Incendiary bombs used by both sides widely in war. Will we able to choose our bomb selections before for ?
10 Likes
idk why this seems like bad idea. seems like another OP weapon that will break game balance…
I’m curious, what type of incendiaries are we talking about here?
- Long-burn or short-burn?
- How large?
- How would they be implemented (how would they be selected, in the loadout, spawn, or when you re-arm)?
- Is it more like a molotov burn or is it white phosphorus?
On one hand it may be quite strong, but on the other hand it might also get more people to build and use AAs around the map. Most people don’t think it should be their job to shoot down planes even though they are repeatedly getting bombed out by them. Adding something like incendiary bombs might push more people to at least hop on them and help shoot down planes before rushing into an area.
Ah yes lets bring more skill issue weapons.
You can literally add PE 8 bombs and the peeps wont be arsed.
Why not napalm ?
Ehh not really …you wont be able to do much against vehicles plus there would be no splash damage so you’re safe if you’re nearby buildings and not much of an open target
They’re probably comparable to 50kg bombs in size and could be dangerous around 50 meters of radius …i assume irl would be worse
shows your understanding of ww2 bombs perfectly…
incendiary bombs could burn up to 10 minutes, were mixed with HE and delayed HE bombs, were packaged in small bombs, clusters and large bombs.
yes they could not kill tanks, but they could be wide area denial weapon. also not to mentio white phosphorous versions that could kill inside buildings…
Its great you got a great knowledge about bombs …and doesn’t take much to see i am absolute noob when it comes to that
But i wasnt talking about real life, ingame 50kg, 250kg and 500kg bombs do significally less damage than they would in real life - for obvious reasons
We have half a tonne bomb dropped on stone and wooden houses, but they dont get destroyed in enlisted …so yeah
I was talking about a way how to balance it out, add trade-offs and such. Takes no genius to understand that trying to make everything realistic as it is would mess up whole game experience - that’s where balancing things out comes in place - which was my point fam
it is cause they dont have destructible houses on and not cause they cant destroy them. if it was enabled you wouldnt have objectives to capture anymore cause they would be destroyed by bombs, artillery or tanks. this is more engine limitation/game balance question rather than bomb damage question.
like i said it could be OP weapon that can break game balance. it could be based on napalm and you could have giant molotov coctail that could block wide area (and could be moderately effective against tanks), or it could be based on white phosphorous and you would get giant phosphorous grenade that would obfuscate and kill anything inside it. it would be hard to strike balance between OP and useless in case of incendiary bombs. and they were OP in real life.
From a historical standpoint: Napalm wasn’t used until way late in the war, and not used by all sides.
From a game balancing standpoint: Napalm would absolutely break game balance. The thing about napalm is that it sticks. So from a game standpoint, its like hitting the whole area with a flamethrower, rather than a molotov. Not much difference most people would think. However, have you ever thrown a molotov at a window and it hits the window frame? The flame stays in the window and on the ground below it. However, if you shoot at the window with a flamethrower, and hit around the edges a bit, it sticks to the walls as well.
How is this important? It means that it would coat the entire area in flame. There are already issues with flamethrowers lighting people on fire on the other side of walls from time to time, if they are standing close enough to the wall. It would easily be the most destructive for that reason alone. I’m sure that’s probably hard to think about without a good reference, I don’t have one handy at the moment, but I hope you get the picture.
To be 100% fair, it actually seems like this would have a better chance of damaging vehicles than one would think (depending on how the fire is dispersed). Keep in mind that if you land a molotov or use a flamethrower on the top of the back of tanks, you can set them ablaze internally.
I am NOT saying that it would necessarily be more efficient than standard bombs, but its something to be considered.
