Get Premium to hide all ads
Posts: 40   Visited by: 148 users

Original post

Posted by Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 - 04:08

Games are known for defying logic.


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

Poll

What kind of default aircraft suits World Map?

Figher Aicraft
20
Bombers
32
Spaceships w/ lazurs that go pew-pew
28

Total votes: 74
08.05.2015 - 22:31
Written by Goblin, 08.05.2015 at 13:13

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


Nah, none had debunked mine. They choose bombers because they are used to it. No firm rebuttals, but just because they like it better.
----
Loading...
Loading...
11.05.2015 - 12:15
Written by Yeomanry, 08.05.2015 at 22:31

Written by Goblin, 08.05.2015 at 13:13

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


Nah, none had debunked mine. They choose bombers because they are used to it. No firm rebuttals, but just because they like it better.

You just 'debunked' yourself. /thread
Loading...
Loading...
11.05.2015 - 12:27
Written by Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 04:08
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)


That's an F-14 btw
----
Written by Mahdi, 23.11.2013 at 20:30

I don't consider the phrase "massive fag" to be an insult. Mods did.
Loading...
Loading...
11.05.2015 - 12:30
Written by Acquiesce, 05.05.2015 at 08:53

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

support, it's time
----
intelligence + imagination = extraordinary result
Loading...
Loading...
11.05.2015 - 13:17
 Acquiesce (Mod)
Written by Sun Tsu, 11.05.2015 at 12:30

support, it's time


It was a reference to early AW. Destroyers used to be called battleships back in beta but the admins changed the name and made battleships a rare unit.
----
The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Loading...
Loading...
12.05.2015 - 01:11
Written by notserral, 11.05.2015 at 12:27

Written by Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 04:08
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)


That's an F-14 btw


Oh, my bad

You mods are the game changer. What do you think?
----
Loading...
Loading...
12.05.2015 - 05:10
I think it's a cool idea if cosmetic only.
----
Written by Mahdi, 23.11.2013 at 20:30

I don't consider the phrase "massive fag" to be an insult. Mods did.
Loading...
Loading...
12.05.2015 - 09:31
Written by notserral, 12.05.2015 at 05:10

I think it's a cool idea if cosmetic only.


It's actually just for cosmetic reasons. I only spiced it up a bit.

Written by Yeomanry, 05.05.2015 at 04:08

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.

Current Stats: Atk-Def-Crit-HP-Range-View
  • Default Bombers: 6-6-5-7-15-24
  • Rare FIghters: 6-6-5-8-18-null

----
Loading...
Loading...
28.08.2017 - 01:42
The name should be changed to attack aircraft, because they can to some ability be used like fighters, but they have the same ground attack capabilities as bombers. Also strategic bombers with super high collateral should be rare units.
Loading...
Loading...
29.08.2017 - 08:56
People are used to bomber, making it "spaceship" or "fighter" would only make things more confusing. No need to change the name of it
Loading...
Loading...
  • 1
  • 2
atWar

About Us
Contact

Privacy | Terms of service | Banners | Partners

Copyright © 2024 atWar. All rights reserved.

Join us on

Spread the word