Bullwinkle Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 It seems to me that strategic bombers are an irrelevant unit in this game. Fighters can do everything bombers can do plus give air cover. Why waste research in bombers? To make them relevant you need to reduce the effect of fighters on land units (sea as well). This would make the bomber a unit to covet. Right now it's irrelevant. One last request: in the next version, why not make the ending date optional at the player's discretion? What is so special about May 1946? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daringly Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Play with FOW on. With bombers, you can spot your opponent's fighters, but he cannot see you. This makes the defense of your island easier, and provides "gang-bang" opportunities, once Germany lookes East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpstafford Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Originally posted by Bullwinkle: It seems to me that strategic bombers are an irrelevant unit in this game. Fighters can do everything bombers can do plus give air cover. Why waste research in bombers?Bombers are just one of many elements of the game that are unbalanced. SC is just a really poorly designed game. Needs a real "do over". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 If bombers cost less and the research system is 6-5-4-3-2 or whatever then bombers will appear more often. It would be fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esquire Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 The only time I used them as the Axis, was when I had long range tech. I placed them in Nothern Spain and Port. to bomb Eastern U.S. Other then that I generally do not bother with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norse Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Originally posted by Esquire: The only time I used them as the Axis, was when I had long range tech. I placed them in Nothern Spain and Port. to bomb Eastern U.S. Other then that I generally do not bother with them.WOW! :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Yes, bombing the Eastern US is a nice use for strategic bombers. It whittles down the US air fleets REAL fast, even with no escort. However, if you have that level of long range air (I believe L4 is required to hit the port, but that might have been from France, which would mean L3 for Spain), your carriers will be extremely effective as well - probably more so than strategic bombers. The main advantage of the bomber is that huge spotting range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iolo Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I think the best use for bombers is disbanding them and using the 225 MPP as a downpayment on a new fighter wing. I'd love to see some changes made which would make them an economically viable unit. Maybe if fighters couldn't hit resources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I agree. Fighter should have no affect on resources. Even Tactical bombers did nothing to strategic resourses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Fighter should have no affect on resources. Even Tactical bombers did nothing to strategic resourses. Not at all true! The Battle of Britain was conducted entirely with tactical bombers. You can certainly argue that the Germans didn't do a lot to strategic resources, but it wasn't NOTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randell Daigre Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 demoss: I think what Canuck_para means by "Tactical Bombers" is *fighter-bombers* (I.E. fighters loaded up with air-to-ground ordinance: P-51's, P-47's) and/or "close air support" bombers (Stukas, Typhoons). These are the kind of aircraft, which (IMO) should be represented in the game by the "Air Fleet" counter (along with interceptors, of course). Someone once suggested that the tactical bombers should have a seperate unit type, but many of these planes were dual-role, so I don't think that it would be that good of an idea (especially at this scale). The aircraft represented by the Strategic Bomber counter should be more along the lines of "level bombers". The planes used by Germany to bomb southern England would then be represented by the Strategic Bomber counter. Of course, this might necessitate giving one of these to Germany at the beginning of the game. When did they build all those HE-111's and JU-88's? I'm assuming it was before the war (I could look it up, but I'm too lazy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottosmops Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by Bullwinkle: It seems to me that strategic bombers are an irrelevant unit in this game. Fighters can do everything bombers can do plus give air cover. Why waste research in bombers? I find strategic bombers useful to attack strongly entrenched ground units in preparation of a ground attack, because they reduce entrenchment by two points. Also the damage to the attacker done by the defending ground unit and the intercepting enemy air fleet is divided between the bombers and the escorting air fleet, which is not the case, when you attack with an air fleet alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts