Tier-2 Bombers: Concept and Implementation

As currently implemented, T2 Bombers hover just outside weapon range and pound the target with missiles. Some people don't like this very much, so I would like to propose some alternative implementations.

For inspiration, let us examine existing and historical aircraft for analogs -- after all, people have been doing this stuff for real for the last century and generally have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't:

• Fighter: Designed specifically for air-to-air combat to establish air superiority, take out bombers, or act as escorts for bombers
  
• Fighter-bomber: A fighter that is also capable of performing as a light bomber ([air-to-air weapons] + [bombs])
• Strike fighter: Flies like a fighter, but is designed to attack surface targets; air-to-ground loadout is not limited to bombs but also includes guided missiles
• Attack aircraft: Typically provides low-altitude close support fire; usually heavily armed and armored (think of an A10 Warthog)
• Gunship: Historically, a light craft armed with heavy guns that performs as an escort or attack aircraft; in modern warfare, a gunship is either a helicopter gunship or an aircraft designed to fly in a circle around a target, pounding it into submission
• Bomber: Flies overhead, drops bombs. From a modern perspective, there are two classes:
  • Tactical Bomber: Takes out targets to support troops in the field; in a modern context, this role is typically occupied by strike fighters or attack aircraft
  • Strategic Bomber: Takes out infrastructure and key strategic targets like bridges, dams, power plants, etc.

In a modern context, you can add "stealth" to any of these to make them less visible to radar. Typically, we make stealth bombers and stealth fighters / strike fighters.

Currently:

• Firefly: Reconnaissance; I feel this guy could use a significant cost decrease or be buffed in some way, such as being invisible to radar
  
• Hummingbird: Fighter
• Bumblebee (T1 Bomber): Tactical bomber (carpet bombs are great against troop concentrations and clusters of structures, less so against single targets)
• Kestrel ("Gunship"): Behaves like a combination of an attack aircraft and a helicopter gunship (because it hovers as it attacks rather than making strafing runs); I personally feel it could use a little more health -- attack aircraft are typically heavily armored
  
• Hornet (T2 Bomber): Behaves like a bizarre hybrid of attack aircraft, strike fighter, and strategic bomber (used to take out strategic targets)

So, how can we change up this paradigm?

Let's ignore fighter-bombers, for the moment -- giving a single aircraft both air-to-air weapons and bombs risks creating a monster that is either useless for its cost or horrifically overpowered.

There appear to be three choices for the Hornet:

1. Change it into a full-on strike fighter, designed to fly in fast, unleash a single missile, break off, and repeat the attack (rather than flying over its target). To do this, make it faster, give it lower health, and change its model to that of the old T2 fighter (image).
2. Change it to an AC130-style gunship wherein it circles its target and fires flank-mounted weapons the entire time
3. Change it into a stealth bomber, so it is invisible to radar (making at least one attack more likely) behaves like a bomber again, and drops a single bomb with high damage at its center and a moderate blast radius

To be honest, I'm in favor of the first option (and I'd like to see a health increase on the Kestrel), but I'm putting a poll in the field to see how the community feels about it.

Discuss?

I would love to have an aircraft that fits a similar role to the A-10. That would be just so awesome. Some light anti-air capabilities, deadly strafing capabilities, and heavy armor. Make it slow and we've got a force to be reckoned with. Easy to deal with via fighters, but devastating if ignored.

Having an AC130 gunship would also be pretty awesome.

Well, the Kestrel is pretty much our A10 -- it does basically what an A10 is designed to do, only without the strafing runs.

Problem is, if we gave the Kestrel strafing runs, it basically becomes a Bumblebee, because that's what the Bumblebee does -- lots of explosions on a line, which is what giving the Kestrel strafing runs would accomplish.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that giving the Kestrel the ability to perform strafing runs would be cool, but it risks creating role overlap with the Bumblebee. As it stands, the Bumblebee performs bombing runs that resemble strafing runs, and the Kestrel hovers in place firing.

The problem is finding a niche for the Hornet in this mess. =)

I actually love the current implementation.

An ac130 would be awesome. The AC-1000 terror from supcom2 was my favorite unit

The current implementation is fine. Some changes to counters might be in order, like a quicker reload for gil-e anti-tac missiles, maybe an anti-tac naval unit (cheap but slow reloading might be fun, good to buy a little time or in swarms).

Hence the poll. =)

I'm glad you had the opportunity to stand forth and be recognized!

It will be interesting to see how much of the community shares your opinion.

I agree that the current implementation is fine -- it works.

On another level, the current implementation leaves something to be desired for me, because the bomber hovers there and shoots stuff, which is misleading (I don't expect bombers to behave that way) and similar to what the Kestrel does (thereby overlapping).

My motive was to use this thread as an opportunity to recast the Hornet in another image.

Of the three options I suggested, recasting the Hornet as a strike fighter comes closest to the current implementation.

Just as a side note, I don't like circling on long-range units because it encourages micro to prevent them from sliding over enemy air defense. AC1ks from supcom2 required a good amount of babysitting sometimes.

I'm not a fan of the hover, but then again, that might just be because i don't like the current model for the unit behaving that way. i think the concept is cool, though it's essentially the same role as the gunship we already have, just a more glass-cannon version of the same role. Obviously balance will be tweaked, but currently the only reliable anti-air measure to defend against them is to use fighters, every single ground to air AA option is unable to reliably deal with them currently. If your enemy is using T2 bombers, then they've likely chosen to go heavy air, meaning they probably already have more fighters than you to screen the bombers.

Combating someone who has gone heavy air should not require that you also have to go heavy air. You shouldn't have to purely outnumber someone in regards to one unit type (fighters) in order to win, this should certainly give you an advantage, but the other player should have at least a few options to work with that don't involve having to match air power directly.

Another point is that I actually love the current T2 bomber model, and love the idea of the heavy strategic bomber, your tool to snipe that nuke launcher in the middle of the enemy base you worked so hard to successfully scout.

I feel like there's totally room for a unit with this current implementation, but it's not a bomber, it's a rocket-gunship. Changing the model to closer match that idea would be great, it'd also free up the current model to be used as an actual strategic bomber.

Is there a defense structure that can shoot down incoming tactical missiles? Maybe there could be a Tier 1 version of the anti-nuke launcher that would only shoot down tactical missiles? Like a Patriot or Iron Dome battery. Or maybe you could upgrade the anti-nuke launcher to have additional anti-missile capabilities that do not expend the expensive anti-nuke missiles?

I think the current T2 bomber is great because it does not circle around, which avoids getting into range of enemy air defenses. I do really like the idea of a stealth bomber (invisible to radar but not line of sight) that can drop/fire a nuke. I also like the idea of an AC130 type gunship. I think the Hornet can remain as it is, but there should be additional units too. And a defense structure that can shoot down tactical missiles.

The only unit sporting tactical missile defense currently is the T2 sniper bot.

If it stays as is, I do think it should be converted to a gunship. The hover/strafe and launch missiles approach does not look right coming from a something like that, that thing is for bombing runs.

what I wouldn't mind seeing in addition to said gunship is the current bomber as something designed for sub-orbital bombing runs. Not actually in the orbital layer, just a high flyer, harder to hit with normal anti-air, but target-able by umbrellas. Beyond that it would attack similar to the T1 bomber, but less accurate / more spaced out high explosive bombs, good for just generally messing up a wide area, not precision targeting.

While not a stand off bomber firing missles. Like russian bears during the cold war fly to their max range launch a missles then circle back out to line up for another run

Hm.

What about an actual orbital bomber: a bomber that flies in the orbital layer and drops powerful bombs on ground units and structures. It would be targeted by Avengers, Anchors, and Umbrellas.

That said, we already have the kill-sat, so there would be a degree of role overlap.

Do we really want Air and Air2.0 thought? It's bad enough as it is.

Mike

I really hope orbital does not become air 2.0. It is close enough to that as it is.

I haven't actually seen any air rushes in my recent games. Just saying. Also:



Geddit? Cos they're bumblesbees? Hehe...heh....

Is it bad that every time I read your name all I can think of is "Get the **** fifty."

I don't understand it either..