Yeah, I mean, since Bytro isn't willing to introduce torpedo-bombers, make NBs excellent against both ships and subs.
6 Jul 2016, 16:42
The past is a foreign country.
NavB Buff
Naval bombers suck! Especially against subs. After researching 6 level upgrades for NB, your NB will have gotten an increase of attack against subs of... 3. That is ridiculous. This includesthe new elite level! Which, last I heard, costs blueprints. This is ridiculous, NB need a buff against subs, preferably ships too.
The worlds biggest BB class, as a whole (and I mean the entire BB class, excluding the Shinano which was turned into a CV) were sunk by less than 30 torpedoes and 25 bombs in total. An entire class of ships sunk by what could amount to around 55 or planes, not even a full CAG for an American CV in WWII.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
13 Replies
6 Jul 2016, 16:48
Yup. Especially since nearly all the American, and I think a lot of Japanese, NB are torpedo bombers anyways.
6 Jul 2016, 16:58
Yeah, I mean, there were very few naval bombers throughout history.Quasi-duck wrote:
Yup. Especially since nearly all the American, and I think a lot of Japanese, NB are torpedo bombers anyways.
The past is a foreign country.
6 Jul 2016, 19:03
The bloody Bismarck was sunk by several outdated bi-planes...the same type of planes which smashed the Italian fleet. NavB need a serious buff, otherwise its a waste of coding
"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian
"Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher
"The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher
Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW
Game Username: LordStark01
"Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher
"The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher
Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW
Game Username: LordStark01
6 Jul 2016, 20:28
Nah it isnt naval bombers, its subs and other units. Their AA too strong. Like submarines AA is a disgrace, it is tooooo high
I think naval bombers are fine, but they cant do much, cos naval units AA is soo dam high
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
6 Jul 2016, 21:08
You seem to completely ignore that they are actually just weak.....oceanhawk wrote:
Nah it isnt naval bombers, its subs and other units. Their AA too strong. Like submarines AA is a disgrace, it is tooooo highI think naval bombers are fine, but they cant do much, cos naval units AA is soo dam high
Their strongest attack, out of all the levels, is 5.
6 Jul 2016, 21:24
Quasi-duck wrote:
You seem to completely ignore that they are actually just weak.....oceanhawk wrote:
Nah it isnt naval bombers, its subs and other units. Their AA too strong. Like submarines AA is a disgrace, it is tooooo highI think naval bombers are fine, but they cant do much, cos naval units AA is soo dam high
Their strongest attack, out of all the levels, is 5.
but with 2 of them is 10, and 3 is 15, so that aint the main point, point is they get beaten to bits, by some submarine...Quasi-duck wrote:
You seem to completely ignore that they are actually just weak.....oceanhawk wrote:
Nah it isnt naval bombers, its subs and other units. Their AA too strong. Like submarines AA is a disgrace, it is tooooo highI think naval bombers are fine, but they cant do much, cos naval units AA is soo dam high
Their strongest attack, out of all the levels, is 5.
but yea maybe an increase in their stats, but its more important that we nerf units AA
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
6 Jul 2016, 22:35
Didn't some of those battle ships have some fairly decent AA though and all over the ship as well. I believe multiple 40mm guns and 20mm cannons turrets all over the deck. So lets say a battleship has 10 of these on each of them, so in game only 5 battleships would have the effect of 50 AA units slinging lead at your bombers, which are not so built for evasive maneuvering, how much of a fight should they be able to put up? Most of the ship damage was done from huge bomb drops out of what could really be classified more so as high level strategic bombers yea?
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
6 Jul 2016, 22:51
Nope. Torpedo bombers, little things really. From reading the Wikipedia about the Yamato, it looks like SB2C's did the job. That is, our lvl 6 Western Ally Naval Bomber destroyed our lvl 6 Japanese BB.ATownGtr wrote:
Most of the ship damage was done from huge bomb drops out of what could really be classified more so as high level strategic bombers yea?
From what I know, no matter how much AA was put on BB in WWII, it was futile. This is why the CV is King of the Sea today. Hell, the Yamato had 46cm AA guns ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell) that were both FRAG and incendiary. They were useless and American pilots nicknamed them fireworks.
To emphasize just how big that shell is, it is nearly half a meter in diameter and more than half the size of the might Gustav gun.
11 Jul 2016, 09:22
There are some wrong informantion, bi-planes didn't sunk Bismarck. That's right 15 Swordfish launched torpedo attack on her and they managed two hits, one torpedo hit port side caused minor flooding. Second one hit port rudder with extreme luck and made it jammed, Bismarck was unmanoeuvrable after that. So Brit navy started to attack from vulnerable angles where Bismarck can't fire back. They fired thousands of main shells 400mm, 350mm etc. They scored hundreds of hits and several more torpedos then Bismarck sank. Sinking her twin Tirpitz was even harder, Brits launced 10 operation to sink her and most of them were with 100 planes. They could only made her unmanoevrable again so they launched last operation with 32 Lancasters and droped 29 Tallboys (12000 Ib bombs) against stationary target, 2 direct hit and 1 near miss finally managed to sink her. So planes weren't good against battleships or cruisers at all, japanese battleships might be biggest ones but in fact they were terriblely designed ships so they were weak against deck attacks. But i agree naval bombers are weak against everything, not worth to research or produce at all. They should do extreme damage against subs and destroyers, they need only a slight boost against cruisers and battleships.
11 Jul 2016, 09:58
Ehm, wow. Talk about a twisting of history. Like a tank, there is more than one way to kill a ship. Damaging it so badly it can only sail in one direction, or forcing it to cower in fjords, is as good as sinking it.
11 Jul 2016, 13:38
In reality you are right but how can we add this to game? Naval bombers will sometimes one shot battleships by luck? That would be really annoying i think.Quasi-duck wrote:
Ehm, wow. Talk about a twisting of history. Like a tank, there is more than one way to kill a ship. Damaging it so badly it can only sail in one direction, or forcing it to cower in fjords, is as good as sinking it.
11 Jul 2016, 13:44
I don't know, I think just more damage needs to be done right now. I mean, look at how ships were sunk. Some British ships were sunk by a single torpedo, while ships like the Yamato, took a few torps and a round ten bombs or so before sinking. The Bismarck was basically mobility killed by two torpedoes.Ggoddkkiller wrote:
In reality you are right but how can we add this to game? Naval bombers will sometimes one shot battleships by luck? That would be really annoying i think.
Maybe leave it as, showing that it takes more than one torp usually, but just make NavB do mor damage.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
