Add unguided bombs to jets

[earnest adder]

The jets are rather weak against ground targets. They can do OK against APCs, and repeatedly battering a tank will eventually take it down, but they're hopeless against infantry.

In fact, jets are most useful against... jets.

The 2-fin jet used to be able to kill an infantryman in a couple attack runs with the unguided rockets until those got nerfed. The unguided rockets of the 1-fin jet are even weaker.

And this led to a thought: why not give the jets a weapon that is highly effective against all ground targets, but that requires skill to use effectively? And, the obvious answer, is the unguided bomb.

The unguided bomb would, when dropped, start with the initial velocity of the jet. It would then be pulled down into the ground by gravity, in a parabolic curve similar to the grenade. It would explode on impact, or perhaps have a 1-second delay fuse so you don't destroy yourself when bombing at very low level (even better if the delay could be optional, but that might be excessively complex to interface).

The exact level of damage would need fine-tuned for balance in play-testing, but it should be effective against both infantry and vehicles. Realism suggests that a direct hit should one-shot a tank; that might be a bit too OP, but given the difficulty of a direct hit on a moving target with an unguided bomb, it might actually be OK. A very near miss should probably insta-kill infantry. Maybe the damage should be comparable to Airstrike?

Hitting a target precisely, however, would be difficult. You can't point the nose and shoot like you can with a rocket unless you are flying exactly straight down. You could, with a lot of practice, get good at bombing runs so you can hit targets effectively, but I would expect to see many, many poorly-aimed bombs that did little or no damage.

Thus, it would be a powerful weapon that is very hard to use effectively.

Balance could also be achieved by giving it a slow reload time if needed.

[odd snow]

Sp basiclly War Thunder Air-Arcade in War brokers

Would the unguided bombs have a bombing sight or no.

[earnest adder]

I wasn't thinking that we would have a bombing sight; I'm not sure how it would be interfaced.

[odd snow]

Well you can point your nose to the ground and bomb, that's call dive bombing

[earnest adder]

Right, dive bombing would be the easiest way to be accurate.

This of course means flying in a straight line towards the target, which means you're vulnerable to anti-aircraft weapons. We already have that problem with unguided rockets, but with rockets you can fire them from a distance. The low ceiling means you can only fly so high, though, so you don't have much room for a vertical dive.

[odd snow]

This is the bombing sights in war thunder

I'll review this later in the morning.

[earnest adder]

Looks cool. I assume we'd use right-click or some other keystroke to activate it.

I don't think it would be essential to have a bombing sight to have unguided bombs, but it would definitely help with the accuracy as well as being cool. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, though.

Of course, if accurate bombing becomes too easy, that might need to be balanced by nerfing the power of the bomb.

[normal rivet]

How about adding a 2d instrument panel w/a HUD? Or would that make it too easy?

[clever tendon]

i've thought this too, but i think the problem could be fixed just as well by increasing the damage of the gun especially against players. for example, people on the smokestacks in pacific would still be immune to carpet bombing, but if you could kill them in 10 shots instead of 100 it might even things out a little bit. alternatively you could make the jet itself into a bomb and allow a bit more of kamikaze attack

[odd snow]

The jet’s firepower is already enough to kill infantry players.

Though I very much dislike kamikazing using the jets.

The best way to kill infantry is to use a combo of both unguided and guided rockets.

This works well with the Fin 2 Jet.

For the Fin 1 Jet, fire a guided missile, switch to unguided, fire two missiles(spread out the firing time), switch back to the guided missile and fire it off. Then switch back to your unguided and time your shots. Spamming the rocket pods will lead to an ineffective damage on the infantry. As the knock back from the first blow will send them flying, so you need to space our your timing when firing the rocket pods.

With machine guns, attack from a high angle, never attack from a low angle.

You can attack from a diagonal angle that would be enough, but if you attack from a low angle you give yourself up to giving the enemy opportunities to hurt your jet.

The Fin 2 Jet unguided rockets are extremely good damage dealers. Use it with the guided and some machine gun fire you be alright.

The fin 1 jet, use your machine guns more than your rocket pods

[clever tendon]

i agree with all that, i just threw some thoughts out, personally i don't think they need to be tweaked at all

[odd snow]

The fin 2 Jet machine guns have a faster rate of fire than the fin 1.
The fin 1 jet has more damage, but less rate of fire(and I think more spread).

For the bomb ig, I could see why the bombing sight could be a problem

[clever tendon]

if i were going to change the jets at all i would change the flares. instead of three drops, i would offer one drop that regenerated.

[odd snow]

An alternative for the bombing could be a 3rd person bombing hud

However I always fly in 1st person pov for the jets, so it think it be best to be able to have the bombing sights for 1st pov, and the 3rd pov bombing reticle for the hud

Though this would be copying from war Thunder so I propose we do switch up how bombing works

I was thinking about the bf5 bombing of how they have a big circle for their bombing reticle

Why don’t we use a unique bombing bud and custom bombing sights

And the unguided bombs have bigger spread

So the 1st pov doesn’t provide the most accurate bombing data, both 3rd and 1st pov will display the area the bomb could hit, but the spread of the bombs still make it so it’s not 100% dead accurate.

The 3rd pov cold be like a shotgun reticle ig

I’m tryna find reticle designs lol

I was thinking sth like this

Instead of the flower being in the direct middle

The outside of the reticle in that photo would be the flower

Or these as inspirations

The circle on the outside

Brb

[normal rivet]

That symbology is typically used in HUDs for guns though...

[odd snow]

Okay I am back after hopping out of bed. I wanna take a step back and start over on this suggestion. Imma put a pause on the reticle/hud thing.
I wanna write down some points first about this suggestion that could be used as a format on how the bombing would work. First the jets, then anti-air, next balancing issues, lastly the bombs themselves.

As someone who has quite the experience with these flying metal coffins, I wanna provide my knowledge on them first before I provide a bunch of counter claims to the suggestion.
General knowledge about the jets, then points of the opposite view of this suggestion before writing down the questions for bombs.

[odd snow]

Anti-Air
The jets are quite an air vehicle that can last long in the skies in the right hands of a very skilled jet user. Players that have been playing War Brokers long enough will already know how annoying/frustrating it is to take down a jet, especially if the player operating the jet is Maxbros or WarWolf. If a player were to use the homing missile to take down the jets, they will have to deal with the 3 flares first. If a decent player knows how to use terrain and attitude to their advantage, they could last quite long before popping a flare. By the time a homing missile user manages to deplete a jet user of flares, they would already be waiting on that cooldown. Now if the player already had taken damage, they would already be healing during this period. A lot of players ignore the jets mainly because they don't pose much of a threat sometimes unless the user is experienced.

Vehicle Combat
Apcs and tanks, the heli 3 and the jets are formidable to those ground vehicles. Tanks are extremely vulnerable to jets, they are practically metal snails that have no way of defending themselves against hawks in the sky. Apcs can drive around as quick as possible, but the unguided and guided missiles are still a threat to those speedsters. The jets are efficient in dealing with both ground and helicopters(exception being the Heli-3).
They are stacked to the brim of offensive capabilities against all forms of vehicles.
Although, the apcs are very good anti-air detergents against the jets. This only being if the jets come in at a slow speed, low attitude and low attack angle. Other than that if the jets attack from a vertical angle, the apcs can't really do anything about that.

Infantry
The jets do have the capabilities to perform attack runs on infantry. Refer back to my Anti-Air point, anyone who isn't using a 50 cal, minigun, rpg, or homing missile in their loadout will be finding themselves as a target for the prying eyes of the jets. The jets have everything in the arsenal to kill infantry, but the only limitation is skill and experience.

Bombs
-Will the bombs be providing a huge advantage to these aerial vehicle, or will they be requiring more skill to operate them?
I have already stated how hard jets can be taken down if a skilled user is operating them, add bombs to them and anti-air users will be finding themselves in a pickle.
-How will anti-air users combat bombs dropping on top of them while they try to kill a jet?
-Will there be any form of spawn protection against these bombs?
The bombs could easily spawn camp players, afterall they would pose area denial device.
Take Northwest, Pacific, and Flooded for example.
-How will players avoid or counter-act bombs raining down on top of them?
-How much bombs will a jet will have in its bomb bay?
-How long is the cooldown for the bombs to refresh or how will the bombs be reloaded?
These are the only ones I can think of for the time being.
[Edit]
-If bombs are added into the game, will there be a teamwork based role for bombs?
Such as implementing color smoke nades for teammates to throw down on the ground to rely information to the bomber to bomb this area.

Moving onto the bombs themselves, obviously attitude and velocity will be the two main factors of bombing.

At a high attitude, the bombs will have a larger spread/scatter area, but will take longer time to impact the ground and denotate.
At a low attitude, the bombs will have a small spread and will be effective in dealing concentrated area damage.
"It would explode on impact, or perhaps have a 1-second delay fuse so you don't destroy yourself when bombing at very low level (even better if the delay could be optional, but that might be excessively complex to interface)" - potato.
I strongly think that there should be no delay in the denotation IF YOU FLY AND BOMB AT LOW ATTITUDE. You mentioned skill in your requirement when it comes to bombing, well skill would require you to be able to bomb at low attitude without hurting your jet. This would add more risk to low attitude bombing and will require very good timing, precision, and judgement in bombing so you don't blow your own jet up.

How much skill are we talking about of using the bombs to add to the skill requirement for operating jets?
Will the bombing be simple yet not over powered, or will they be complex, but overpowered if you understand how to use them?

This isn't my first time discussin about bombs before, plenty times before. Though, I always remained a neutral stance on the idea, mainly due to how balancing gameplay would work.

I already see jets as powerful vehicles. However, providing counter points to jets is what I would like to do when it comes to benefiting jet gameplay, because I would be able to point out some bits that could help with discussions and feedback.

One thing about jet gameplay is that jets can turn on a dime, with bombs, you can just do 180 flips, and be bombing the same area without any issues.

On Area 15, Southwest, and Northwest, not so sure on Pacific and Flooded, but the jets could be required to land on the runways to restock their bomb bays, then take off again.

On Area 15, there is that anti air tank concept, that could be a potential idea along with this suggestion. To balance out anti air and the bombs so jets wouldn't be op.

[normal rivet]

I disagree with that first part. Bombs should deal the same amount of damage regardless of whether they're dropped at 500 or 15000 ft.

[odd snow]

Then how about the spread

How would that work

[normal rivet]

If we wanted to implement this realistically, a HUD would be our best bet (seeing as the other weapons could also be incorporated into it – i.e. gun snakes, CCIP, etc.)

[warped sierra]

I don't think the jet is underpowered against ground vehicles. I mean look at maxbros. Man gets frags with jett. The jett has so much health, so it doesn't need to get a lot of kills. It is a slow paced weapon that can tank a lot of health.

[normal rivet]

Please elaborate on what you mean by "spread"

do you mean damage radius or inaccuracy?

[odd snow]

Would the bombs all land in a small concentrated area, or cover a big area with bombs distributed across.

[odd snow]

Way to summarize my anti air and vehicle combat paragraphs lol

[normal rivet]

clusterbombs

totally not biased (and it totally wouldn't end up being OP), but a CBU-87/105 is something that's definitely needed

[odd snow]

a wha

[clear dock]

huh? I agree with the bombs, but if we were to have clusterbombs/a plane with enough bombs to carpet bomb, then thats not good

[clear dock]

big bombs

[odd snow]

I never said cluster bombs

[clear dock]

Bombs distributed across pretty much refers to that

either that or carpet bombs

[odd snow]

Totally didn't just googled that lol

I'm on 0 sleep lol sorry xD

[clear dock]

xD

We should probably specify one jet for carpet bombing and another for strategic bombing.

So one is just wipe an area clean and another is just to target a specific place

[odd snow]

Yeah that seems like a good way to make the two jet types different from each other.

[normal rivet]

None of those you named are for precision strikes

[clear dock]

😐

you know what I mean. Ones more precise than the other

[normal rivet]

@round cargo seeing as you downvoted this suggestion, I'd like to hear your rationale

[clear dock]

oh, one other thing, the bombs should be countered somehow. So if someone shoots it with an automatic weapon a bunch of times, it should explode no matter where it is.

[normal rivet]

That's...not realistic though...

[clear dock]

fair enough

at least have some shrapnel in the bombs tho

[odd snow]

"-How will players avoid or counter-act bombs raining down on top of them?"

[clear dock]

shooting them down seems to be the easiest

and somewhat logical way to defend yourself from the bombs

[odd snow]

That’s because he’s the goat

[pulsar cairn]

This is kind of the idea with the a10 we are working on

[clever tendon]

if you raised the ceiling on maps and allowed greater altitude it would be easier with the current jets to dive bomb and gun down before having to pull up, so i think raising the ceiling would suffice for most of the issues raised with this suggestion without all the effort to incorporate bombs

[pulsar cairn]

Yeah good idea

the ceiling makes flight a LOT more of a pain

[odd snow]

Honestly yeah, this literally is just a placeholder for the WIP A-10.

[odd snow]

It is but there are ways to minimize and compensate for the flight ceiling barrier.

[earnest adder]

@odd snow some really good questions. The answers to some of them might need play-tested for balance. Some thoughts, though:

• The bombs should require some level of skill to aim precisely. Imagine dropping a grenade out the window of the current jet; it would be hard to aim that, although in a vertical dive you should be able to be reasonably close.
• Anti-air users would probably combat bombs in the same way you combat grenades or rocket strikes: move away, or take cover. Moving targets are hard to hit, as are targets hiding under/behind solid objects.
• Spawn protection would be the same as against other weapons. I don't think you could effectively spawn camp someone with unguided bombs unless you have a lot of them or they recharge very quickly.
• How many bombs? Perhaps this could be one way to differentiate the jets. Maybe one has one bomb and the other has two. Or maybe bombs drop in pairs and one has two while the other has four. Recharge time might be comparable to rockets and homing missiles, although this would be an easy option to adjust for balance.
• Coloured smoke grenades to mark targets is a cool idea. Not sure how often you would get that level of teamwork, though.
  -In terms of spread/scatter, I'm not sure there's much need to add any randomness to the bomb aiming. You're dropping it from a moving platform, potentially at high elevation. Dropping from high elevation/speed would create quite a bit of inaccuracy without any artificial randomness, and high altitude bombing gives more time for ground targets to take cover. I was thinking it would be one single bomb, or perhaps a pair of bombs; not cluster bombs (that would be way too OP), so the effective blast radius is the same no matter how you drop it.
  -Good point on the 1-second delay. Make it explode instantly on impact, so super low-level bombing and even dive-bombing will often result in self-destruction if people are not careful.

You suggested forcing jets to land to restock with weapons. This is an interesting idea and not one I am necessarily opposed to, but if we do that it will make attacks by jets few and far between, so those attacks will need to be made much more effective - or at least we'll need to be able to carry a lot more weapons than we do now.

But frequent short sorties would also make jets harder to shoot down unless you're in position to hit them with heavy weapons while they're on the ground. They would constantly be going home, and would heal (at least partially) and restock flares while doing so.

Jets really would benefit from a significant reworking - eliminating the ability to turn on a dime, raising the ceiling, etc. If we switched to a concept of multiple sorties, then you could actually be forced to choose your loadout for each sortie. For example, you might decide that this time you want to go all air-to-air and carry a lot of homing missiles and no unguided rockets or bombs. Another time you might decide to go all bombs and rockets and rely on your gun to deal with enemy jets. But that would be a different suggestion altogether.

[normal rivet]

A rework of flares and missiles would be nice as well. Instead of having 3 that have a 100% fool rate, something like 100 with a 5% fool rate would be nice. Missiles also technically should lead targets, not follow them directly (i.e. dodging them solely with one's maneuvers would be possible)

I also agree with restocking – however that would mean a keybind would need to be added for gear (g maybe?), and a monitor for landing rate would also need to be added to be able to differentiate between a crash and a landing (would brakes be needed as well?).

[round cargo]

Doesn't fit within the size and theming of War Brokers. There isn't the size in maps for air combat of this style and it actually introduce terrible balance of air to ground. Diving down at full speed and dropping a bomb close to a player isn't too hard to pull off, and is a lot easier than dropping it from high above. Players do not move very fast, so the jets become actual threats that dominate rather than something to keep an eye on.

The best anti-jet weapon in terms of DPS is the VSS, which you won't land too many shots if they whiz by, and landing the OHKO RPG would not be a simple task either.

Jet should be buffed through its current means; damage to players on the guns.

I'm not too sure on the specifics, but the Jets have a base damage that is deals to players which is doubled on Jets. I don't know if that base number can change on players without also having to allow jets to do more damage to jets.

the interaction of vehicles among themselves

the map that came to my mind was Southwest when imagining bombs

and SW is a map with no APC, so no vehicle designed and balanced with anti-aircraft a focus

the way I can see that being fixed is actually the Tank Lvl-4

but that's a separate case

yes I think Jets need a buff to infantry, but I am heavily against the bomb idea

[odd snow]

This is why I also downvote.

[odd snow]

Heli 3 vs Jets

[odd snow]

A jet buff? Don’t mind if I do

[odd snow]

Area 15 base and Northwest

[clear dock]

Hol up. What does OHKO mean?

and also, since when could people without vet just react to messages?

anyways

but yeah, now seeing plagues arguement on this, I have now decided to vote no

Unless there is a reliable way to take down the bombs or an faster way to take down the jets, im just not going to vote yes

[odd snow]

Faster way of taking down jets? Having 2 players annoying the jets is good enough.

[clear dock]

wait, hold on. How much damage does RPG do? (ive never really played it 😅 )

[earnest adder]

The RPG 1-shots a jet. And if you're diving straight down on a target, you're vulnerable to RPGs.

It does 1000 to a tank with a direct hit.

[odd snow]

That is correct.

[earnest adder]

Another option would be to have a way to choose between bombs and rockets, so you have one or the other but not both.

[normal rivet]

Which leads back to my idea of making loadout selection a thing with aircraft...

[copper eagle]

brah

ever played against LordFU? jets in the right hands can be godly hard to kill, unless you have the minigun OFC (highest dps in the game, lowest dmg dropoff in game)

they are weak against infantry yes, but you gotta b careful bout making them killing machines

[round cargo]

800*

[round cargo]

OHKO = One Hit KO (Knockout)

a term used to describe when you can kill in one hit

[clear dock]

oh k

[odd snow]

Hence why I down voted, as of now jets are still quite strong in terms of overall gameplay. Boosting its offensive capabilities would make them even harder to eliminate them from the sky, or even hinder them in a way that would make jets from being a threat. They can still be moderate easy-hard to take down, but the jets already possesses enough offensive elements that shouldn't be added.

I am not against the whole idea of adding bombs, but I am willing to try the concept idea out in its testing phase before it would be added to the game.

[clear dock]

And also why I downvoted

I would be willing to preform bombing runs to see just what the benefits are

Either be the bomber or get bombed

whichever one comes first

[odd snow]

The jets machine guns are slightly(noticeable) different from each other in a way, but it makes each jet mgs unique from each other, and not just the same.

Same with every other aspects the two jets have.

If bombs were to be added for its testing phase, I highly think the bombs should be unique from each other of one jet from the other.

[clear dock]

Rockets are the same as far as im concerned, just the unguided rockets are in different amounts

[odd snow]

Welp, everyone definitely know which one I'm already picking

[odd snow]

not just in amount

damage

Even the homing missiles for both jets are unique from each other I believe, I've never run official test to find the data on the two, but I think they should be different from each other already, unless I am wrong.

[clear dock]

Bet. Bomb me for scientific purposes

[odd snow]

I'm more keen on bombing vehicles.

[clear dock]

maybe. One of them is probably faster/does more damage

[odd snow]

Specifically tanks, tanks are going to be severely hindered by this concept.

[clear dock]

Yeah. They move too slowly to avoid the bombs unless there is a fuse on the bomb

[odd snow]

Also, I be rather interested in seeing if a jet can bomb an enemy jet while mid air combat

[clear dock]

I'll fly slowly for that to be confirmed

[odd snow]

Insert War Thunder tank being blown up complication

[clear dock]

I'll find a compilation in a sec

[odd snow]

I've always had a neutral view on bombs as a suggestion, but never been against the idea of testing them out.

[clear dock]

especially if they count for kills

[odd snow]

Should the AOE damage still damage players through objects; trees, roofs/buildings' ceiling, walls, vehicles, terrain, etc?

[clear dock]

no

They should be knocked back behind walls, but besides that, unless they are in direct line of sight with the bomb, they should not be damaged

[odd snow]

Or should the obstacle mitigate all the AOE damage between the two.

[clear dock]

obstacles mitigate all AOE

[odd snow]

The only maps I see the bombs being severely a threat would be on Southwest, and Area 15 base.

Same with Northwest(even tho i rarely fly on that map).

Pacific, and Flooded have decent cover to shelter a user from being out in the open.

[clear dock]

Northwest has barely any cover

Pacific and Flooded, yes there is a lot of cover.

[odd snow]

Unless you're near the buildings, yeah.

[clear dock]

oh yeah, true

[odd snow]

Flooded specifically will be the best map to be on to avoid bombs easily, the visibility as a factor helps the receiving side of those bombs.

For once, the removal of having the name tags and colors benefits a lot against jets, specifically that map.

[clear dock]

yes, indeed

[clear dock]

I was wondering if that was just me

[odd snow]

Southwest has no cover what so ever, NONE. While Area 15 Base has hangers, and some cover. However, if any person is caught on the hills or not inside the structures, their risks of suffering damage from bombs are greatly increased.

Not to mentioned we have the helicopter 2 as an additional annoyance on that map.

[clear dock]

No, not necessarily. The bunkers have that, and you can just dash away if it lands on the pillar

sorry for ping

[odd snow]

APCs can outrun the bombs as much as they want, but they're still countered by the unguided rockets and homing missiles(mainly homing). APCs are effective against air vehicles, but with bombs, it could out strength the APCs in terms of gameplay characteristics for the Fin 1 Jets.

[odd snow]

Bunkers?

[clear dock]

I meant barracks

[odd snow]

Even though Area 15 Base has a lot of open space to be easily used by the jets, its huge air space also puts the jets at great risk from easy counter anti-air.

[clear dock]

the one with the broken windows and bunks

[odd snow]

It's why I never~~(that's a lie, 1%)~~ on Area 15 Base. Even if the Fin 1 was switched out for the Fin 2, I wouldn't dare fly on that map.

[clear dock]

yeah, thats true.

[odd snow]

Northwest I mainly dislike mainly due to the terrain structures around the map. It either forces the Fin 1 to fly high and avoid the edges of the map where the slope of the mountain increases, or forces the user to try their best to not crash into a tree and turn into a potential jet meme like I've done before.

[clear dock]

I have basketball rn. Be back at 6:30-7pm pst

[clear dock]

indeed. Its easy to get shot down, but the spawns are well protected

[odd snow]

Area 15 Base is actually my favorite map to do anti-air duties and mainly is what I ever only do on that map, when I'm on the APCs side.

[clear dock]

lol. Time to pull out the .50 and the minigun

[odd snow]

Bombs can be easily denied if they land on the trees on Northwest.

[clear dock]

true

gtg

[odd snow]

Area 15, Fin 1 can pose a threat due to its bombs, but like I said, huge anti-air advantage to the APC side.

Pacific players get off more easy, there's only 1 Fin 2 Jet that will have bombs. I'm going to ignore the fact that helicopter 3 is on there as well. The bombs will have to be precisely calculated, and the pilot need to know the map layout decent enough to know good spots to drop bombs.

Flooded, huge air superiority, but the visibility hinders the pilot's capabilities to spot and inflict damage as easily as they would dream to want.

Southwest on the other hand, pray to the Dev Gods that you are blessed with a non or not highly experienced jet user, cuz if you draw a unlucky card from the deck such as LordFU, Maxbros, me(nah actually im bad) you find yourself having a bad time against the jets.

It might take more than 2 homing missile users, or more than the average anti-air efforts invested into putting the metal coffins down to the ground.

Maybe have a bombing defect effect on that map.

Cuz southwest is brutal with both jets if two highly skilled players are operating both jets at the same time.

My only concern about the jet's offensive benefits with the bombs is mainly Southwest. Area 15 Base slightly a second place, and Northwest(barely) on the Top 3 list.

I would wish for any experienced anti-air users to provide their feedback and comments to this thread as well, I would like their side.

anddd Plague left this thread

[clear dock]

they could use minimap to show where they are. So like just fly over a roadway or soemthing

[odd snow]

Bro, why you leaking my tactic

Not just the minimap

I mainly dont even consider using it, unless i cant open the full map in some seconds in a scenario

Another idea, why not just not have bombs on the Fin 1 and Fin 2.

Why not just have it exclusive to Fin 3 Jet, aka the A-10 Warthog concept WIP idea suggestion right now.

Nail 2 suggestions with one implemented concept.

[clear dock]

Fin 3 Jet would be preferable

Makes it a improvised bomber

[earnest adder]

Southwest has some pretty uneven terrain and fortifications that can provide some cover from bombs, or at least make you hard to hit.

Yeah, on the open plains down below you've got nothing, but it doesn't take that much time to get up into the hills.

There's also two jets on each side, so unless one side is totally dominant in the air, in theory it should be reasonably balanced. Of course, it's not always balanced in the air even if the match as a whole is balanced.

[odd snow]

On the surface or outside of the main plateau, it's very open. The terrain you're talking about are about those area dips in the plateau that descends down to a certain attitude before ascending again or spread out.

[clear dock]

The open plains will damage you still. Just reduced. And alos, the hills are a bit interesting to get up, especially without concussions. (that might be the side of the valley, but whatever, same difference. They both take a bit of time to get up)

[meager tinsel]

Bump....since someone made a similar suggestion that was closed.

[earnest adder]

I would still love to have this.

But... for me the game is still broken by the mouse sensitivity issue where rapid mouse movements cause slower turning. Reported in bug reports over a year ago... hits me on any device I try to play on... and yet devs can't duplicate so it's not fixed. So I basically haven't played in over a year.

[meager tinsel]

I think it is one of the better ideas for improved integration of the jets into the game. Would like it if they replaced the homing missiles (while removing the handheld homing missiles as well) to encourage more air to non-vehicle interaction.

Variations of this have been suggested at least 4 times now.

[earnest adder]

Replace homing missile? That would massively change air-to-air combat. Make it all about guns. It would also take away an important ground-based anti-air weapon, although minigun and .50 cal are also pretty effective in skilled hands.

Thinking about it more...

For A2G, yeah, I agree, dumb bombs would be better than guided missiles. They would require more skill to use, but could be more effective especially against infantry (if implemented properly). And it shouldn't be too hard to become reasonably good at dive bombing. You would no longer be able to pick out vehicles from long range where nobody can meaningfully target you from the ground with anything other than a homing missile, but you could go high, dive-bomb, and the ability to meaningfully attack infantry would make a skilled pilot more effective. To be accurate, though, you would have to come closer and put yourself more at risk from ground fire, or you could just lob inaccurate bombs from distance and hope to get lucky.

A2A - high-skill dogfights tend to be mostly gun anyway, but without missiles it would be much easier to run from a fight you think you would lose. Right now, if you're out-matched by a skilled enemy pilot, you don't really have the option to run, since he'll just fire missiles at you, and while there is some ability to evade missiles, you will run out of flares and he will shoot you down. So in general, you're going to have to fight him. But take away the guided missiles and he can't really go faster than you. Now, the map is small, and you will have to run in circles, and he can cut the corner and chase you down, but it will take much longer. I think it would turn a lot of A2A fights into a long chase where even a relatively unskilled pilot just runs away. I don't think I like that.

As for anti-air - I like flying, and those homing missiles are a pain. Someone skilled in using them will drain your flares, and you have to fly low behind ground cover until they recharge. That said - flares are guaranteed to bait them away (assuming you get them off in time). A skilled minigun user is more dangerous than homing missiles since they're constantly doing bits of damage as you fly around, and that stops you healing.

I guess for anti-air, homing missiles are necessary to give the unskilled user a chance to down aircraft. And they're not terrible at long range against ground vehicles.

I think my overall conclusion is that I think homing missiles need to stay in some form for A2A. Not necessarily the current form, but I don't want to completely replace them.

Anti-air, I think I want to keep them there too.

A2G, though, I'd be OK with losing them.

[normal rivet]

only supporting this to be able to do this

[earnest adder]

^ that would be awesome

the ultimate would be to get an a2a kill with a dumb bomb

[verbal dagger]

This isn't War Thunder...

[plain vector]

🎷🦖

[earnest adder]

I would still love to have this.

[rancid lynx]

Jets are NOT weak
End of point

[earnest adder]

They're decent but not great against ground vehicles. Against infantry, it's hard to find them on some maps, and then a moving target is hard to hit.

[rancid lynx]

Jets are better than anything

[oak yew]

A-10 should fix air to ground problem

[odd snow]

I went through this thread and read a lot of my older comments, and jeez 2023 me was a harsh critic against the proposal of bombs lol. I still don't like the idea of bombs being added into the game, due to the current balance in-game already.

Lots of massive changes would need to be made for this suggestion to work at all in-game.