Unless they change something, currently lvl 1 attack bombers can use carriersVIRVCOBRV wrote:
Will attack bombers be able to use carriers like high-level tactical bombers can ?
22 May 2020, 10:00
New Units in CoW 1.5
Attack Bomber & Rocket Artillery
Attention, generals!
Some of you may have wondered when Call of War 1.5 will be back again and what changes we will make to it. Well, you don’t have to wonder much longer!
Call of War 1.5 soon returns with new updates, new adjustments and brand new units!
Today we introduce to you some shiny new units that will be available in future Call of War 1.5 games - The Attack Bomber, the Rocket Artillery and the SP Rocket Artillery!
All three of these units were requested and suggested frequently by the community. And be assured that we have some huge fans of those units within the team as well! With Call of War 1.5 these units will close some important historical gaps in the game as well as currently existing gaps in the balancing.
Attack Bombers
Attack Bombers are close-air-support aircrafts like dive bombers, designed for precision bombings and ground offensive support. These new units work extremely well against heavy armored enemy forces but are rather weak when fighting unarmored units.
The attack bomber is slightly faster than a Tactical Bomber and has hit points and range similar to an Interceptor. It doesn’t match the speed of an Interceptor though.
- Available at day 2
- Other bombers will be available at day 2 as well in CoW 1.5
- 5 research levels
- Requirement: Aircraft Factory
Rocket Artillery
Rocket Artilleries are artillery units capable of firing rockets instead of artillery shells. The Rocket Artillery was designed to quickly cover large areas with high impacts on the ground. This unarmored unit is highly effective against unarmored enemy units, while being less effective against heavy armored units.
The Rocket Artillery has the same range as the regular Artillery as well as similar hit points and speed.
- Available at day 2
- 3 research levels
- Requirement: Secret Lab
Self-Propelled (SP) Rocket Artillery
SP Rocket Artilleries are an advanced version of the Rocket Artillery and are designed to quickly cover wide areas on the battleground. They are most effective when fighting unarmored units.
The SP Rocket Artillery matches speed, range and hit points of SP Artillery units.
- Available on day 6
- 2 research levels
- Requirement: Secret Lab
Attack Bombers, Rocket Artillery and SP Rocket Artillery are vital additions to any general’s portfolio. Use them to defend your country or to bring the benefits of your rule to the rest of the world!
We will share much more information on the latest iteration of Call of War 1.5 and what you can expect in frequent news updates on our website.
Your Bytro Team
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
115 Replies
2 Jun 2020, 13:53
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
2 Jun 2020, 15:14
Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escortsVichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
2 Jun 2020, 15:52
To add on that, the earlier model of Stukas had 2 x 7.92 mm machine guns, one on either wing. The British Spitfire, their main opponent, had 8 x 7.67 mm machine guns, 4 per wing. That's literally 4x the firepower for air to air combat.WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escortsVichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
2 Jun 2020, 15:59
As well as a top speed approx 100 mph [160kph] faster. There was a reason Stukas were withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, high losses.JesterTheSheep wrote:
To add on that, the earlier model of Stukas had 2 x 7.92 mm machine guns, one on either wing. The British Spitfire, their main opponent, had 8 x 7.67 mm machine guns, 4 per wing. That's literally 4x the firepower for air to air combat.WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escortsVichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
3 Jun 2020, 15:00
*Laugh in Hawker Typhoon*WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escortsVichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
By "way better", i wasn't saying they must be the equal of fighters.
But did you see their stats ? A 5,8 - D 1,9 for the last lvl at days 14 (not the elite one which is A 8 and D 2,7 at day 1
. And i'm the germans, with the damage buff. It is litterally the worst plane in the game. Ok, "way better" was maybe too much, mea culpa. But they need a little air fight buff. And don't worry, when you see the stats of fighters, there is a big margin available.
I searched so examples, i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_history
I'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.
I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
3 Jun 2020, 16:11
I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.Vichy wrote:
I searched so examples, i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyWascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
I'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.
I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
3 Jun 2020, 17:33
wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054350/http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.Vichy wrote:
I searched so examples, i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.
For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).
And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
3 Jun 2020, 19:09
The Ilyushin Il-2 "flying tank" was a heavily armored Soviet ground attack aircraft. It was occasionally used in the air-to-air role in the early war when the Soviets were desperate for anything that could fly but it was not very good in the role. As a war thunder player (which is obviously 100% accurate about everything) I can assure you that the IL-2 is not a dogfighter.Vichy wrote:
wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054350/http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.Vichy wrote:
I searched so examples, i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).
And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
Typhoons and F4u were fighters that had very good ground pound capabilities, not assault aircraft with very good dogfight capabilities. They could pack a punch for anyone on the ground but they were designed as air superiority aircraft.
Attack aircraft might be better at air-to-air than tactical bombers due to their slight mobility increase, but tacs might be better because of their additional gun positions. I think that both realistically and balance wise it comes out as a wash; non fighters NEED fighter cover/air superiority to be at all effective because they can not survive enemy fighter attacks.
3 Jun 2020, 22:25
I was quoting my former university professors - wikipedia is not to be used as source material as every Tom, Dick, and Harry can go in there and add anything they want to it, without it being checked for accuracy. "Citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source." Good as a starting point but not good enough to quote.Vichy wrote:
wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think aboutWascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
eruth wrote:
The Ilyushin Il-2 "flying tank" was a heavily armored Soviet ground attack aircraft. It was occasionally used in the air-to-air role in the early war when the Soviets were desperate for anything that could fly but it was not very good in the role. As a war thunder player (which is obviously 100% accurate about everything) I can assure you that the IL-2 is not a dogfighter.Typhoons and F4u were fighters that had very good ground pound capabilities, not assault aircraft with very good dogfight capabilities. They could pack a punch for anyone on the ground but they were designed as air superiority aircraft.Vichy wrote:
wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054350/http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.Vichy wrote:
I searched so examples, i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
Attack aircraft might be better at air-to-air than tactical bombers due to their slight mobility increase, but tacs might be better because of their additional gun positions. I think that both realistically and balance wise it comes out as a wash; non fighters NEED fighter cover/air superiority to be at all effective because they can not survive enemy fighter attacks.
4 Jun 2020, 14:54
Quite fun that I'm learning more about the planes of WW2... please, continue enlightening us with your knowledge (if you think I'm joking, I'm not).
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein
"Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
"Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
4 Jun 2020, 15:18
I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusual
Pilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights
"Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
16 Jun 2020, 14:38
Dogfights were common in WW2 but they were less common than in WWI as there were "alternative methods" (eg boom & zoom, which was harder in WW1 for plenty of reasons), a lower fighters-to-non-fighter than WWI, different "air combat doctrine". They were also much shorter and they were also much shorter. The French Ace Pierre Clostermann said that in the typical WW2 dogfight, there were no more than 2 or 3 hard turns.d.jahnsen wrote:
I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusualPilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights
12 Sept 2020, 21:16
Hello all,
Seems I am way late to the party, the new unis seem absolutely awesome to me!
Have been of CoW for quite a while now, but this will definitely make me play again soon.
I think it is brilliant that a multitude of units is available and choices actually matter.
Would anyone care to elaborate on their experiences using these new units?
@Little Racoon historically speaking rockets shot high explosives, not very effective on heavily armoured targets. To penetrate heavy armour typically a direct hit was needed with specialised ammunition.
Good to see you stil play btw!
Kind regards,
Edepedable
13 Sept 2020, 05:48
Danieliyoverde123 wrote:
I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusualPilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights
Study the Battle of Britain for a more true picture of this.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
