Olrox wrote:
The collapse is the "accidental" triggering of numerous orbital nuclear missile devices, so it's a single event involving only nasda and its sattelites, there were no conflict between nations. Then, it's not a nuclear war, as the war starts after the collapse (for domination of the remaining technologies and territory), and there's no nuclear weapons used on the war itself.
NASDA satellites and ground sites fired nukes at all the major cities across the world, and the other countries, seeming to follow a MAD policy, launched nuclear counter-strikes against North America. The NASDA anti-missile defenses(including the LasSats) mysteriously failed to fire and America was nuked into oblivion.
So it was technically a nuclear war since other countries' nukes were involved.
Even in the Warzone campaign, NEXUS uses nukes on 3 occasions.
Anyway, this argument is off topic. Now to get back on topic...
In traditional roles bombers are able to carry much higher payloads at much longer ranges and fulfill the attack role. Fighters fulfill the support/superiority role with faster/lighter payloads.
This is common sense. But what is not common sense is how Warzone fails to see these roles.
Things break down in Warzone by the very fact that any VTOL body can equip any weapon type/grade which largely defeats the purpose of the heavier roles.
Things also get more complicated by the fact that the AT missiles (especially Scourge) are universally effective on all targets, which by that very nature alone diminishes, if not eliminates, the other combat roles.
In addition, the fact that it is not possible for VTOLs to suppress other VTOLs in A-T-A dogfighting eliminates the superiority role by default.
So, then, the heavier bodies are reserved for the same task that lighter bodies could perform, but they are used instead for the simple fact that they can survive an AA barrage long enough to deliver, whereas lighter bodies cannot. Plus, heavier bodies carry the same payload as lighter bodies at no additional benefit or penalty, and can travel the same distance. This, by default, eliminates the bomber role. Imagine a WW2 P-51 Mustang being able to carry 47,000 lbs of ordinance to the target. There'd be no such thing as the flying fortresses.
So, long story short, several things need to be addressed before traditional air combat roles can be seen in Warzone (and I think they'd be useful, not to mention fun).
In traditional roles, Bombers(like the B-1, B-2 and the Tu-160) are able to fly an immense distance and deliver immense payloads, while Air Superiority Fighters(like the F-15C, F-22, Su-35, Typhoon, etc.) fight enemy aircraft and try to establish control over the airspace in the theater of war.
Strike/Multirole Fighters(like the F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Gripen, etc.) have air-to-air capabilities less than those of Air Superiority Fighters, but carry larger air-to-ground payloads over similar ranges and are general all-round warplanes.
There are also some more air-to-ground specialized Ground Attack aircraft like the Su-34, F-15E, and F-117, which have limited or no air-to-air capabilities, but are capable of delivering a wide range of various air-to-ground munitions like cruise-missiles, SEAD weapons, guided bombs with incendiary, cluster and anti-bunker penetrator warheads, anti-tank missiles, etc. They have moderate range but carry lower payloads than heavy Bombers.
There are no immense distances in Warzone that warrant the need for true heavy Bombers, since the entire war is fought in North America itself. The really heavy payloads they carry would probably be able to destroy any base if a single plane gets through the defenses.
There is, as of present, no serious air-to-air combat in Warzone, and even when aircraft do meet, one side is on a mission to bomb something while the other side is just patrolling or is linked to a
VTOL tower, and shoots at the enemy for it has nothing better to do. Sometimes the interceptors chase the bombing planes back to their base, destroy them on their landing pads, and then get shot down by AA. So there is no real Air Superiority role either.
Light bodied VTOLs with Lancer/TK/Scourge armament already fulfill the Multirole/Strike role to an extent, since they can fight anything, sort of. Medium bodied heavy bombers with Cluster/Phosphor/Thermite/HEAP/Plasmite Bomb armament already fulfill the Ground Attack role.
I think Air Superiority fighters can be introduced by:
-Making the regular
VTOL weapons anti-tank or anti-personnel or something instead of anti-air, and significantly reducing the effectiveness of non-anti-air damage types against VTOLs.
-Making specific air-to-air only weapons based off the Lancer, Scourge or Avenger, that are anti-air and cannot shoot at ground targets.
-Somehow linking patrolling fighters to the Command Center's radar, which seems to detect VTOLs waaay before anything else sees them. They could be used with
VTOL Strike Towers/Turrets, though, if you place one sufficiently far from your base and on the enemy VTOLs' approach route.
-Somehow making sure that an entire squadron of fighters doesn't unload all it's ammo against one stupid enemy, and instead making each fighter engage a different target.
That way you would have effective interceptors that can also be used against each other. You could send your fighters on a patrol over the enemy base to engage enemy fighters and help your bombers get through safely, etc., etc.
he took lots of screen shots though, he even had them as his background.)anyway. what he did that mission was build over a 100 and so mething angel fires and just sort of wipe out everything. he even knew what to skip to get that asap. ( i personally never made it past the collection in campaign yet) well what i said up top double. lol 
we live in the age of google so information accumulation and regurgitating is very easy.... but applying to something tangible, something that introduces a working-fun change, that's a whole other level of playing the game..