[Petition] Change Bombers to Fighters

No benefits, no pros just a taste of reality and logic. (and because I'm bored)
Petition to change default aircraft unit in Atwar. Name and Picture. Stats untouched. What's with the fighters in the strategy insignia if we have bombers instead?
Bombers as defualt aircraft does not make any sense. Bombers are superior by range and longevity; less efficient on attacking surface and aerial units than fighters, not the other way around.

Current Stats: Atk-Def-Crit-HP-Range-View

• Default Bombers: 6-6-5-7-15-24
  
• Rare FIghters: 6-6-5-8-18-null

_____________

An aircraft bomber by definition attacks ground and sea targets; classified into two categories: Strategic and Tactical.
World Map Bombers, hearsay are strategic and closely resembles an eight-jet engine B-52 Stratofortress and can carry approx. 32k kgs-bombs, missiles, mines. I reckon anti-aircraft armaments are now removed since it's basically useless (because there's no world war)

The picture depicted in the World Map Fighter (not the strategy logo) unit resembles a Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet which carries air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface missiles which are effective at all areas. (Source: In-game World Map & Atwar wiki)



In Atwar, the use of these strategic bombers are: (1) WF, (2) Escort, (3) Attack and (4) Defend.
Of which only no. 3 fits the role of a Strategic bomber aircraft. Would have considered an Attack Aircraft category but is not primarily built and intended for air-to-air combat. A Fighter Aircraft on another hand fits all categories. Given that, the next line may or may not convince you to alter the current default aircraft in world maps but consider appropriate factors why we should have fighters than bombers.
____________
1. Wall-fucking and attacking single units such as infantry and transports.
Strategically place a unit adjacent to a city to prevent an enemy from walling by engaging coitus.

Bombing Single or a group of targets in an urban city is inefficient and costly (collat.dmg) unless fully exposed and stationary. Albeit a Super Hornet can fly low and strafe efficiently since fighters are either equipped with mounted automatic and bombing armaments unlike a B-52 which is built to strike at high altitudes.

2. Escorting
Here comes the funny part, bombers are no escorts. Bombers are the ones who needs escorts from Fighters. Send 32 bombers to protect 4 Military passengers planes which houses 20 infantry? If this was reality, Hitler would call you crazy. A flight of hornets is enough to halt the mission.

3. Attacking
Let's assume these Strategic Bombers uses Carpet and Tactical Bombing which are efficient at cities and ground targets (Not, Atwar logic dictates an infantry and a tank can shoot down a levitating metal with 12.7mm) but not against another bomber. How do you suppose they do that? Dogfight? I rather ram.

Fighters are efficient on strafing ground units than bombing. Lesser consumption of ammo, superior accuracy and poses better aerial superiority.

4. Defending
Bombers are usually fitted with one-two piece anti-aircraft armament by their tail or waist of which they cant use it against an armor or infantry above ground. And you cant risk to bomb a city, your territory and your people you're defending unless you're Stalin. It's logical for a post-modern urban city to build fighters instead of bombers to defend itself from an aerial invasion.


Fighters for logical sorties.
__________
Spaceships tho

You couldn't do this without Hitler and Stalin reference could you ...COULD YOU???

I forgot to mention obama drones.

Best of both worlds

No.. just no.. NOOO

Lol more of a story than a petition, funny

Mfw i see a bomber escorting an airtransport



Please!

Next you're going to suggest we start calling destroyers battleships!

Geschrieben von Acquiesce, 05.05.2015 at 08:53

Next you're going to suggest we start calling destroyers battleships!

Then I hope this next story is worth reading too or else don't give him more ideas, the forum will soon be full of his petitions!

Nie! I disagree. Tactical bombers can after all be of use escorting air transports, breaking defensive positions, suppress enemy defenses in a charge and terrorize such a charge from the enemy, thus fulfilling the four roles the OP mentioned.

Note to mention that tactical bombers were sometimes historically used to establish air superiority (never to good effect, but still).

Geschrieben von International, 05.05.2015 at 09:21

Nie! I disagree. Tactical bombers can after all be of use escorting air transports, breaking defensive positions, suppress enemy defenses in a charge and terrorize such a charge from the enemy, thus fulfilling the four roles the OP mentioned.

Note to mention that tactical bombers were sometimes historically used to establish air superiority (never to good effect, but still).

Name me some incident where tactical bombers were used to escort air transports. I'm quite lost in history. To be clear, I labeled Atwar bombers as strategic, not tactical.

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 05.05.2015 at 09:00

Geschrieben von Acquiesce, 05.05.2015 at 08:53

Next you're going to suggest we start calling destroyers battleships!

Then I hope this next story is worth reading too or else don't give him more ideas, the forum will soon be full of his petitions!

Nah no lol. +1 Def against bombers says it gotta stay to be destroyers.

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 10:07

Geschrieben von International, 05.05.2015 at 09:21

Nie! I disagree. Tactical bombers can after all be of use escorting air transports, breaking defensive positions, suppress enemy defenses in a charge and terrorize such a charge from the enemy, thus fulfilling the four roles the OP mentioned.

Note to mention that tactical bombers were sometimes historically used to establish air superiority (never to good effect, but still).

Name me some incident where tactical bombers would escort air transports. I'm quite lost in history.

That part has nothing to do with history...
Just think about it. If you think an air transport would be under threat by fighters well, fighters are the logical choice. But what if you expect to meet anti-air resistance? Then clearly bombers are more sensible.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Geschrieben von International, 05.05.2015 at 10:11

Note to mention that tactical bombers were sometimes historically used to establish air superiority (never to good effect, but still).

Name me some incident where tactical bombers would escort air transports. I'm quite lost in history.

That part has nothing to do with history...
Just think about it. If you think an air transport would be under threat by fighters well, fighters are the logical choice. But what if you expect to meet anti-air resistance? Then clearly bombers are more sensible.

enlighten me why.

Zitat:

Zitat:

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 10:22

Geschrieben von International, 05.05.2015 at 10:11

Note to mention that tactical bombers were sometimes historically used to establish air superiority (never to good effect, but still).

Name me some incident where tactical bombers would escort air transports. I'm quite lost in history.

That part has nothing to do with history...
Just think about it. If you think an air transport would be under threat by fighters well, fighters are the logical choice. But what if you expect to meet anti-air resistance? Then clearly bombers are more sensible.

enlighten me why.

Because bombers are so much more effective against ground units than fighters?

Geschrieben von International, 05.05.2015 at 10:30

Because bombers are so much more effective against ground units than fighters?

nvm. Dont bother answering the question. You clearly dont know what youre talking about.

This thread is stupid and you should feel stupid.

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 12:21

nvm. Dont bother answering the question.

You don't seem to be concerned that tanks can destroy a bomber or a stealth plane for example ...what in real life would be like wining a lottery.

Nein

Geschrieben von Goblin, 05.05.2015 at 13:05

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 12:21

nvm. Dont bother answering the question.

You don't seem to be concerned that tanks can destroy a bomber or a stealth plane for example ...what in real life would be like wining a lottery.

I am. I did state that can infantry can shoot down a flying tank. But its more appropriate to have fighters than bombers as a default aircraft.

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 06.05.2015 at 02:44

I am. I did state that can infantry can shoot down a flying tank.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 06.05.2015 at 04:22

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 06.05.2015 at 02:44

I am. I did state that can infantry can shoot down a flying tank.

axaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

Oh come on: 16:5, no fan of real-military verities?

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 07.05.2015 at 08:14

Oh come on: 16:5, no fan of real-military verities?

If we were to be 100% realistic this game would be doomed XD

Geschrieben von RaulPB, 07.05.2015 at 08:21

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 07.05.2015 at 08:14

Oh come on: 16:5, no fan of real-military verities?

If we were to be 100% realistic this game would be doomed XD

im asking a powdered variation added to the batch. Tis not chemical X, atwar wont turn into 3 chipmunks dressed in tights

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 07.05.2015 at 09:22

im asking a powdered variation added to the batch. Tis not chemical X, atwar wont turn into 3 chipmunks dressed in tights

Oh well, sad news, if that were to happen I'd actually try

I'm not sure if it would be possible to turn fighters from rare to normal and bombers to rare units. I guess it shoud be possible though it seems like a little detail.

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 07.05.2015 at 08:14

Oh come on: 16:5, no fan of real-military verities?

I'm sorry but i see bombers as the main attacking unit, not fighters ...who tend to be a support unit for bombers.

But actually, fighters are often used as bombers and not exclusively for dogfights ...which are as i read pretty uncool today :/ ...no close combat, dogfights today are done with two planes miles away from each other ...lame.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 07.05.2015 at 13:17

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 07.05.2015 at 08:14

Oh come on: 16:5, no fan of real-military verities?

I'm sorry but i see bombers as the main attacking unit, not fighters ...who tend to be a support unit for bombers.

post updated. Comparing both unit stats. There's not much a bit difference, and the stats itself is--well. Just as I expect.

Geschrieben von Skanderbeg, 08.05.2015 at 11:36

Actually, modern bombers are more efficient planes than fighters as they can carry more fuel, more rockets + bombs and have space for electronics, radar and even cargo. Even old bombers like American B-52 or Russian TU-95 are still operational and efficient because they can carry missiles to attack almost any target from any distance but also defend against jet fighters and SAM installations. Jet fighter have to manouver and use counter-measures as defense because it already carry offensive weapon, missiles so jet fighter cant carry more. While bomber can carry free-dropping bombs, offensive missiles and defensive missiles plus radar or drones.

Dont forget gunship

Armament payload efficiency is not the issue i am refuting but the deployment of superiority and operational considerations.

The efficiency of bombers differs from the ability of fighters concerning their relation to the game. Both are on par when it comes to offensive measures yet bombers is behind in the issue of escorting and defending. It's not logical for a flight of bombers to engage another flight of bombers nor the idea of a tank shutting a bomber from a 4-thousand kilometer altitude. The Military in the real world does not use bombers to escort and defend their given objective. The tasks are to being initiated by fighters.

When the Luftwaffe invades the british isles during the battle of britain, what type of aircraft escorted their bombers and heavy attackers? what type of aircraft did the Royal Air Force sent to defend the city? Bombers? When world leaders travel by air to a foreign land, what type of aircraft serves as a body-guard to the leader's air suite?

Eh?

And regarding of your gunship. How do you suppose it should take action against another bombers? They're restricted to dogfighting and evasion. A fighter would simply fly through a blindspot or even snipe from afar. Sad to see atwar players cannot impose a bit of reality into an unrealistic game and they're only reason not to adhere because it's stupid.

Ironically, no one has managed to debunk my claims why.

Geschrieben von Skanderbeg, 08.05.2015 at 12:46

Geschrieben von Yeomanry, 08.05.2015 at 12:27

Armament payload efficiency is not the issue i am refuting but the deployment of superiority and operational considerations.

The efficiency of bombers differs from the ability of fighters concerning their relation to the game. Both are on par when it comes to offensive measures yet bombers is behind in the issue of escorting and defending. It's not logical for a flight of bombers to engage another flight of bombers nor the idea of a tank shutting a bomber from a 4-thousand kilometer altitude. The Military in the real world does not use bombers to escort and defend their given objective. The tasks are to being initiated by fighters.

When the Luftwaffe invades the british isles during the battle of britain, what type of aircraft escorted their bombers and heavy attackers? what type of aircraft did the Royal Air Force sent to defend the city? Bombers? When world leaders travel by air to a foreign land, what type of aircraft serves as a body-guard to the leader's air suite?

Eh?

And regarding of your gunship. How do you suppose it should take action against another bombers? They're restricted to dogfighting and evasion. A fighter would simply fly through a blindspot or even snipe from afar. Sad to see atwar players cannot impose a bit of reality into an unrealistic game and they're only reason not to adhere because it's stupid.

Ironically, no one has managed to debunk my claims why.

Simple: bomber can carry more missiles than jet fighter - that mean on atWar bomber can have more attacking points.
Bomber carry more fuel than fighter - on atWar bomber have more range
Bomber have better radar - on atWar that mean more view range.
Bomber can carry more defensive missiles, countermeasures, computers, electronics and radar - on atWar that mean bomber can have more defense points.

I agree about WW2, bombers were escorted by fighters, but dont forget those fighters didnt had missiles(not invented yet) and bombers only carried free-fall bombs. But today bombers are (or better re-classified 'missile aircraft') equipped with missiles, long range missiles, short range missiles, subsonic missiles, supersonic missiles, cruise missiles, precision-strike missiles, guided missiles.
That mean TU-95 lift off and fly 100km away from air transport, and if air transport is in danger by incoming jet fighters, TU-95 will simply fire few missiles in their direction. Larger missiles - more range than smaller missiles from jet fighters plus probably those missiles will burst into smaller precision parts to damage fighters.

In modern world, you dont have to stick a jet fighter 10m from air transport to protect it like 70 years ago in WW2. You can defend it from 100-500km away.

Again Armament payload efficiency is not the issue i am refuting but the deployment of superiority and operational considerations. You clearly dont have a foothold on how armaments work. More missiles does not equate efficiency. The maneuverability and defensive points (of which I rather not mention since you wont understand it anyway) of fighters to engage in an elusive confrontation can clearly defect the advantages you pointed.

sigh. nvm. You clearly wont...

Dude, give up 19 people say bombers, 14 want Spaceships ...and Tito said it all.