In my previous post, I discussed the problems with reducing bomber durability too much when the game itself does not provide several of the factors that historically improved their chances of survival, such as large defensive formations and organized fighter escorts.
After thinking about the situation further, I came up with an alternative that might work better for both bomber players and fighter/interceptor players.
This idea is similar to a proposal I previously suggested for Nuclear Thunder: introducing AI-controlled bomber formations into regular matches, following a concept similar to bomber formations that have appeared in previous events.
At the moment, we normally have three or four individual bases spread across the map for bombers to attack. My suggestion would be to replace part of this system with a major strategic target, such as:
- a city or industrial district;
- a major railway station;
- a factory complex;
- a logistics depot;
- a port;
- or another important military installation.
This main objective could have significantly more HP than the current bases, requiring several bombers or a large amount of ordnance to destroy.
Another possibility would be to keep two smaller bases similar to the ones we already have, while adding this larger strategic objective as a third and more important target.
The main difference would be that an AI-controlled bomber formation would appear during the match with the specific mission of attacking this strategic objective.
Players using bombers could then be given the option to join the formation.
If they choose to participate, they could fly alongside the AI bombers and accompany them toward the strategic target.
This would completely change the current situation for bomber players.
Instead of having only two or three players flying completely isolated across the map, they could join a larger formation and benefit from some of the protection provided by overlapping defensive fire from multiple bombers.
Under these conditions, the current level of bomber durability could become much more acceptable because one of the major factors currently missing from the game would finally exist: the defensive advantage of flying in formation.
Fighter escorts, on the other hand, could still depend on the choices made by players.
Fighter players could receive a secondary objective to protect the bomber formation, while players on the opposing team could receive an interception mission.
This would naturally create engagements between:
bomber formation + possible fighter escorts
versus
enemy fighters and interceptors.
It would also be important to improve the effectiveness of AI-controlled gunners, especially those aboard player-controlled bombers. At the moment, automatic defensive fire does not always provide sufficient protection, even when an enemy fighter remains in an extremely vulnerable position behind the bomber for an extended period of time.
The goal would not be to turn AI gunners into extremely accurate weapons or make bombers impossible to attack. The idea would simply be to make sitting directly behind an entire bomber formation an actual risk.
This system could provide advantages for both sides.
Bomber players would gain survivability through cooperation and formation flying rather than relying entirely on artificially increased individual durability.
Fighter and interceptor players would still be able to destroy bombers, but they would need to think more carefully about their attacks, choosing better angles, prioritizing targets, and potentially cooperating with other players.
It could also encourage something that currently happens very rarely among bomber players: cooperation.
Instead of every bomber simply flying alone toward a different base, several players could gather around a common objective and participate in what actually feels like a proper bombing mission.
In my opinion, this would be a much more interesting solution than constantly increasing and decreasing bomber durability.
Their survivability could come from formation flying, cooperation, and team support rather than simply from how much damage a single aircraft can absorb.