[Proposal] Change Default World Aircraft

No benefits, no pros just a taste of reality and logic.
Petition to change default aircraft unit in Atwar. Name and Picture. Stats untouched. Cosmetic use only. What's with the fighters in the strategy insignia if we have bombers instead?
Bombers as defualt aircraft does not make any sense. Bombers are superior by range and longevity; less efficient on attacking surface and aerial units than fighters, not the other way around.

Current Stats: Atk-Def-Crit-HP-Range-View

• Default Bombers: 6-6-5-7-15-24
  
• Rare FIghters: 6-6-5-8-18-?

_____________

An aircraft bomber by definition attacks ground and sea targets; classified into two categories: Strategic and Tactical.
World Map Bombers, hearsay are strategic and closely resembles an eight-jet engine B-52 Stratofortress and can carry approx. 32k kgs-bombs, missiles, mines.

The picture depicted in the World Map Fighter (not the strategy logo) unit resembles a Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet or an F-14 Tomcat unit which carries air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface missiles which are effective at all areas. (Source: In-game World Map & Atwar wiki) yet they are nowhere to be found considering that the chosen strategy depiction of these fighter jets.



In Atwar, the use of these strategic bombers are: (1) WF, (2) Escort, (3) Attack and (4) Defend.
Of which only no. 3 fits the role of a Strategic bomber aircraft. Would have considered an Attack Aircraft category but is not primarily built and intended for air-to-air combat. A Fighter Aircraft on another hand fits all categories. Given that, the next line may or may not convince you to alter the current default aircraft in world maps but consider appropriate factors why we should have fighters than bombers.
____________
1. Wall-fucking and attacking single units such as infantry and transports.
Strategically place a unit adjacent to a city to prevent an enemy from walling by engaging allegorical coitus.

Bombing Single or a group of targets in an urban city is inefficient and costly (collat.dmg) unless fully exposed and stationary. A Super Hornet can fly low and strafe efficiently since fighters are either equipped with mounted automatic and bombing armaments unlike a B-52 which is built to strike at high altitudes.

2. Escorting
Here comes the funny part, bombers are no escorts. Bombers are the ones who needs escorts from Fighters. Send 32 bombers to protect 4 Military passengers planes which houses 20 infantry? If this was reality, Hitler would call you crazy. A flight of hornets is enough to halt the mission.

3. Attacking
Let's assume these Strategic Bombers uses Carpet and Tactical Bombing which are efficient at cities and ground targets (Not, Atwar logic dictates an infantry and a tank can shoot down a levitating metal with 12.7mm) but not against another bomber. How do you suppose they do that? Dogfight? I rather ram.

Fighters are efficient on strafing ground units than bombing. Lesser consumption of ammo, superior accuracy and poses better aerial superiority.

4. Defending
Bombers are usually fitted with one-two piece anti-aircraft armament by their tail or waist of which they cant use it against an armor or infantry above ground. And you cant risk to bomb a city, your territory and your people you're defending unless you're Stalin. It's logical for a post-modern urban city to build fighters instead of bombers to defend itself from an aerial invasion.


Fighters for logical sorties.

Написао notserral, 12.05.2015 at 05:10

I think it's a cool idea if cosmetic only.

Support



Fighters prove to be more conventional than bombers in reality.

Написао Diedra, 21.07.2015 at 13:51

Support



Fighters prove to be more conventional than bombers in reality.

Thanks!

My Strategic Bomber carrying nukes, beats your puny Ground Attack fighter.

You want to change name, based on a simple picture, and RP and world map. No support Giving bombers an extra HP and calling them fighters is dumb and would make them too powerful,especially with SM.

Whats wrong with it staying being bombers?