' Wrote:uh dude enterprise was a CARRIER and she did damn near win the war(at one point she was our only running carrier) anyway i aprove of it but bombers arnt uberpwnzors in world war 2 you needed attack WAVES of bombes to taker out said battleship,destroyer,cxruiser alltho in world war two ships had proper AAA defences
i support bombers but at least make more versions of flak guns ifanything to give the hevy cruisers and the LABC some form of self defence(all cruisers need better defencive guns but the lighter ships can evade more easly)
in WW 2 you you didn't need waves of bombers so you would have more firepower, but they were needed to increase the chance of hitting your target because back then, weapons weren't really as accurate as today.
also, if you look at the Bismarck's sinking, you'll see that even though the Royal Navy had pummeled its entire upper deck into oblivion, it were 2 torpedo's, launched from aircraft that caused it to sink. same can be said about the HMS repulse, it got sunk by japanese torpedobombers, only 3 torpedo's were required to cause it to sink.
There is even a more modern example, during the falkland wars, i believe a Royal Navy destroyer was sunk by only 1 bomb. The reason their are virtually no big battleships (except carriers) in active duty is because they don't stand a chance against the cheaper and more versatile aircrafts. Even the biggest US carriers have such large number of escorts because if 1 or 2 bombers could sneak up to them, they could damage it enough for it to go into the drydocks for months.
In freelancer this should be the same in my opinion. And currently, i find the bombers still a little underpowered against caps, but thats just my opinion and i'm not going to ask for it to change, as its all part of the balance.
If people want their fighter to be able to own a bomber in every situation, even though the bomber pilot has much more skill than you, than you must also be willing to allow the bomber to own a battleship in every situation, simple as that.
