Another bomber suggestion

    • Fleet, Defense and Combats

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Another bomber suggestion

      Bombers have been for a lot of time a point of contention in the player base. Supposedly, they would be excellent with crushing turtles. But putting information on numerous simulators has displayed that their presence against defense rarely makes much of a difference, and there have been numerous threads about it already (example: board.en.ogame.gameforge.com/i…-not-sure-if-right-forum/). Battlecruisers and destroyers are generally seen as a much better investment, and in the late game, RIPs are the go to ship to destroy turtles.

      Here's the problem with bombers:

      * They are only good for defenses, unlike battlecruisers and destroyers who can take just about everything;
      * Even though they should be very useful against defenses, they do not have rapid fire against Gauss cannons, which will be seen a lot against opponents in the same bracket (to say nothing about plasma cannons). The only ship that has that is the Deathstar, at 50;
      * They cost too much to field. With the same impulse drive and about the same structural integrity, they cost more than 3x to deploy than battlecruisers, and the same as a destroyer, and it has hyperspace drives. After more research, the costs will be even greater, which makes it more expensive to deploy than destroyers;
      * Along the same lines, it has 3 times less speed than the battlecruiser., slowing your fleet. So it costs 3 times more deuterium, while being 3 times slower. Costs got higher;
      * It has low cargo capacity, which eats away your storage space from other ships.
      * Bulding time is greater than the battlecruiser.

      Overall, there is little incentive to field that ship, especially if you are going against ships and defenses.

      Given that, my suggestions are (any of them being taken would be good):

      * Change the fuel consumption to be about the same of the battlecruiser. The bomber being slow makes it balanced. It being slow, having about the same mineral cost and having higher upkeep makes it a doubtful addition to the fleet;
      * Give it rapidfire against gauss cannons, of either 2 or 5. Gameforge could progressively give it more rapidfire until it reaches five, so as to not give much of an impact at first. Could give it a rapid fire of 2 against plasma guns, as no ship in the game has that;
      * The bomber description mention it using laser guidance. It could receive some sort of an independent damage buff with laser technology or, even better (if possible), better rapidfire against some targets (which would make sense, since it involves targeting). Currently, there is no benefit in improving laser technogy.
      * In order to balance these changes and keeping with the "fortress" theme, given its reasonable structural integrity, heavy fighters could have some form of rapidfire against bombers (a value of only 2), as to emulate a heavily armed, fast moving and well shielded WW2 fighter going against a bomber.

      Thanks in advance =)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Midnight Rider ().

    • Midnight Rider wrote:


      Given that, my suggestions are (any of them being taken would be good):

      * Change the fuel consumption to be about the same of the battlecruiser. The bomber being slow makes it balanced. It being slow, having about the same mineral cost and having higher upkeep makes it a doubtful addition to the fleet;
      * Give it rapidfire against gauss cannons, of either 2 or 5. Gameforge could progressively give it more rapidfire until it reaches five, so as to not give much of an impact at first. Could give it a rapid fire of 2 against plasma guns, as no ship in the game has that;
      * The bomber description mention it using laser guidance. It could receive some sort of an independent damage buff with laser technology or, even better (if possible), better rapidfire against some targets (which would make sense, since it involves targeting). Currently, there is no benefit in improving laser technogy.
      * In order to balance these changes and keeping with the "fortress" theme, given its reasonable structural integrity, heavy fighters could have some form of rapidfire against bombers (a value of only 2), as to emulate a heavily armed, fast moving and well shielded WW2 fighter going against a bomber.

      Thanks in advance =)
      The Bomber's fuel consumption, as well as speed, is a complete mess, but it should not be the same as a battlecruiser because that would make Battleships pretty much useless since Battleships don't have any RF against anything and are weaker than Bombers in every way aside attack power. The Bomber should be about between a Battleship and a Destoyer, at 750 or so, and they should be faster than Destroyers but slower than BS and BCs. To make it actually viable.

      And yes, since the Bomber is supposed to be a deff destroyer, it stands to reason that it should have some form of RF against the Gauss at the very least. About 5 seems reasonable.

      It should not however have RF against the Plasma. The Plasmas are the ultimate defence and are the most expensive unit in the game by a considerable margin, of course because of it's high stats but above it all, because it has no RF against it. The Deathstar, being the Mammoth of Ogame, the one does it all unit, doesn't have RF against the Plasma, so I don't think the Bomber should have it either.
      -The Battlecruiser is the ship that's designed to take out Fleet, yet it doesn't have RF against all other battle unit ships. It misses on the Destroyer, which is the strongest Fleet Unit (not counting RIP).
      -The Bomber is the ship that's designed to take out Defense, so, just like the Battlecruiser, it should have a decent amount of RF against most defense, like the Battlecruiser has against Fleet but not against the strongest Defense unit, the Plasma, much like the Battlecruiser with the Destroyer.


      The Bomber, obviously, given the fact that it's only supposed to take out Defense, should not be a Ship that's equally build like the others like the CR, BS, BC and DS, it should be less built by fleeters precisely because of that. Even in Universes where Defense goes to DF, in which people shouldn't even invest in Def to begin with but anyway, but even in this scenario they are not much viable at all with it's lack of RF against Gauss and high as a Destroyer fuel consumption.
      With these slight changes, at least some people would actually bother to have some Bombers around to crush a fleet behind a defence in an ideal scenario. As it stands, it's absolutely useless.
    • Yeah, didn't think about the analogy with the Battlecruiser and RF against the destroyer. I was thinking about every unit having a counter, but light fighters are the counter to plasma. You're right.

      About the fuel, the biggest issue is the hyperspace engine actually making things worse by making it the biggest deuterium sink. I'm sure there's some math about optimal fuel consumption and balance, but it just seems it's not working out for the Bomber. I'm sure Gameforge can get fleet statistics of the top players, and they surely see that they hardly bother with bombers