Tail guns

Anything that wasn't a missile in TA also did 2.5x less damage to aircraft. Even when they did score a shot, the aircraft didn't care.

I don't believe this is necessarily the case. If a single bomb was overkill for killing a mobile unit, then spreading the same damage out over an AOE makes it much better at killing an army than a structure; thus differentiating without making it "weaker".

It's just a matter of fiddling with the numbers (which are currently whacked).

It has been done before: http://totalannihilation.wikia.com/wiki/Phoenix

But can end up being a little op

Other way around . Missiles were made to do more damage to aircraft.

That's what he said....essentially.

To an extent, yeah . But many non-missile weapons did just as much if not more damage than what missiles would do to aircraft, even after the bonus damage is considered.

Also, as I was just looking at the TA data files then, I just found that the Pheonix/Hurricane heavy bomber lasers also did more damage to aircraft than other things (32 instead of 6).

Perhaps it could work but the single bomb would have to be the "T2" similar to the strategic bomber in supcom. The default bomber would then be useful in general, but the T2 bomber would do a lot of damage to only a single target, making it useful only for snipes.

If they ever hit that might make a difference. Even if the damage was similar and evasion didn't exist, AA absolutely gets the job done for waaaay cheaper than typical units. Getting the same damage for less cost is still superior.

They weren't so much AA laser's as a secondary ground attack weapon, they would kill units like peewee quite easily actually. But yes, I assume cavedog wanted them to be AA but didnt really work out. Hopefully something that can be fixed with PA.

T2 bombers need a weekness. Why would anyone build fighters if T2 bombers could do this?

t2 bombers are being nerfed and btw these tailguns should be very weak...as i said 2 bombers vs 1 fighter = a draw

The comes when the player has enough bombers to oneshot a fighter, and bases his attacks on that ratio.

I don't like it, a bombers function should be to bomb, not to fight enemy fighters.

I still think that if you have 40 bombers against 1 fighter. then all bombers dying is ridiculous. In reality, bombers will always have turrets to defend against fighters. Maybe making the ratio higher so that fighters still have a significant role would fix it.

If the fighter can kill 40 bombers at once, that is silly.

But that isn't the case, it's far from the case, especially with T1 fighters who need to shoot 3 times to kill a T2 bomber.

A unit that can shoot can kill an infinite amount of un-armed units.

I've easily handled up to 8 t2 bombers with 1 hummingbird..maybe up to 40 that wouldnt happen in a game but the concept of having bombers completely unarmed annoys me. Because if you have a bunch of bombers that manage to get raided by a couple fighters then you'll probably lose quite a few units.. and with area patrol having your fighters around to defend bombers doesnt always work well.

Well inversely, mobile AA cannot defend it's self from enemy tanks.

This is a counter system in a huge scale RTS game, casualty's ARE the war-plan.

I'd like bombers with tail guns and fighters with Air to ground missiles. Not strong enough to make them capable of filling both roles, but just enough to add a bit more flexibility.

One of the interesting things I experimented with in supcom was giving ASF's missiles that could target everything, it actually worked out alright. Low damage, fast missiles aren't so effective against much of anything other than air.

Why wouldn't a bomber have a way to defend itself? It seems kind of silly to me that it doesn't.

t2 bombers are overpowered enough. But in TA, phoenixes (the predecessor to today's hornet) had a light laser.