?

Edited by Bobby_Tables, 09 January 2018 - 02:48 AM.


Colddawg #10 Posted 09 January 2018 - 08:33 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 1060 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    10-20-2011

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 08 January 2018 - 02:18 PM, said:

MR is a fake aircraft class Persha is intent on having in their game. Most all planes we're able to carry some sort of ordinance, and we thus classified as fighter-bombers (that is, when they had bombs and rockets mounted on them, without them they were just called fighters.).

 

F/A-18 Hornet Multirole Fighter/Attack Aircraft

"The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine supersonic, all-weather carrier-capable multirole combat jet, designed as both a fighter and attack aircraft."

 

Historically, MANY USN aircraft have been designed as fighter/attack aircraft.  AKA-Multi-role.


Edited by Colddawg, 09 January 2018 - 09:19 PM.

Keep your head on the swivel.


Sierra1968 #11 Posted Yesterday, 08:02 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 298 battles
  • 70
  • [D-INC] D-INC
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
I remember going up the FW-190 line, when bombs and rockets would decrease you plane speed AND your plane maneuverability. It made carrying those a detriment to your aircraft, so a lot of the time I demounted them to be more effective in air to air combat.  Now it's just a speed penalty, so I'll fly to a cap, drop my complex of bombs/rockets, and then zoom up and dogfight.  The new game encourages you to use your ordinance AND fight in air to air combat.

LMG #12 Posted Yesterday, 08:38 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 774 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSierra1968, on 20 January 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

I remember going up the FW-190 line, when bombs and rockets would decrease you plane speed AND your plane maneuverability. It made carrying those a detriment to your aircraft, so a lot of the time I demounted them to be more effective in air to air combat.  Now it's just a speed penalty, so I'll fly to a cap, drop my complex of bombs/rockets, and then zoom up and dogfight.  The new game encourages you to use your ordinance AND fight in air to air combat.

 

Actually it doesn't really encourage you to use your ordnance. It was confirmed that you retain the penalties of mounting ordnance whether or not you use it


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

Sierra1968 #13 Posted Today, 01:28 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 298 battles
  • 70
  • [D-INC] D-INC
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
Yes, but you're talking a 10 kph decrease in speed as opposed to a decrease in speed AND maneuverability.  In other words, there is a SLIGHT penalty to adding bombs/rockets, not a MAJOR penalty to aircraft performance like in pre 2.0.  It used to be a pretty big hit to aircraft handling. 




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users