Okay, so either I can bomb bases with them, or waste them on convoys. You have guns, there’s no need to waste napalm on a bunch of jeeps.
It’s not so much wasting them as it is providing a way to kill them without individually shooting them, which takes up your attention compared to napalm and depletes gun ammo, a rather important and often scarce resource for most aircraft. It’s also most of the time a better use of a hardpoint than any single bomb for ground pounding.
Again
The critical question here is not so much a use for napalm as weighing it against bombs having a use.
Because bombs are good for everything. Jesus Christ, how daft are you? Cry cry cry, that’s all this community does. Nerf this, nerf that, change this, don’t change that. How about shut the hell up and play the damn game? Boo hoo, napalm is good, who cares? Just enjoy the stupid game.
Given how deadly the SPAAGs in the convoys can be. Using CCRP to drop them just a head of the convoy would be a good way to deal with them without guided weapons.
A good tactic for me to try in the AMX A-1A actually
1 Like
No they aren’t, like others have said the best base bomber at any BR is whatever is the fastest aircraft that can carry napalm and most of them aren’t even strike aircraft.
It’s not crying, it’s an opinion you don’t like for reasons you seemingly can’t make an argument for. Who’s going to make an argument against cutting payload weight by well over 50% and achieving basically the same reward? It’s transparently obvious napalm is the superior choice and the implications that makes are almost equally hard to justify.
1 Like
Next time you destroy a Leopard 2A7 with napalm, let me know. Napalm is a one trick pony, they can only destroy bases. Bombs can destroy bases, tanks, other vehicles, and can even destroy planes. It’s a jack of all trades.
The discussion is Air-battles, not ground battles.
So why would the ability of a fighter to outspeed ground attackers and drop napalm onto a base have anything to do with the ability for those same aircraft to bomb a Leopard 2A7V?
Especially given how the superior weapon for Killing Leopards is not actually unguided bombs but guided bombs or AGMs, classes of weapons that are generally not all that great for killing bases in Air Battles.
1 Like
I’m talking that napalm is only good for one thing, while bombs are good for a lot more things. It’s not my fault that Britain decided against using napalm, that Germany stopped using fire bombs, China never used them, Italy never used them. Literally the only two nations that did are America and USSR. Cry about Russian and American bias, since they’re the main ones who use them.
Right… and this entire thread is about the 1 thing its good at, destroying bases, is too good, and they need a rework.
They allow fighters, such as the Mig-23ML, to outperform dedicated ground attackers like the Tornado because they allow a relatively tiny weapons payload to do more damage than a moderately sized payload. All whilst being on a faster airframe.
If the Tornados BR is largely dictated by its “effeciency” which the sole reason they are at 11.7 not 11.3 or 11.0, then this needs to be factored in
If balance was the only issue, then they should add CBUs which could be tuned similarly, that all other nations would use.
Gaijin actually giving a British plane something good? Nice joke, mate. You should be a comedian.
1 Like
Good luck playing with the F104 as an interceptor, the plane was so nerdy that it can’t perform its own function, it now only serves to be a bomb.
1 Like
Fighters carrying napalm bombs isn’t the problem. Honestly those fighters need to git-gud for foolishly carrying bombs instead of air to air missiles in the current game modes.
What really needs to change is that the maps need to change. For one, there really should be more bases and more targets. One attacker player has enough firepower to wipe out half of the bases. There just aren’t enough targets to go around. But furthermore the ground targets shouldn’t just be defenseless bases. There should be serious objectives on the map.
MatAWG had an interesting video the other day displaying an intriguing custom battle where there were multiple bases along the frontline, and the skies over the bases were controlled by a mix of close range AAA like Strelas and longer ranged AAA like the S-75. That’s something more akin to what the battles should be. Air RB should NOT be a 16v16 team deathmatch. Right now ground attack is useless towards winning battles and exists just as selfish and brainless way to score points for people who either aren’t skilled enough to compete in PvP or who are unfortunate enough to be playing a nation that lacks viable fighters at that BR.
It would be a good thing if theater level AAA could disrupt the team-deathmatch meta and give a purpose to multirole loadouts and dedicated ground attackers that can seriously threaten such AAA.
3 Likes
This to be honest, sounds like what ASB / RB EC should be. I dont necessarily have issue with ARB being a deathmatch gamemode, the issue is there is little alternative unless you are willing to learn how to play ASB and deal with its shortcomings
2 Likes
If we have ARB persist as being a “deathmatch” game mode, then they need to solve the problem of attackers and bombers being permitted to even queue for the game mode since they are largely deadweight. Granted there are some exceptions to attackers being useless like the F-15E that are basically fighters wearing a funny hat, or things like the A-10 and Su-25 trolling early generation jet aircraft that lack countermeasures.
For the most part though people spawning into attackers, or things like F-4s with base bombing loadouts, are deadweight for their team. They probably aren’t helping their team win at all. Arguably their presence is detrimental to their team when they alternatively could have had another fighter for the deathmatch. They’re only there to try to scrounge up some RP for lack of better options.
Attackers and bombers don’t really have any place within a deathmatch. If air RB is supposed to be a deathmatch, then attackers and bombers shouldn’t be in air RB. If attackers and bombers shouldn’t be in air RB, then they need some alternative mode where they can do something more productive than racing headfirst at a base while screaming “MINE MINE MINE MINE!” like the seagulls from “Finding Nemo” and praying that the RWR beeping is indicative of a missile seeking their adjacent teammate instead of themselves.
2 Likes
Yeah, in Gaijin and some bad fighter mains who want bomber/attacker to be ‘manned bot, which can do nothing in a match but gives a superior reward than those unmanned A-4B or CL-13’
With Gaijin’s way of solving(Laugh) the problem.
I can’t wait to see the complete removal of my fully spaded bomber branch, and say goodbye to my Tornado IDS forevermore in this game. :|
Then I will finally can quit this game which is in rubbish bollock status.
I really want to see that Strike Aircraft and Bombers can do a real thing in ARB but
My mind is just broken, and I don’t have any faith about that anymore…
The problem with playing strike aircraft in ARB is to do it efficiently for a win you basically have to “troll” to get anywhere by playing the most ungodly fast ones and dragging the game out and bleeding tickets for a win. Definitely with some airfield camping, feigning landings and order spam necessary since people will go apeshit after you(which is often how you win :) ). Often times most of your team mates are also useless for it because they are all dead before the bases can even respawn.
2 Likes
IMO, low-tier strike planes (I don’t have top-tier) are the WORST. They (1) have cannons and spawn at bomber ALT, making them bomber hunters (2) dive and rush for the bases (3) They are the TOP Teamkillers. TBH, if you want to ban napalm, it wouldn’t be hard for some F-4 to find OTHER options, like Rockets (I’ve heard most use rockets now since napalm has bad rewards), Snakeye bombs, maybe even ATGM/ASGM like the ones on the SU-34. What we SHOULD do is, however, is to make a statistics that gives bombers 100-200% MORE RP and SL when they DAMAGE/KILL a base. AND the MAIN reason why fighters choose napalm is because it’s lighter and more damaging. But why? Because after the base respawning changes, (I also know what it is) they figured only four (4) bases won’t be enough, rushing for the bases with the lightest load possible. We can (1) add up to eight bases (someting like SB) so that there is less competition in both low and top tier, (2) add AAA (low tier) and AAM (top-tier) around bases so that fighters might not want to take it. And we can have AAA and AAM target low-flying planes (mostly fighters) so that leaves bombers in peace. I know, because of the ballistic computers and retarded bombs, bombers also fly low. So, we can rig the AAA and AAM to target fighters like crazy while target bombers a little less (second priority). It’s realistic since IRL bases are not left undefended. (I know that they should target bombers first, but the point is to discourage fighters). What ya think?
I miss the bases respawning right after I landed. :(
No need to nerf fighters, especially since many of them are actually fighter-bombers irl. Why not to just increase amount of targets to bomb as well as health points/protection of each base?
1 Like
Agreed. Also, stock grind, and the fact that some planes are simply awfulz like Smb2, that the only decently consistent route is to grind is bomb