Printable View
Just wanted to air a theory I have from playing on the pubs...
On maps with good base turrent defense, such as Katabalic (sp?), if the enemy has AA turrets set up, attack with the tank, otherwise attack with the bomber. I don't find missle turrets to be very effective in taking bombers down.
You guys agree with that?
All depends on if you have a good bomber crew - particularly the tail-gunner - who should be tossing out flares to prevent the missiles from hitting. You will find on most maps good teams trade out the missile turrets for AA turrets which seem to be a bit more effective for all around defense.
Of course, a good HO squad will have those turrets down most of the time. ;)
If you have air superiority, a good bomber driver can operate *without* a tailgunner.
Avoiding missiles is not difficult provided you don't expose yourself to the enemy for very long, come in from a variety of angles and know how to avoid/outrun missiles.
Enemy shrikes are another matter altogether.
Unless the defenders fire missles as well, 1-2 missle turrets aren't much of a threat. At full shields, a bomber will shrug off a single missle, and they aren't hard to outrun.
I always put AA turrets in, given a choice. Even if missle turrets were equally good with airborne vehicles, I find AA turrets much better with capers.
But, I was thinking, If the enemy optimizes their air defense (with AA) turrets, then they are leaving themselves open for a tank assault, where their AA turrets will be of no help.
9 times out of 10, we choose our turret type based on what is most effective for killing enemy players, not shrikes or bombers.
The thing about missile turrets is that those missiles have an awful lot of fuel - far more than the handheld version. So if you're in a Shrike and therefore can't flare, you can spend a lot of time running away from those things, sometimes well off the map.