John Given Wrote:IMO, the "stationary bomber" would probably be best handled by making it like the version in DG-VN I just described - i.e., making it a movable, flying unit. I've controlled those big gunships before, and I must say, it's enjoyable, and does not smack of anything gamey.
I fully agree with this in principle.
Quote: However, I'm not sure it's realistic that an aircrew would try to repel an enemy from inside a grounded bomber - I would think they'd just run when enemy troops approached...if they could not get airborne beforehand.
Totally unrealistic. The crew don't sit in an aeroplane waiting to open up on attackers...airfield defences do that. Nothing in the military world..as far as I know...is more defenceless than an aircraft on the ground.
Quote: It'd probably be more realistic to simply make the bomber a movable unit that would have to put itself in danger (getting close to the enemy) in order to attack.
Of course...that is why I condemn the farcical bombers. Would we accept tanks that cannot travel across country, or infantry that can't WALK!!? Of course not. But some seem quite happy to accept the farce of non-moving nonflying "aircraft" dropping bombs, from the ground, at indirect targets miles away. I thought the aim was to improve CS, and in most aspects this has been well achieved. The comic "bombers" and the bathtub "navy" are an exception to this, and do not qualify in any way to be called a simulation.
.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
