I guess we mostly agree. But on top of that AA is broken, cover system/explosion calculations are broken and selective bombing that protects team is broken. I prefer fixing these first before touching the blast radius.
No map changes are required I think - we have the all the trenches and buildings, maps are quite good. Cap zone sizes aren’t always, that’s a different story.
The map should be filled by dugouts, foxholes / bomb craters in order to map be protective against the nuclear blast bombs. Which would make moving in maps horribly painful, especiatly for tanks.
Not to even mention AI that cant even stay inside houses.
But lets go with the protective subject and instead of nerfing bombs that has absolutely way too massive radius in such small maps. As the things should be equal & balanced for all the planes would need similar system too.
Lets say, once the plane comes down 100m from maximum ceiling, its free to be shot down by infantry weapons.
Sounds fair ?
Perhaps 20 hits by LMG or 1 by AT-Rifle or AA gun should be adequate amount of damage to take plane down. But you can always cruise at max altitude safely.
Almost.
I still insist on fixing bugs instead of hiding them at the cost of losing everything that makes this game different. So if AI is not taking cover and rushing to its death, do not reduce bomb damage in response but fix AI reaction. If a thing is realistic and painful because of a lot of other bugs, let it stay unless it’s complete game breaker like mortar and artillery spam was, and fix the other systems around.
A lot of the maps are filled with those. D-Day is hard in this regards, maybe there the dunes should be transformable by blasts or engineers should be given the ability to dig in, but currently we can’t even remove the pre-placed barbed wire so this is far future which may never come due to engine limitations.
Keep it real, then it’s OK for me. If the plane landed in front of me and I target it with a PIAT, of course it is fair. 
If the sealclubbing with planes is what makes this game unique, I highly doubt this game has very long future.
Well you can always cruise safely at max altitude ? How is this different from being “safe” in dugout ?
I also hope it will be solved this way or that and soon. And I don’t think my opinion is what will shape the future of the game, but I wish that big bombs blast big, and to have planes flying above us.
It contradicts some of my other expectations e.g. not to bomb a building you wish to capture and to have fun with infantry.
As stated above by all means, as long as High reward has high risk.
Currently the only risk is crashing, which is fairly avoidable. From ground pov.
Quick and thus maybe bad idea: add a “call fighters” or “call AA” operation to radioman, available once per match (or 2-3?) in radio squad. One sweep, if bombing-capable aircraft is not above x meters then it’s doomed.
Problem with that is exactly same as its currently ( If theres no friendly fighter to deal with it ) If theres no specific unit to deal with it, it will sealclub thru entire match.
Take tanks for example, every unit can deal with the tank. Tanks are balanced as they offer high reward with relatively high risk also the damage they can deal is in fair balance, some maps being exceptions but thats problem with greyzone / map design rather than the tank itself.
With engineers capable of building proper AA and radiomen an additional layer on top of it, it would already be a very different landscape (considering infantry vs. planes).
The problem of needing specific unit to deal with it still remains.
Regardless it would atleast be progress.
To deal with tanks you also need a specific unit - one with explosives. The current status that anyone I can afford in my squad will get a detpack so I can kill tanks is not too realistic either. It works and it’s fun, but only in Enlisted-world.
Everyone can get detpack theres no limitation.
Realism < gameplay.
I mean I would not mind if let’s say only engineers, assaulters and bombers (AT guys) would get the option to equip detpack, rest should hide from tanks. But current gameplay is all right in this regard, no need to touch this part until other parts are improved, and maybe not even then.
That would work if the vehicles were limited. Such as 2-4 / game and after that they would be depleted.
But as current meta is everyone can do what ever they want where they want such implement wouldnt work infact it would just make the vehicles more OP or completely useless meaning a new player spawning a tier 1 tanks to feed late game tanks etc.
Instead of ripping down your rant step by step and pointing out how biased it is, il just rephrase your sentence to counter argument.
“Ooo when I fly planes I do just fine without bombs machineguns are indeed even a better option than bombs so yeah lets remove them entirely supa kawaiiii im not biased at all ^_______________^”
I agree with your points especially improving the damage model and take cover mechanic.
It is possible to shoot down planes as infantry. Happens more in Moscow than other campaigns.
I never said that.
I’m pointing out you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
I often take planes out to deal with specific threats in the air or on the ground. The plane is just another tool in your kit. Use it. However, I do not main planes and regularly go 100+ kills with infantry.
As we are pointing out you dont know either and top of that you are even biased about it.
So how shall we continue from here ?
For all I care you can take your moms underwear to deal with threats. Subject has been and still is
A) Theres no counter on the ground against planes.
A.1 The claim shooting planes down with infantry weapons is just as laughable as our counter argument that planes dont need bombs because the MG on planes is just as good for killing infantry as bombs.
A.2 Taking a fighter to deal with threats isnt exactly a counter against planes FROM THE GROUND so that can be disregarded entirely.
B) 250 nuclear blast bombs are too massive to tiny maps
C) Planes HP / cooldowns are broken AF.
And finally that self-righteous attitude. The fact that you seem to think that everyone who asks something to be fixed cant play the game or is just bad player is just eh, It doesnt exactly require a years practice to be effective with current planes, which only threat currently is if you crash it. Which definitely is absolutely insanely hard to avoid. Skill ? Yeah you have to drop the bomb load to proximity of 1mile and your guaranteed to get kills, I cant imagine anything that would require such skill.
Then lets just speak about the “Skill” that seems to constantly pop-up in these nerf conversations.
90% of time you are shooting at Bots, Yes Bots that hardly are challenge to anyone over age of 4 or someone who doesnt have any disabilities.
Yeah, shooting bots is relatively easy task with tank or as infantry. Ironicly it is even easier with planes as you dont even need to aim at them just drop to proximity of capzones or spawn area and you are good to go. So how about you cut that everyone is shit and cant play attitude ?
Fine, proceed to show us evidence how you effectively deal with planes with infantry weapons we shall wait here.
Ah ok then, because I definitely not play most of time as infantry but as pilot and I consider the nuclear bombs too strong and thus id like to see planes with MG’s only.
Yes, we are still waiting for your evidence to teach us how to effectively take down planes with infantry weapons.
Yeah, but yours does ?
Well we’re still here waiting for your realistic evidence for countering planes with infantry weapons.
You do understand that in game that is made for fun, not for competition like csgo.
You pretending to be a good player and everyone else being shit is literally same as if you won
special olympics running competition against 4yrs old ( I assume you are above 4 yrs old )
AND the very fact that you are defending your completely broken sealclubber device is like winning that same running competition but with a car.
And while ur at it, pretending to be so good player and everyone else is shit.
Proceed to provide evidence.