So let me understand this...A tactical bomber takes more to research more to produce than a destroyer. More materials and a higher level of base. In total A LOT more resources. But a destroyer will beat a tactical bomber head to head and that makes sense historically? And that makes sense to game balance? And that make sense in an attempt at realism? I vote fail all the way around. I started playing after Naval units got he vs. Air boost. I think they got a bit too much.
Bear in mind, tactical bombers are not built to fight naval units, that's the role of naval bombers
Except for the fact that naval bombers are weaker than tactical bombers...Kalantigos wrote:
Bear in mind, tactical bombers are not built to fight naval units, that's the role of naval bombers
Let's compare the two level 1 bombers, shall we?
Both have 25HP
The naval bombers have a shorter range of 200km compared to the 313km of the tactical bomber
The tactical bomber does 3 damage to soft targets, and 1 to armoured targets
Naval bombers do 5 damage to surface ships and 2 damage to subs.
They have the same AA capabilities, but the tactical bomber does 0.4 damage more to enemy buildings.
So they both have their strengths and weaknesses
yes however, AA fire from an light tank or any armoured unit is a lot less than those on the naval units
Maybe just increase the hit points on naval bombers.
I also feel that the AA points against aircraft for subs to too high
Naval bombers need more damage against subs or just more hitpoints
might be worth a thought
Please log in to post a reply.
