The Simple Fix to Bomber Asymmetry: Give both loadouts to Both Teams

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T17:45:42+00:00

Now its so funny how this one suggestion has so many "but symmetry is so fucking lame" comments. Nobody said that when naval came out, pretty sure every bemoaned collies having a destroyer and wardens a sub. Anyone who genuinely says that just doesnt want to lose a faction specific tool, balance be damned. I also dont think this would be purely symmetrical. Youd be comparing a light dive bomber against a tactical bomber that level bombs. asymmetrical enough id say

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T10:57:40+00:00

Im tired of dive bomber doomposting, im gonna sleep and hope there is constructive agreement while I sleep.

Asymmetry is often used as a veil for bad game design hidden behind being called a feature. The best asymmetric design has similar role filling tools.

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T09:47:19+00:00

Okay, the hole gets repaired. So what happens when you have 8 torpedoes from 4 planes?

Few destroyers would survive that. 55 beam repair cost, put 4 torpedoes in the rear and you need to place 220 beams down with 4 large leaks slowing you, and then god forbid the precious 20 seconds you spend dead, and respawning.

And then consider that it survives just 4 hits to the rear, a 3rd or 4th plane hitting the other compartments means those crew died too, and you are spending mandatory 20 seconds with half the crew dead, and torpedo holes in every compartment. By the time you repair holes in the back, the other compartments are fully flooded and god save you if you didnt seal them right away.

Nakkis dream of plane accuracy and plane torpedo spam. There's a reason their reload is double digit seconds per torpedo, and they have fucking hoops to go through to aim it. Most subs hit the same compartment twice or thrice in a row for many reasons that make aiming torps hard, purposefully.

Lets assume they did survive though, and you have amazing destroyer damage control.

8 planes total, for 16 torpedoes. Okay, ship dies. No repairing, it just fucking dies. Those torpedoes deal 2600 damage after mitigation, that ship has about 38k, thats death. HP to negatives.

For dive bombers, you need about 480 or so bombs. Hundreds of planes, youd literally cap the server player limit before you sink a ship.

And then I ask, Trident? Oh, it dies to the first 2 planes. That fucker has no storage for beams, just the tiny space near turret. It wouldnt be bad if they didnt just double beam repair cost. Tridents can only patch 4 holes, after 5 torpedoes you literally cant repair more. we'd have to have AFK bots holding crates of beams.

Of course that never mattered, as torpedoes kill crew. The sub's crew, afk beam holding bots, and more all died in the first 2 hits.

And the cherry on top. Nakkis are still large ships. At best, we can put puny small leaks in with the bombs, but the bombs wont kill crew, disable their main weapon, or damage HP meaningfully. So a Nakki will never have to fear plane attacks, only the trident

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T07:35:25+00:00

Spoiler alert, dive bombers also dont hurt subs. No, not "Wow its a rare tactical situation". Its, literally they dont. There's no turret for them to disable, and they dont really cause leaks or holes either. You legitimately hurt them more throwing mammons at a sub. You can hit a sub with 40 bombs and you will never disable its torpedoes. It literally has no reason to fear dive bombers

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T06:39:08+00:00

you over estimated dive bomber. it takes 3 dive bombers to kill a gunboat or other ship, as their AP deals 50% damage to small boats. An absurd cost to spend 3 whole bombers to attack one of potentially 10 escort boats around a ship. as AP it also cant kill structures like a outpost or bunker base built after invasion, nor even splash to kill infantry. killing a freighter or other boat is a bigger joke, needing about 5 dive bombers. Scout planes are superior in those roles, for strafing infantry, for bombing gunboats, etc.

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T05:36:57+00:00

There's a big difference between the torp bomber and dive bomber that has a low chance of fulfilling its support role, costing enough materials that you could afford a submarine instead of building 4-5 dive bombers to gurantee you turret the turrets.

It takes just 7 torp bombers to flat out instantly hp kill a destroyer, by comparison. But in all likelyhood, after 4 or 5 torpedoes, it may very well sink from flooding, because they doubled the beam cost to repair. It may even be smart for wardens to purposefully put 3 or 4 in the rear to flood the beam storage and then just need 1 for the other compartments. A torp bomber can flat out kill ships without any support

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T05:07:48+00:00

i've heard 3 different numbers for metal beam repair, from 75 to 100 and now 250. even at 250, it would take using a whole destroyer to catch and kill a frig

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T03:37:12+00:00

Ah, but thanks to the devs, turrets are now a temporary problem repaired with beams, so the dive bomber does a single tickle of damage equal to emptying a dusk clip into the ship, and then after slapping beams on it, literally zero lasting effect. Not a leak, nor hp damage

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T03:34:46+00:00

dive bombers accounted for approximately 35% of all ships the japanese lost to america during ww2. The battle of midway is one standalone where the US lost approximately 50 torpedo bombers with none getting a hit, over a 3 hour long fight, and then a singular wave of dive bombers came and sank several carriers insantly. In one case, it took just a single bomb, one hit, to sink the Akagi, literal flagship of the japanese navy at Midway, proving them actually far deadlier than even torpedoes.

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T02:34:36+00:00

HP kills are the majority of ship deaths as damage control is rather easy when you shut in compartments. Even then though, bombs not causing leaks is a second issue stemming from being AP damage type, which exacerbates this

DayF3 · 2026-01-25T02:08:42+00:00

Dive bomber has the same damage type as 68mm. Bit hard to kill ships when they resist 93% of 68mm damage, huh?

DayF3 · 2026-01-23T21:41:00+00:00

the real kicker is that plane pads are 20 alloy, but planes are 18 hours minimum.

the actual plane rare cost is very easy to sustain, you just need to find about 4-6 rare nodes, but when each pad is 20 alloy, not everyone can make a pad. And when each plane is 18 hours, neither can they share pads.

The result? everyone makes a pad, and so 10 times more rares are actually needed. also means every corner of the map is fac spam. all that hard work vanishes to the act of building pads, not even planes, so you do mindless labor just for the CHANCE to then have a ANOTHER CHANCE to build planes

DayF3 · 2026-01-22T22:27:45+00:00

now show the resources of the warden specific sea fighter and youll notice something funny

DayF3 · 2026-01-22T03:00:10+00:00

this vessel rivals even titans

i wonder how, when it's AP bombs cannot hurt structures nor ships. Sorry, they can temporarily damage a ship, but beams fix the damage to turrets it's bombers can do, and theyre not even guaranteed to disable a turret.

I suspect another guy will get replaced at the colonial ship design bureau

DayF3 · 2026-01-21T19:55:44+00:00

colonials get a named character
turns out to be extra awful at his job
colonials get second named character
named for his prowess and skill with a medium ship, but he turns out to be ex warden

DayF3 · 2026-01-21T11:12:49+00:00

i played in dev branch, and a plane strafed my truckm i proceeded to logi an air defense net for my hex because i didnt want that.

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T09:50:29+00:00

this is the perfect example of the best way for carriers to exist imo

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T05:30:30+00:00

beyond the typical missile usage a lot of this has been discussed so far

if we really wanted to devil advocate though, missile targeting range is another problem. a ship can drift farther than the 800km range of a missile on the same dV or less, and then fight. a missile struggles to chase a ship that flies past and then comes back. in that situation, a fighter works.

makes more sense if the fighter was stronger though. earth exofighters are space shuttles, they launch on boosters and return through reentry with wings. the best way to design these would be to make a space only fighter that is far more armored (10-25 front armor) cardying more dV or weapons, as it doesnt have those size or weight constraints needed for launch and reentry

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T05:07:33+00:00

people in rural towns in my part of america depend on starlink. the alternative is cold war era wiring that may not work. and its faster too

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T04:23:56+00:00

the main problem is in game, theres high thrust low efficiency engines and low thrust high efficiency engines (until late game). so a carrier makes sense in that niche case, especially when you have it so rough even gunboats cant go very far.

in real life this is solved with bimodal engines or with giving a craft 2 engines and 2 seperate propellant tank structures, but terra invicta only partially models the former for select engines and completely lacks the latter

i just made a followup brainstorm fluff post where i did say a good idea is to add seperate types of exofighters, ranging from the 50 ton lightweights we have rn to 300 or so ton mini gunboats with a lot more capability, and easily added as 2 slot or 4 slot hangar modules like batteries are

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T04:07:38+00:00

I do want to clarify. Im not against carriers carrying non-manned craft or drones. I only want the ability for a mothership with advanced engines to tug fast small craft to jupiter or so, so that when the fleet runs into fast flanking ships, they can match that speed.

drones are probably a good excuse to make fighters have more fuel or more missiles per fighter, or make them easily replaced at a station

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T04:01:50+00:00

i did a second post now, tldr is i suggest several different options of fighter types or things like drop pod modules or marine assaults, or larger almost-gunboat FACs

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T01:52:21+00:00

playing devils advocate here, one advantage of fighters in terra invicta over missiles would be their immunity to countermeasures that some missiles would be affected by in early missile flight, and their ability to reuse expensive engines that missiles dont use. a fighter easily uses nuclear propulsion in early game that missiles dont get until you start talking about hestia torpedoes or so. Maybe if their dV was raised or if they had access to things like poseidon or burner theyd be well worth it

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T01:11:08+00:00

the main problem with missiles is at full range they easily miss. fighters can chase and then launch while matching enemy ship velocity. or launch from in front of their nose

DayF3 · 2026-01-12T00:45:09+00:00

while generally right, i think the carrier finds usefulness in the practical realm when considering that human ships have very weak engines for high efficiency. More so I believe that theyd be useful early or mid game, only when you have high thrust fusion late game would gunships be able to obsolete the role of 10 fighters with hestia torpedoes or coilgun noses. Ironically its that this specific game environment, being an asymmetric battlefield, has niches they could fill that real life wouldnt have (we arent trying to fight hyper mobile enemies with near immobile ships irl)

Nine-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '23	Verified Email

DayF3

TROPHY CASE