Jan 17th poll discussion.

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

Why?

How does it help the game?

Aircraft get shot down with AA rockets. You want bombers to carry AA rockets as well?

Kenzu wrote:

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

Why?

How does it help the game?

Aircraft get shot down with AA rockets. You want bombers to carry AA rockets as well?

Yes... just for bombers to be *far* *far* less effective.

Even when hunting assassins or invading income units the defender deals some damage *even* when the enemy defences are 0. The same should apply if the enemy's fighter units are no longer alive to protect the bombers...

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

Why?

How does it help the game?

Aircraft get shot down with AA rockets. You want bombers to carry AA rockets as well?

Yes... just for bombers to be *far* *far* less effective.

Even when hunting assassins or invading income units the defender deals some damage *even* when the enemy defences are 0. The same should apply if the enemy's fighter units are no longer alive to protect the bombers...

I have to agree with Ian here, as there have been numerous times that I would use 0 defense accounts to practice different attacks on, & there were several that I lost quite a few Attack soldiers to, so I agree that bombers need bellyguns at least, as it really makes no sense otherwise... JMO.

Well I say lets just see how it goes, I'm sure the reason he is wanting it so divided is to force you to buy 2 types of planes to attack, and only 1 type to defend. Gives a defender a bit of an advantage cost wise.

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

ian would you agree that if a bomber has chaff, flares and various ecm capacities it would still not allow them to actually shoot down other fighters?
all it would allow them is to survive a higher amount of rockets fired at them

Admin wrote:

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:[color=blue]AW isn't a WW2 re-enactment where bombers were armed with machineguns to counter enemy fighters which were also armed with only machineguns.

In Aderan Wars fighters are armed only with air-air missiles, while bombers will be armed only with air-ground bombs.
AW fighters are cant only combat air forces, bombers only ground forces.

Do we get the option to execute our air-force commanders for gross incompetence then? Buying bombers with no means to defend themselves...... I think bombers SHOULD have a limited defensive capability.

ian would you agree that if a bomber has chaff, flares and various ecm capacities it would still not allow them to actually shoot down other fighters?
all it would allow them is to survive a higher amount of rockets fired at them

of course it wouldn,t but whats that got to do with what was said?

I mean show me a single bomber ever made that was not outfitted with some defensive measure. (not individuale planes, but models)

Point is irrelevent tho, if this is what admin wants then it what hes going to make, it just has no grounds in logic that bombers dont have gunners, and fighter planes can even shoot the ground.


But it will all work out. Lets just get it rolled out, tested, and then tweek it, not mindlessly argue over the semantics

i think you're missing the point

defensive measure doesn't mean exclusively that you can shoot down whatever is shooting at you

either way, strategic bombers don't carry air to air armaments
tactical bombers do though, and as kenzu mentioned that'd be the third type which carries rockets and bombs, however it wont come out with the first batch.

OK Admin, No bomber has ever had belly or tail gunners

Like I said tho, I like it due to the defensive advantage personally.

I do have 1 question, How do you damage someone who has an all bomber airforce? Since a bomber will not fly to fight since it will have 0 offensive weapons, and a fighter plane can not shoot the ground?

Admin wrote:i think you're missing the point

defensive measure doesn't mean exclusively that you can shoot down whatever is shooting at you

either way, strategic bombers don't carry air to air armaments
tactical bombers do though, and as kenzu mentioned that'd be the third type which carries rockets and bombs, however it wont come out with the first batch.

I am going to believe that you are talking about in the game only, & I am going to believe that you have a good reason to put in such restrictions... point of interest, the F-15 fighter which has been our main fighter plane for a long time now, can, & has been armed with machine guns, missles, & belly dropped conventional bombs... the FA-22 that will be replacing it can do the same, only better, personally I prefer the Apache fighter helicopter, cause nothing beats in in badassedness...

Nomad wrote:OK Admin, No bomber has ever had belly or tail gunners

Like I said tho, I like it due to the defensive advantage personally.

I do have 1 question, How do you damage someone who has an all bomber airforce? Since a bomber will not fly to fight since it will have 0 offensive weapons, and a fighter plane can not shoot the ground?

I wonder how tail gunners are supposed to harm a fighter, which shoots a rocket at the bomber from 20 km away.


Do you see the strategic bomber carrying missiles for defense, because I don't see any.


Send your airforce to attack enemy airfields and they will destroy enemy bombers too.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:OK Admin, No bomber has ever had belly or tail gunners

Like I said tho, I like it due to the defensive advantage personally.

I do have 1 question, How do you damage someone who has an all bomber airforce? Since a bomber will not fly to fight since it will have 0 offensive weapons, and a fighter plane can not shoot the ground?

I wonder how tail gunners are supposed to harm a fighter, which shoots a rocket at the bomber from 20 km away.


Do you see the strategic bomber carrying missiles for defense, because I don't see any.


Send your airforce to attack enemy airfields and they will destroy enemy bombers too.

I do not know from what era, or war you got the photo from, but we do not send strategic bombers on bombing missions unescorted, there are typically 4 f-15's guarding the B-52's on mission runs, with the exception of the B-2 stealth bombers, & that is due to their long flight capibilities, in conjunction with the nearly nonexistant radar signature... but getting back to the B-52 that you show in the picture, WWII vintage B-52's HAD bellyguns,Tailguns, & a nosegun, later models may have shed those, but only because of the fighter planes that would escort them on bombing missions, & they weren't needed, the point is this, one way or another bombers had air to air protection, & air to ground attack ability as well... you really want to impress me then get a video of an f-15 being shot out of the air by anything, you can't, because no f-15 has ever been shot down by anything; & the upcoming Fa-22 fighter is supposed to run circles around the F-15...

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:i think you're missing the point

defensive measure doesn't mean exclusively that you can shoot down whatever is shooting at you

either way, strategic bombers don't carry air to air armaments
tactical bombers do though, and as kenzu mentioned that'd be the third type which carries rockets and bombs, however it wont come out with the first batch.

I am going to believe that you are talking about in the game only, & I am going to believe that you have a good reason to put in such restrictions... point of interest, the F-15 fighter which has been our main fighter plane for a long time now, can, & has been armed with machine guns, missles, & belly dropped conventional bombs... the FA-22 that will be replacing it can do the same, only better, personally I prefer the Apache fighter helicopter, cause nothing beats in in badassedness...

Even the Eurofighter Tranche's 1 & 2 have a limited ground-attack capability as well (basically bolted on as a after thought lol)... and those were designed solely to dog fight Soviet aircraft... albeit due to completely crap planning they ve finally arrived a little under 20 years too late and are basically utterly useless at the cost of £25billion+ (at least for the RAF who idiotically ordered 240 of the things despite only needing about 130 ever )

You just said enemy fighters can not shoot ground target.

You just stated bombers will have 0 offensive capabilities( they will have no weaponry to fight another plane)

So an airforce of all bombers will not fly as a def measure.

An airforce of all fighters can not harm SAMs nor grounded bombers.

Think about it.

ian do you understand the difference between strategic bomber and tactical bomber?

strategic bombers as a rule do not carry any air to air offensive capability whatsoever
tactical bombers do
air superiority fighters can be outfitted with air to ground however it's not really useful as even multi purpose aircraft will be more effective, which will be the third aircraft type.

kingkongfan1 wrote:I do not know from what era, or war you got the photo from, but we do not send strategic bombers on bombing missions unescorted, there are typically 4 f-15's guarding the B-52's on mission runs

Thank you for finally proving our point, strategic bombers are unable to fight air superiority fighters.

kingkongfan1 wrote:WWII vintage B-52's HAD bellyguns,Tailguns, & a nosegun, later models may have shed those, but only because of the fighter planes that would escort them on bombing missions, & they weren't needed

You explained nicely why they weren't needed before.
Today, those are not needed because there's no point in carrying a chain gun which has a range of 1km when you'll get shot at with a AA missile with a range of 10+ km

May I ask why you responded to everyone but me when I am the one raising a ingame based senerio?

Will useless bombers fly in def missions since they will be completely useless?

Admin wrote:ian do you understand the difference between strategic bomber and tactical bomber?

strategic bombers as a rule do not carry any air to air offensive capability whatsoever
tactical bombers do
air superiority fighters can be outfitted with air to ground however it's not really useful as even multi purpose aircraft will be more effective, which will be the third aircraft type.

kingkongfan1 wrote:I do not know from what era, or war you got the photo from, but we do not send strategic bombers on bombing missions unescorted, there are typically 4 f-15's guarding the B-52's on mission runs

Thank you for finally proving our point, strategic bombers are unable to fight air superiority fighters.

kingkongfan1 wrote:WWII vintage B-52's HAD bellyguns,Tailguns, & a nosegun, later models may have shed those, but only because of the fighter planes that would escort them on bombing missions, & they weren't needed

You explained nicely why they weren't needed before.
Today, those are not needed because there's no point in carrying a chain gun which has a range of 1km when you'll get shot at with a AA missile with a range of 10+ km

concerning the part in bold & underlined... what do you think that the escort is there for?

in RL air superiority fighters cost much more than tactical bomber or fighter bombers.

Even though air superiority fighters can be outfitted with weaopns to combat ground, it would be a waste of their power, since they perform much better at fighting aircraft, and ground support roles can be given to tactical bombers or air support aircraft.

"Air superiority fighters are usually more expensive and procured in fewer numbers than multirole fighters." -wiki source

Eurofighter is a multirole fighter.

Compare costs:

F-22 Raptor, air superiority fighter, 150.000.000.000$
Su-27 air superiority fighter, also 30.000.000$
Mig-29 air superiority fighter/multi-role costs 30.000.000$
Eurofighter, multi-role 63.000.000$

Thurderbird, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
Su-25, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
F-16 Fighting Falcon, ground attack plane, 20.000.000$

Kenzu wrote:in RL air superiority fighters cost much more than tactical bomber or fighter bombers.

Even though air superiority fighters can be outfitted with weaopns to combat ground, it would be a waste of their power, since they perform much better at fighting aircraft, and ground support roles can be given to tactical bombers or air support aircraft.

"Air superiority fighters are usually more expensive and procured in fewer numbers than multirole fighters." -wiki source

Eurofighter is a multirole fighter.

Compare costs:

F-22 Raptor, air superiority fighter, 150.000.000.000$
Su-27 air superiority fighter, also 30.000.000$
Mig-29 air superiority fighter/multi-role costs 30.000.000$
Eurofighter, multi-role 63.000.000$

Thurderbird, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
Su-25, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
F-16 Fighting Falcon, ground attack plane, 20.000.000$

concerning the bold/underlined, it has been said over & over in this convo, that it couldn't be done... all I was pointing out is that it could be done, & has been done again & again based on what the particular mission parameters are on any given mission... I am done with this convo, we'll see what the test server brings when it gets up & running...

Kenzu wrote:in RL air superiority fighters cost much more than tactical bomber or fighter bombers.

Even though air superiority fighters can be outfitted with weaopns to combat ground, it would be a waste of their power, since they perform much better at fighting aircraft, and ground support roles can be given to tactical bombers or air support aircraft.

"Air superiority fighters are usually more expensive and procured in fewer numbers than multirole fighters." -wiki source

Eurofighter is a multirole fighter.

Compare costs:

F-22 Raptor, air superiority fighter, 150.000.000.000$
Su-27 air superiority fighter, also 30.000.000$
Mig-29 air superiority fighter/multi-role costs 30.000.000$
Eurofighter, multi-role 63.000.000$

Thurderbird, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
Su-25, ground attack plane, 11.000.000$
F-16 Fighting Falcon, ground attack plane, 20.000.000$

I don't know where you got your costs from for the Eurofighter... or the information that its a multirole fighter... but its wrong.

Tranche's 1 & 2 of the eurofighter are almost entirely solely air-supremacy fighters. They have a austere (literally bolted on) ground attack capability which has been implemented since without it, in my modern day warfare such as Afghanistan and Iraq - they are virtually useless since there's generally no enemy aircraft to fight.

Also the costs for the Eurofighter are far more than the $63million costs you ve stated - that might have been their planned cost 20 years ago on the drawing board... but literally their being decades late (originally planned to be in service BEFORE 2000, then renamed Eurofighter 2000 to symbolise entering service in time for 2000, now renamed Eurofighter Typhoon since they didn't even meet the 2000 target) with overruns and spiraling costs means they are far more expensive.

For the RAF to get 240 of them its projected to cost somewhere between £20 to £25billion. £20,000,000,000 / 240 = £83,333,333 each - about $133,333,333. Thats one of the reasons they are probably the worst project ever the UK's participated in - they are even more expensive than US Raptors and provide a far worse capability.

Only the yet to be built Tranche 3's will be true multirole fighters.

ian wrote:
Tranche's 1 & 2 of the eurofighter are almost entirely solely air-supremacy fighters. They have a austere (literally bolted on) ground attack capability which has been implemented since without it, in modern day warfare such as Afghanistan and Iraq - they are virtually useless since there's generally no enemy aircraft to fight.

Thank you for pointing out this fact...

kingkongfan1 wrote:concerning the part in bold & underlined... what do you think that the escort is there for?

yeh but some people's arguments where that bombers themselves should shoot down enemy fighters. not the other fighters that will fly next to them

After this discussion is over admin can you clearly state what will be doing what before i spend a ton of kuwal on something that i later find out to be useless to me?

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:After this discussion is over admin can you clearly state what will be doing what before i spend a ton of kuwal on something that i later find out to be useless to me?

May I ask what you want to achieve?

You can buy any aircraft, and none of them will be useless.
Easiest way is to keep equal number of fighters and bombers.