Hmmm kinda like the b-17 or b-29, if this would get added what if you rename the currentbomber to fighter jet, fighter into light fighter or attack fighter and heavybomber into just a bomber (this is a suggestion, i wont expect this to happen)
Also if heavybombers would have a cool gunship turret design like the b-17's and B-29's. It would be a tank mg like but alot smaller and it would be a way to defend bombers from fighters.
The max size should be prolly 400-600 blocks and the more blocks it has, the more guns and bomb bays can be added.

Idk if ccnet is ready for this tbh so idk, it could be easily abused and it would be really powerful, it could be used for busting defencive forts down cause that 6 bomb bays gonna make the battlefield look worse than hiroshima in 1945, so what im saying that you could use these to bomb in enemy territory only/ enemies claimed blocks,
It would be really fast but expensive which would also make the bomber more balanced.

And also i forgot to mention: that you couldnt use bomb bays on wilderness for obvious reasons (tank go boom)

oliver that wouldnt work cuz point of bomber is to counter movecraft not forts

Yeah Oliver. Also this bomber wasn't meant to have any defensive capabilities so that people can't abuse the heck out of them. I mean, CCNet movecraft developers can add mounted guns if they want, but I am not sure how that could be balanced seeing as these bombers are already meant to level everything on the ground. Unless they came up with a much weaker fighter gun variant, or just decided to allow fighter guns on the bomber, guns on a heavy bomber would be unbalanced. Also, it would just be called a heavy bomber and, if it were super fast, then that would also be unbalanced. The whole point of a heavy bomber is to fly in formation with other bombers with a fighter escort, not to be a one-man squadron that can outmaneuver all the other planes.

Yeah a much weaker fighter gun would. Be rl good and that was what i was thinking.

and I still believe that zeppelins should have a fighter gun to defend themselves

Solus, I could write a whole essay on how I think Zeppelins should be improved, but that's for another suggestion LOL.

Heavy bombers should also require redstone blocks instead of redstone lamps for their size.

Honestly I dont like heavy bombers as an idea because 6-7 bomber bays essentialy would decimate a tank in seconds (although the bomber itself would be more vulnerable due to less speed) and lets be honest every capable ccnet pilot would be able to use it without the need of escorts like you mentioned as it doesnt take much skill to troll ground vechiles.

Though I think Zeppelins should have a buff like someone mentioned. I personally thing zeppelins should either have some mounted gun or 6 wooden ship cannons followed by a bomb bay or two which wouldnt be OP

S3xyberry, we dont talk about the war crime bomber which can take down a destroyer in i click of a sign and implode the best heavytank in MEU harder than the titan subma-

What if instead of a different bomber the bomber works off of firepower system instead of 2 of every gun? So you can sacrifice you missiles for more bombs or vice versa. Same with torps once they add them as cannons.

You might want to give different firepower amounts to the different cannons thought. As missiles are a lot easier to hit and can be done from farther. So unless you can have more bombs than missiles there's not to much point using bombs.

So S3xyberry, I made the suggestion for heavy bombers rather than zep buffs because, at least from what I've seen, staff shows no plans to buff zeppelins because people cry about them in sieges enough already. Also I see your point about the OP bomb bays, so perhaps only 3-4 bomb bays for heavy bombers.