the destiny of Atomic Bombers!

The bomber disappears anyway, it is single use. It is weird that you destroyed your own bombers though, there is no friendly fire here.

Why do atomic bombers get destroyed anyway? It's not like the Enola Gay was affected by the bomb...

I dunno, maybe the bomb falls to fast and has no parachute? During the Cold War nukes had to have parachutes so the plane could get away with out getting destroyed because the bombs were so big. Maybe that's what happens here. Anyway, would you like someone carpet bombing you with nukes in this game?

This is not a historical problem, it's about a bug in the game, anyway even during the WW2 the American Bomber was not destroyed after bombing Hiroshima. The Atomic Bomber is not effective even as a anti Tank level 1. But it is so expensive. Ridiculous bug. Ridiculous gun.

A bomb isn't a gun...

you're kidding? OK I mean warfare. But is there any possiblilty to solve the problem?

Although I say the Bomber getting "destroyed" is actually balance if you think about it in terms of gameplay.

The concep is similar to the nuke rocket, you launch, go boom, no more, tons of damage, the nuke Bomber works on this same principal, let's say the bomb went off and the Bomber survives, we still going to spend all that resource to make another bomb to "re-arm" the bomber, which may explain the disseperance of the bomber it's being "dock" until a new bomb is ready to deliver. I mean what do you expect? Infinite nukes just because it's a "bomber" similar to an actual TB or SB? I don't think so.

The problem is whether the bomber or the rocket is the better delivery system in terms of resource and time.

I dunno, don't think so. Unless building more bombers fixes the problems.

Still...the "bomber" is worthless without the "bomb" if you catch my drift.

I lost 14 planes in a convoy yesterday because I dropped a atomic bomb on the cruisers that were fighting them.

And all tough the cruisers were destroyed, there was no news of my losses in the news paper.

And there is no info of splash/collateral damage in the info pages.

It does mention in the description that it will kill everything in it's blast radius, but HOW BIG IS THIS RADIUS ?

Anyway, I don't see any use for these way to expensive bombs.

Well, it's up to you whether or not to use the Bomber or the rocket to deliver the nuke, I myself will not invest into nukes, I would prefer ordinary rockets or SB for cities, and a more conventional attack on enemy armies

I have nuked mine and an enemies navy, took no losses and destroyed all/most of his 3 BB's. I love the nuke, but it is a bit weak when you nuke ships.

Nuclear weapons are designed in this game to be strategic weapons, not tactical.

They excel at infrastructure damage more than units.

Personally I wish for collateral damage, dropping a nuke on a melee shouldnt result in one-sided losses lol.

I think the thread is originally for lost strat bombers as a result of the nuke.

Why should a plane, with 450 km/h, cannot flee of its own bombing operation?? what's the difference between an Atomic Bomber and an Atomic Rocket? It's s nonsense

The bomber has a bigger range but is less powerful, slower and can be shot down while the rocket is faster, more powerful, can't be shot down but has a shorter range. Also, in this, planes do a run and immediately turn around which means that the plane would get caught in the blast since bombers, especially four engined ones, turn very slowly.

but in allied match's such as the medierarian match, is there friendly fire?

Yup.

k thanks