|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
988
   |
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't necessarily think that making dropships bomb would obsolete fighters, since fighters would be needed to protect friendly transportation and destroy enemy bombers. I also don't think bf3 made it jets anti air only, since 2 of the missile types are best for fighting ground vehicles and the actual gun is universally effective. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
988
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:I don't necessarily think that making dropships bomb would obsolete fighters, since fighters would be needed to protect friendly transportation and destroy enemy bombers. I also don't think bf3 made it jets anti air only, since 2 of the missile types are best for fighting ground vehicles and the actual gun is universally effective. For my part, I think this represents moving in the direction of making more roles out of the same asset as opposed to making other assets or fixing the roles we have right now. As far as bombs themselves, giving them to a vehicle that can hover, and thus completely remove the need to judge bombing runs in order to make them effective, seems a bit too faceroll to me. I mean, if you consider the fact that a bomb, by its very nature, is a splash-damage based weapon, I think requiring the pilot to use an aircraft that can't hover, and thus requires him to calculate the trajectory of the weapon in order to use it properly, is going to be essential in ensuring we can have such a weapon without also having another riot on our hands.
I doubt that people would stay in the line of fire if they noticed a bomber dropship (which I assume will have a unique color scheme). I could also see some kind of restriction that has bombs only drop while the dropship is moving forward, as unlikely as it seems. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
990
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Also bombs don't conflict air to ground type weapons if their advantages amd disadvantages are prevalent. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
991
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
991
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 20:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless. I'm saying scrap the idea of a bomber dropship entirely. I don't even know where the idea came from, to be honest. There were quite a few people requesting a pilot-controlled turret, and they delivered on that. I don't recall many people asking to be able to strap bombs onto their transport aircraft. I also think this what we could really use is some form of dedicated VTOL Gunship, and not just a Dropship with a turret on the front. I think if you give proper bonuses to Dropship pilots for the roles they fill right now, you won't have any complaints. I'm coming at this from the standpoint that as a pilot, I'd like to see more asset variety like we've already been shown we'll have with ground vehicles, rather than a forest of Dropship variants.
I think that the assault and bomber variants are merely placeholders until the light and heavy air vehicles are added, since the assault dropship would conflict a gunship, making the ADS useless because of the higher firepower and tank that the gunship should have. Also, a fighter would be much more suited for bombing since to do so properly requires getting in and out fast so the bomber isn't put at risk. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
1000
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 20:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:I mean that fighters could still perform against ground vehicles using another weapon type without making bomber dropships useless, if CCP did decide to include this "fighter bomber" variant, it should differ heavily from the bomber dropship so that neither becomes useless. I'm saying scrap the idea of a bomber dropship entirely. I don't even know where the idea came from, to be honest. There were quite a few people requesting a pilot-controlled turret, and they delivered on that. I don't recall many people asking to be able to strap bombs onto their transport aircraft. I also think this what we could really use is some form of dedicated VTOL Gunship, and not just a Dropship with a turret on the front. I think if you give proper bonuses to Dropship pilots for the roles they fill right now, you won't have any complaints. I'm coming at this from the standpoint that as a pilot, I'd like to see more asset variety like we've already been shown we'll have with ground vehicles, rather than a forest of Dropship variants. I think that the assault and bomber variants are merely placeholders until the light and heavy air vehicles are added, since the assault dropship would conflict a gunship, making the ADS useless because of the higher firepower and tank that the gunship should have. Also, a fighter would be much more suited for bombing since to do so properly requires getting in and out fast so the bomber isn't put at risk. Honestly, if we're eventually going to be able to fire out of Dropships, as has been suggested, the Assault Dropship would still be a fine aircraft. Honestly, even without being able to shoot from it, you figure you get the pilot turret, the two gunners, and maybe a pair of HMG Heavies to drop on a contested point while you strafe from above means that vehicle would still be a potent asset. Also consider that a Gunship would be smaller, and thus more mobile, but also have less hitpoints.
Well there's always the possibility for a gunship to go into an attack helicopter style role or more of a heavy air support vehicle like an Ac130 so I won't delve too much into that but I see 2 gunners and a well rounded group of four as a bit more valuable than the setup an Ads can do. I could see the Ads shining at supporting small groups, which was a more valuable attribute before squad sizes were raised. |
|
|
| |
|