Do Bombers suck as much as I think they do?

[Offspring21989]

Bombers are still 'fighter' class ships........They ARE JUST fighters with power cores upped to support improved torpdo systems and reduced weapons.

So if they were as agile as a fighter, why would we still call them bombers? Some of you aren't thinking very rationally about this. In FreeSpace2, the bombers were the slowest ships in the game. Sure, they had stronger hulls. But after your escort wing died, you would only survive about 30 seconds. I saw a Corsair bomber take on 4 fighters, and won. It was ridiculous. Bombers are supposed to be easy prey for fighters. What we need to figure out is how to balance things, and stop complaining that you can't exploit the balance from the old beta 4 anymore.

Yes they should have a advantage over gunships, yes they should have the advantage over gunboats, and they should be able to take down cruisers with a skilled pilot. they should NOT be able to take down a battleship single handed.

In a sense of real life, the only real advantage a Jet Fighter pilot has over a Battleship is that he is traveling over 100 MPH, compared the almost stationary Battleship. The battleship may travel at what, 70 knotts? In space, Battleships have more room to move. Your Speed should be your only advantage. But bombers are bigger ships, and that makes them slower, and more vulnerable to fighters. They are designed to blow up big stuff effectively, and they only have a few ineffective turrets on them (like the B-52). And your speed, in a B-52 bomber, is not real fast. Your only advantage is that you are very high up in the air. AND YOU ARE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO FIGHTER PILOTS.

EDIT: I don't know how to fix this, I am really only trying to give a feel on how bombers that auctually existed in real life behave, and maybe It would make some sense to start from there.