Bombers vs. Fighter question for SC veterans

[anoldman]

I have not had much use in the past for bombers and nor do I hear much traffic on the boards about the use of bombers in any appreciable way in anyones battle plans which leads me to question the use (maybe just play balance?) of bombers.

They cost more than fighters but get chewed up at an unreplaceable rate, and usually don't seem to do as much damage to enemy units as fighters.

I understand that being careful not to fly them into contested areas might slow down their losses, but the damage they do to enemy cities or ports seems simply unequal to the cost.

I seem to get about 1-2 average on a bombing run against an undefended city and occasionally I still take losses. It doesn't seem worthwhile to get 1-2mp's from the enemy in any given run if the cost of an Infantry Corps is 125mp's or so, and the enemy is getting 150+ mp's a turn in anycase.

A fighter striking a Infantry Corps unit does at least 10mp worth of damage if he knocks the Infantry down 1 unit, 20 for 2, and If I can get a tank, army, or *drools slightly* an HQ, then I can cost the enemy even more MP's and in anycase I may even delay the use of the unit for a turn while it repairs.

Finally, even if intercepted, fighters usually hit the enemy fighters for at least one or so. My fighter takes a pretty good hit, but if it had been a bomber intercepted, then the bomber losses would probably be higher & probably wouldn't have caused a 1 hit on the enemy fighter in return.

Bomber escorts seem sort of a poor choice because of the problem of it counting the escort as an attack vs. the interceptor (which then uses its' terrain defense and mauls not only my bomber but also my fighter!)

So I am just using them wrong or are they just not that worth it? Thanks for any replies,

--An Old Man

P.S. I know 1.6 changed a lot of things but did it change the "fighter attacks, is intercepted, and gets to use its terrain bonus" bug? This most definately occurs. Thx.- AOM

[ December 15, 2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: An Old Man ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Well, for bombers to be worth anything, you must upgrade them to atleast level 2. Anything higher allows you to just bomb the hell out of cities and resources in western Europe.

But when playing as allies i nearly always try to have 2 bomber fleets in England along with 4-5 fighter groups.

CvM

[Lord Flasheart]

The only useful thing about Bombers (as opposed

to fighters) that I've seen is their greater

damage versus naval units.

If only Malta had 2 land hexes, a bomber with a

fighter escort might makes things interesting

down there. 8-)

[Scorpion_22]

The gameplay seems very good to me when you rule that ONLY bomber units can attack ground units.

Having a huge air force that is all-inclusive and almighty, and can get better in air-to-air operations by performing air-to-ground operations and vice versa, is simly not possible.

Essentially it adds another strategic layer into the game. IF you need both bombers and fighters, it is twice as expensive (research included) and you cannot exploit the experience system to rule the skies forevermore (by gaining exp to the fighters by bombing poor defenseless corps).

In this case, the fighter unit represents only fighters, and the bomber unit represents both strategic and tactical bombers.

Thus one balanced Luftflotte/airfleet consists of one fighter and one bomber unit.

Of course, the french, for example, neglected their bombers.

This makes sense both gameplay-wise and historically to me.

Try it out and see how you like it, perhaps you´ll find that the game play out differently in a positive way?

[Scorpion_22]

....Remember that the Luftwaffe, for example, had seven Luftflotten at most (four to start with in 1939). Aircraft are EXPENSIVE.

This rule keeps the air fleet counts in check....

So it isn´t as easy to field 18 air fleets unless you skimp out on the bombers.

[pzgndr]

In this case, the fighter unit represents only fighters, and the bomber unit represents both strategic and tactical bombers.

This would be a good change for SC2, and relatively easy to make happen. The combat tables would have to be revised to give bombers more effectiveness against ground targets and fighters less effectiveness (but still capable) than what we currently have. It would certainly make you buy and deploy both to have an effective air force, and to spread your research chits around more.

One issue to resolve would be bomber targets where ground units occupy resources. Should you be able to choose whether the attack is against the unit or the resource, or simply make it a combined attack since damage was rather arbitrary anyway? I'll vote to keep it simple. Others have expressed an interest in separating the two functions, so it's open for debate.

Related to this, I'd also like to see ground and naval units receive some AA benefits based on AA radar tech advances.

[Panzer Cmdr]

Hey Old Man, only one more thing : the bomber has longer range and better spotting range too.

Currently though the "Fighter" unit is better all around and for the cost. I like the idea about limiting the fighters ability to conduct ground attacks. SC2 would be good to address this and perhaps create a new "dive bomer / ground attack" aircraft with good ground attack abilities and limited air-to-air abilities.

[DeGaule]

It's a missconception to say that France had neglected its bomber fleet.

Like most Air-Force of the mid-30's in Europe, The "Armée de l'Air" had concentrated its planning and construction on various type of aircraft that could be roughly separated into 2 large overall categories, Bombers and Interceptors.

What really hurt the Bomber fleet was more a question of its use than of its potential. the fleet was by and arge made up or relativly modern designs(too many designs in fact) but too little had been done to provide an efficient Command&Control apparatus and also reconnaissance and target determination were sadly lacking .

These last points mainly due to the influence of that Italian Imbecile , Douet, who had convince almost all of Europe that Terror bombing of civilian population with fire and gas weapons would be the future of warfare in Europe

France Bombers, almost all of the medium-range class, were sacrificed in piecemeal low-level attacks on heavily defended ground targets , ports, bridges railyards, etc..such targets being chosen mainly because the High Command quickly lost the reconaissance battle had had at best a very foggy idea of where and how strong the ennemy was.

The Bombers should have been carefully preserved and used to harass and slow down the German mechanised colums..but that of course is historical insight.

All in all, for a much maligned Air Force, with seriuos High Command troubles, the Armée de l'Air performed quite well and mostly died in the Air, taking a sizeable chunk of the Luftwaffe's ressource . Its unfortunable that all the other failling of France quite often mask the valor shown by its pilots

[Hueristic]

K take this for what it's worth. Cause i've only been playing a week and a half. But that has been continuaosly . English bomber suck! How the hell Does Undefended Armor Wipe out a bomber squadran? I've tried useing those original bombers in every concievable way and they do nothing but get my Fighters Killed. Maybe at higher tech levels they are useful But right off the bat they are a liability. Wish i could Scrap them and get a corps unit instead. Hmm maybe invade Ireland so i can hide them up there till tech5? <EG>

[Scorpion_sk]

Frankly, I don´t see why we should "wait until SC2" to try out this house rule.

The only reason could be that the AI wouldn´t comply with your rules, but like mr. Rambo said: the AI doesn´t count!

[SeaMonkey]

Scorpion, how to you break through the continuous fronts (ala Blitzkreig) without the use of airfleets? With 1.06 by the time you have high enough level of Bombers/Rockets you'll face unbreakable fronts in France and USSR.

[Brian Rock]

I haven't had any use for bombers either. While it may be true that they pick up in effectiveness at level 2, I always have plenty of other stuff higher on the research priority list.

Maybe I'll mod the game to give everybody +1 to their bombers to see if that makes a difference.

[viper_ss]

I agree that bombers are a waste of money unless you raise their tech level. Another consideration is that you need to bomb the same location over and over again. You need at least two bomber squadrons to accomplish this. As the efficiency of your target decreases, the losses toward your bomber squadrons drop. Once you get the target down to 1 or 2, you can pretty much bomb the target without losses. The exception to this is if the enemy has fighters, then you're screwed.

This raises another point, I think the interception rules need to be tweaked. The rules just don't seem balanced. Here are two situations that I hate.

1. I have a 11-fighter and 10-army. The AI attacks the army with a 10-fighter. My fighter unit intercepts and I lose 4 and he loses 2. On top of that he does 2 damage to my army and he loses 1. Overall, he has a 7-fighter left and I have a 7-fighter and 8-army. You should always have an advantage when intercepting a tactical bomber mission (all things being equal).

2. I have a 10-bomber and a 11-fighter. The AI has a 10-fighter. My escorts suffer 3 and he suffers 1. Next my bombers suffer 2 and he suffers 1. Next my bomber suffers 2 and does no strategic damage.

The problem is that I find myself drawing out the enemy air using the above loop holes instead of just attacking it. I think the following rules need to be implemented.

1. The interception rules should be like 3R where a sortie is canceled when intercepted by equal or greater numbers. In example 1 above, the AI fighter attack should be repeled since I attacked it with a 11-fighter unit. In example 2 above, the AI interception should be repeled by the escorts.

2. You should be able to attack with a stack. If I have 3 10-fighters, I should be able to use all three for interception or escort duty on one mission.

3. You need to be able to select interception or escort units. I hate it when my carrier intercepts instead of my nice 12-fighter unit. It cost a lot more to replace the carrier!

Thoughts...

[Scorpion_22]

Scorpion, how to you break through the continuous fronts (ala Blitzkreig) without the use of airfleets? With 1.06 by the time you have high enough level of Bombers/Rockets you'll face unbreakable fronts in France and USSR.

Eh? What exactly is a "high enough level" bomber or rocket to use? The level 0 ones serve you perfectly well. They are cheaper anyway.

I guarantee you that two bombers and rockets (artillery) should cause trouble to any unfortified soft unit.

[jon_j_rambo]

Bombers serve 2 purposes:

1) Spotting the enemy units.

2) Bomb naval units.

Besides that, they are absolutely worthless. I have never bought one as the Germans. As the Allies, it does have value; it's called trade-in value for $225.

Save me the speech about, if I had bombers level-4 with long-range I'd beat you. Or, mix with Rockets it's a great combo. Yeah, whatever, if my Aunt had balls.....she'd be my Uncle.

Rambo says sell the British Bomber

[zappsweden]

I usually save the british bomber for later. An example of what they can do:

An air strike on a city or sea port where it goes from level 10 to level 0, will cost the enemy

immediate loss+lower income for 10 turns.

i.e 10MPP+(10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1)=65MPP!

If the resource would have been a mine (Germany has 2 mines in Germany/France region the loss would have been 130MPP!

even if germany intercepts it will cost them lots of cash. The bombing strikes are most effective when Axis-Russia war has started since Axis air fleets have to fight a 2 front war.

[ December 18, 2002, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[hans-micael]

And the effect of the strategic bombering will increase when you have an HQ in the vicinity :)otherwise it's a waste of money!

Hans-Micael

[anoldman]

Wow! Thanks for all the great replies! =)

It definately confirms my suspicions.

For me I think the British bomber (only one in the game at start in '39 Fall?) has 2 options from now on:

1. Sell for $225 (Rambo)

2. Operate down into the Med to help crush the Italian Navy (since no fighters unless Germany sends one or two down).

Thanks again for all the replies and if anyone has a 3rd option I am interested.

I also disagree with Researching - Heavy Bombers.

I would rather research Jets or Industrial Technology. Also, in v1.6 I think research is a more of a gamble. It seems to me the allies don't have the resources to put in research in the beginning when it is most likely to reap benefits (earlier you put in, more chances you have to hit the 5% etc.)

If I had to adjust research I would either:

A) Complex method - Switching form Rocket Research to Jets = similiar fields so more resources switch (say 50%), Sonar to Heavy Tank = unrelated so less gained in switch (10% for example).

OR:

Leave it as is although penalty for being further along in the field than my opponents seems a tad odd.

Thanks again for all the great replies!

--An Old Man

[JerseyJohn]

Even Rambo, the biggest critic of bombers, admits they have value as spotters and against warships, which has also been my own experience. They tend to take heavy losses in other missions and are pretty expensive.

It seems odd to me that Heavy Bombers should be so effective against ships at sea. In reality what I remember most is the photos taken from B-17 bombay doors of Japanese ships weaving playfully in and out of big bomb splashes! Naturally, from the sailor's view point it might not have seemed quite so playful! In anycase, I've always thought tactical bombers were the great ship killers and not the strategic variety.

[Brian Rock]

Old Man - it's not that you are penalised for being further along in research. It's that it is easier for others who aren't as advanced to copy/reverse engineer/steal ideas after somebody else has done the groundwork.

JerseyJohn, I agree with tac aircraft being better ship killers than bombers. A lot more ships were sunk by dive bombers and torpedo bombers than by their bigger brothers.

[BriantheWise]

Bombers, think about it for a second....

History (in very brief):The game starts with 1 Bomber, owned by the English. I think that the game designer was reflecting something historical here. Many parts of the British military did think that Bombers would be effective in reducing the whole morale of the opposing country, that they invested in it. Heavily. They were wrong (at least in the beginning and afraid to use it).

Practical uses (as far as this game goes): 1) Spotting, at least in the beginning phases of the game. 2) Entrenchment reduction, even if it costs, but when that is critical, it's worth it. 3) After everything is done, and you have an Axis unit at a strength of 1, with all the interceptions done, it's range can serve as a last chance kill factor.

Unlike Rambo, I wouldn't disband it. Not unless someone was taking England (dammit!, but by then my airforce was dead).

But I would never buy one. I would never invest in the research. Just like Rockets, they are red herrings.

Same with Sonar, and Ship Radar scoping or whatever that is.

Invest in Tech, Jets, Air Range, Tanks, Infantry. That's all. If you get all of that completely invested, quit with research, suck it all out, and besides now you are already winning. If you get all of that, actually, you spent too much on research, and not enough on the war.

[JerseyJohn]

In the thirties England was fixated by bombers and strategic bombing. The WW I derigable raids really impressed them. During the later part of the decade they anticipated bombers dropping canisters of poison gas and had emergency plans for a hundred thousand civilian casualties in the first air attack on London!

Unfortunately, most of that planning involved removing the dead and not in treating the injured. In fairness, medical treatment for severely hit urban areas is difficult even today.

As the war went on, the British still stuck with their Strategic Bombing doctrine, but learned quickly, even before the Fall of France, that a strong fighter arm was at least as essential.

Luckily they'd developed the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters against considerable budget opposition in time for them to face the ME-109.

Many 1939 and early 1940 propaganda movies, both British and American (even though the U. S. wasn't in yet, Hollywood was warming up)depict bombers as masters of the sky and fighters as annoying bugs. The reasoning being that bombers were big planes with plenty of machine guns that no puny fighter could safely approach.

An interesting British Science Fiction film with a screenplay by H. G. Wells, Things to Come, filmed around 1936 that shows this mentality and also pretty accurately depicts what people of the era thought the next Great War would result in. The human race scattered and deformed and starting over again in the least ruined regions like Scandanavia and Greece. It might almost have come out of 1956!

Raymond Massey as one of several characters he played, emerging from what was in 1936 a futuristic fighter plane -- moments earlier he shot down another single engine job that was spraying poison gas across the countryside. The prop department came up with that enormous helmet and it looks even funnier when he stands outside the aircraft.

[ December 19, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by BriantheWise:

But I would never buy one.

I sure would, and have. Great investment!

In fact, I haven't played any game without buying at least one of those mighty mean scythe machines. Somebody is missing out on some terrific tactics here.

[ December 18, 2002, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[zappsweden]

Reserach bombers, research bombers. To all of u (allies), research bombers!

I always reserach bombers as Allies. It's worth putting 1 or 2 chits on that technology. When allies have long-range, jet aircraft and heavy bombers they can really do damage to france, germany, denmark and Norway. If axis defends France i bomb Denmark or Norway. If they guard it all it will cost them. If they leave an air unit in Norway without an HQ i focus all my air there and let him pay for intercepting me. The axis disadvantage is that their area is huge to defend (against bombers) so they are likely scattered in france, northern germany and norway. UK can focus on one of these areas and gain from it, especially experience.

It takes lots of units to garrison or intercept allied bombings. Sometimes, when I have air superiority as allies, i can have 5-10 axis resource locations at very low values simultaneously. That cost axis about 50-100MPP every turn!

One bomber, one hq and 2-3 air fleets are often enough since germany often can not transfer too much air from russian wars.

I have an "undefeated streak" of about 5-6 games now and my allied bombers have done some serious damage at heavy bombers level 3-5. Don't be skeptical about bombers. They are not good in the first 2 years though, so be patient.

[ December 18, 2002, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Lord Flasheart]

I agree with Bill Macon's idea about making

Bombers better at bombing than fighters.

Say Bombers can hit all ground targets and

Fighters can only bomb infantry and other fighters

on the ground. Can't see machine guns and 20mm

cannons doing damage to tanks and ships?

This makes bombers more worthwile in the game and

surely this is a good thing.

The other techs need to be tweaked also do

actually want to spend the big bucks in research.

I've never invested in AA, Gun Laying Radar,

Rockets, Super Subs, Sonar, etc and these things

need a tweak to make the game better.

How about having a option to split the techs

into major and minor groups?

Major Techs

250 Production Points for Industry, Jets,

Long Range, Heavy Tanks, Anti-Tank Inf

Minor Techs

125 PPs for AA, Super Subs, LG Radar, Sonar,

Rockets

?

Areas of the game are neglected and this is

bad thing.