Proposal to Improve Mechanics of Bombers: Reward them for Completing Missions, not Destroying Targets

Before I begin, let me just say that I spent all of last night in an engineering lab and I didn't really get any sleep at all. So, my idea might come across as terrible to a clear-minded person.

Anyways, I was just taking a shower and I thought about what the big problem with bombers in RB is. What I guess it comes down to is that they aren't well-integrated to the core of RB Air gameplay, which predominates around fighters achieving air supremacy. Sure, occasionally bombers will do very well and at a couple of BRs America can quickly win the game with an all-out bomber blitz. But, for the most part, bombers are constrained to either:

1. Making solo suicide runs on bases ahead of fighter cover

2)Flying in formation with other bombers and getting chewed apart because of the general lack of fighter cover

3. Fly evasively for 10 minutes and then sneak in and hit a base

4. Wait patiently for fighter cover to catch up

There really isn't any denying that if a player wants to earn RP and lions as quickly as they can, option 1) is the best choice. You're not likely to survive, but all that means is that you can fly out another mission more quickly. There is essentially no incentive to stay alive and get back to base. As a consequence, bombers in general add very little to gameplay. I think most people would agree that for a team that has a significant amount of bombers, ideal gameplay would center around protecting bombers, whereas teams without many bombers would need to launch concerted attacks to overpower escorts and destroy enemy bombers.

So, without further ado, here is my proposal to bring about this change in gameplay: make base-bombing damage only take effect after the bomber in question has completed its successful mission. Essentially, bombers could still immediately destroy bases, but they would not receive rewards for doing so until they touched down on a friendly airfield. In addition, the enemy team would not lose tickets until the bomber returned to base. This change would turn conventional strategy for grinding in bombers on its head. Now, there is a real incentive for bomber pilots to wait for cover. In RB there seems to be a "critical mass" of fighters and bombers flying together that convinces the rest of the team to join in, partly because at that point it becomes smart strategy and partly because its fun. Having the majority of bombers wait up for the fighters would start this cycle. This would transform the style of Air RB into something much more historically accurate.

Counterarguments:

1. Delaying rewards doesn't make any practical sense! Well, when I think about it, it really does. I think Germany would have been perfectly happy to let every B17 in American service have one successful bombing run if it meant that those B17s would be destroyed in the process and their crews all captured or killed. At the end of the day, bleeding tickets should not strictly be about destroying things but about gaining an advantage in the war as a whole.

2. This isn't fair to bombers! Well, true, if reward levels were held the same bombers might well come out worse, I'm not sure. It would be easy enough to balance out, though.

3. What happens if the game ends before bombers RTB? I don't have such a good answer for this one. The best thing I came up with was that if you win, you get your RP and silver, but you don't if you lose. This would prevent the last bombers on a losing team from running, I think.

Note: In order to keep the flow of the game from being interfered with too much, I propose that the delay be implemented on base bombing only, so that if a bomber takes out an airfield there isn't a mad rush to kill him before he returns to base. Furthermore, after bases are destroyed the airfield would still immediately be destructible. Precision bombing (hitting tanks, ships, and pillboxes) is its own thing altogether, and I'm not proposing touching it.

Well, I apologize as I know that's a lot of text. Thoughts?