[Would you like to see this in-game?]
We can all agree that abuse of napalm bombs by fighters is harmful to the gameplay of strike aircraft/jet bombers. While these fast agile planes like the mig24 or f5 can easily and quickly fly to a base and drop napalm on it leaving strike aircraft unable to compete with their conventional (or even their own napalm) bombs. This is harmful because it 1 makes fighters focus on something else than their role 2 makes strike aircraft players feel usleless. Not to mention that by bombing them with napalm they basicly waste a base with how little points napalm gives compared to points a strike aircraft would get with normal bombs. Now, how do you limit the usage of napalm? Well
1 Reduce rewards fighters get for destruction of bases/increase rewards for strike aircraft
2 make fighers unable to damage bases at all, leaving only smaller targets for them, this is a great idea for bombers on earlier br too
3 block fighters from carrying napalm. a bit unhistorical but not all planes get to carry all of their historical payload anyway, its for balancing reasons and its not that terrible of a idea
I belive that any of these 3 options if optimally implemented would really improve gameplay of strike aircraft while also making fighers actually fight
1 Like
Should planes like the f/a 18 be barred from using napalm? It is by designation an attacker as well as fighter. And if not, would it make sense to bar fighter bombers by usage and not designation like the f4 phantom from napalm?
The line between fighter and attacker became so blurred post korean war that it seems best to decide what plane gets napalm, by what plane could carry napalm.
6 Likes
to be fair the main ones that need no or less napalm are premium jets i cant even get my bomber to the bases before its dead by premium players
1 Like
I think the first step should just be to rebalance napalm. It does too much damage relative to how few bombs are required compared to conventional bombs, especially as they are also lighter individually as well. At the moment, I think its about 13x the damage (dont quote me on that), if it was instead more like 2-3x, I think it would be largely fair
After that, introduction of CBUs with comprable performance to the newly balanced Napalm to help balance them out further would help greatly too, one of the biggest issues imo, is that some aircraft get Napalm and others dont, most of those that dont get Napalm should have CBUs.
7 Likes
This really
Napalm deals insane damage for how light it is
2 Likes
I would simple prefer napalm to work differently. Less impact damage, more fire damage for same total result. Fire damage should work slower too.
Result: racing a fighter to toss two matches on a base will only give you full base credit if no one tosses stuff a little later. Because most of the base will still be there when the attackers arrive with TNT.
5 Likes
Yeah, that would work too
You deserve free premium.
1 Like
Fighters already get less for bombing bases.
8.0 base vs 10.0 base reward modifer.
2 Likes
Wait a second, this isnt TIGER_TANK1 thread.
11 Likes
For AirRB:
I wrote it many times, to win a battle above rank V there is no need to bomb anything rather it hinders the team to win.
The only reason bombing is a thing at these ranks is the paradox reward system. Bombing bases produces way more reward than it deserves for the effect to the battle.
So everything making bombing more attractive destroys the gameplay even more than it is nowadays anyway.
Populism on:
Learn to fly and fight and your welcome in ARB.
That would horribly affect some planes Im afraid.
Some planes like F-104 also have small bomb load, would make them completely unplayable that some people paid their hard earned money for (F-104 TAF).
People not fighting is a common justification to complain about fighters bombing, but it will get much worse if you nerf Napalm. Do we really want the days of the F-5s carrying full load, not being able to dogfight at all back?
Ah yes me when my interceptor F-104 and MiG-21 are “unplayable” because they suck at bombing
2 Likes
Realism matters more.
And these are multirole aircraft.
Dedicated bombing aircraft are already balanced in BR with multirole fighters in mind.
How else are strike aircraft like the su24 supposed to get RP? They cant fight in effective manner, using them as fighter is just putting yourself in disadvantage for no reason
1 Like
“Realism matters more” okay when are cluster bombs, cannister shells and all that other stuff gonna come? I mean they sure have some great gameplay applications but nobody is adding them? Same as nobody is giving bouncing bombs to landcasters, not every plane needs to have its full historic lodaut
Canister shot is already in game.
Cluster bombs will come when they’re ready.
Lancasters currently have their rolling bombs.
No its not lol, abram’s dosent have its cannister shell?? But it did irl?? Where is it? Where are thermobaric bombs? Where are white phosphorus bombs?
You didn’t type specific tanks.
The AI infantry that canister is useful against isn’t in-game yet, be patient.
Those bomb types will come if necessary, neither of those features are part of the game at this time.
Oh, and this is over 3 whataboutism fallacies you’ve done so far.
What im sayng is its not important at all for viehicles to have their full real lodaut, its even better in many cases
