Bombers vs. Fighter question for SC veterans

[zappsweden]

Good reply Lord Flasheart!

"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. "

Since the patch 1.06 included changes to the "switch research system" and forces us to sell research and then re-buy reserach level, i see an opportunity. Let every tech cost different.

example:

Technology, cost/research chit

Jet aircraft, 300

Long-range Aircraft, 300

Industrial Technology, 280

Heavy Tanks, 270

Gun-Laying radar, 260

Anti-tank weapons, 250

heavy Bombers, 250

Anti-Aircraft, 230

Sonar, 220

Advanced Subs, 210

Rockets 200

[ December 18, 2002, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

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

Play with a rule that air fleets cannot attack ground units at all? That's a bit unrealistic with the combat tables the way they are now. Air power was a decisive component of WWII blitzkrieg, but resticting attacks to strategic bombers which are more expensive and less effective would adversely affect how this game plays. :confused:

I think the idea has merit, but should wait for SC2 so that the combat tables can be adjusted - make bombers slightly more effective against ground units and air fleets slightly less effective. Letting bomber units represent both strategic and tactical bombers would force players to use them and include them in their research strategies. Air fleets would then serve primarily as fighter wings for escort and interception duty, but they also include fighter-bombers and should be allowed to continue attacks on ground units.

One "flaw" to recognize here is that tactical bombers do not have the same range as strategic bombers, but this seems like an acceptable abstraction rather than trying to have seperate bomber units. Overall it would be good to limit the air fleets just a little and enhance the bombers for balance.

[JerseyJohn]

Single-engined aircraft were the tank busters, not strategic bombers! And they didn't use machine guns on them, they used heavier weapons like wing mounted rockets, cannon (Yes, after the first year or two most fighter planes did not mount machine guns but rapid firing cannon!) and bombs. In the Luftwaffe the stuka was used extensively as a tank buster, especially on the Eastern Front.

I'd like to know how many bombadiers sighted tanks as targets of high altitude ground attacks!

Of course airfleets have to be able to attack both infantry and tank units! The only instance of American strategic bombers being used intentionally against ground units was St.Lo in the Normandy breakout. B-17s carpet bombed the entire area, decimating the Panzer Lehr Division (along with killing and wounding a small number of U. S. soldiers, the reason this effective tactic wasn't repeated). It worked, but only because the Germans had no air support and were packed together in a small area. The bombadiers never sighted on tanks and probably never saw any -- they were only concerned with saturating an area, and succeded.

The same thing can be done in SC already if your opponent has insufficient air cover and you've got three or four bomber fleets available to target a single defending unit. It doesn't require any change in the rules or game mechanics.

As described earlier by Hubert, airfleets do not contain fighters alone, they also represent dive bombers, twin engine tactical bombers and interceptors (as a distinct category covering categories like night fighters which were actually tac bombers loaded with electronic and radar devices). Airfleets work very well as is and it would be wrong to tamper with them. In a bombing function they also do a good job representing the Luftwaffe's striking and escort capability in the Battle of Britain (which was not carried out by strategic bombers!).

True strategic bombing in WW II, as conducted over Germany and Japan, didn't achieve true effectiveness till 1944 with the addition of long range escorts and an increase in bomber numbers to allow for large scale raids. How many bomber wings would have to combine for a 1,000 plane raid as conducted over Hamburg, Nuremburg and Dresden? It would have to be staggering. In game terms it would probably involve more strategic bomber units than most players ever own!

Air power in this game is the least of my gripes. As a matter of fact, I think Hubert did a fine job in this area and we should leave it alone.

[ December 18, 2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hueristic]

I'd like to know how many bombadiers sighted tanks as targets of high altitude ground attacks!

None I'm sure But then again How many Armor Divisions Destroyed even a single Bomber let alone a group?

The same thing can be done in SC already if your opponent has insufficient air cover and you've got three or four bomber fleets available to target a single defending unit. It doesn't require any change in the rules or game mechanics.

Of course that unit would live and the bombers would take a pounding.

How many bomber wings would have to combine for a 1,000 plane raid as conducted over Hamburg, Nuremburg and Dresden? It would have to be staggering. In game terms it would probably involve more strategic bomber units than most players ever own!

Players that are any good i would think. Cause they are the worst waste of resources i have ever seen.

Just my 2 cents.

[anoldman]

I think Zappsweden had a good point that I missed earlier about the long term effects a bomber can have when he said:

"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!"

This starts to make sense to me as I could see how it could begin to add uyp over time.(although I think it would take 2-3 turns to do 10MP?).

I think Zapp also said that this would be more if it were attacks on mines? Why would mines be more costly to the enemy though Still just 10 same as ports or cities right Zapp?

Based on all the great feedback I think my strategy for English bomber is:

1. Use bomber for sub hunts or possible 2 cruiser 1 sub attks by germany.

2. When Italy joins or close to join, dop bomber down to Med to attack Italian Navy and gain some xp.

3. Return Bomber to england after fall of france and bomb the city and port on the NW tip of France.

I could also see the value in purchasing a bomber if Germany is tangled up in Russia or is not going for Sealion. Draining of German resources could be a great help for the Russians.

Thanks again for all of the great replies!

--An Old Man

[JerseyJohn]

Hueristic --

Enjoyed your comebacks. In a backhanded way they reinforced some of my points. I'm not a great fan of the Strategic Bomber Units. I don't think the answer is to make them more powerful, I think the answer is in the actual war they weren't effectively developed. They were essentially high altitude bomb platforms. Even with the much praised Norden bombsight American bomber commanders had to admit realy accuracy was out of the question. And the higher the altitude the less accurate the bomb pattern due to shifting wind patterns, etc..

If a player has enough resources it's worth getting one or two bombers, their ability as spotters is undeniable, but there are a lot of other things I get ahead of them.

In historic terms I look at it this way: strategic bombers tied up a lot of Allied resources, but it also tied up a lot of Axis resources countering them, so that's a push. The planes went over Germany and dropped their bombs causeing a lot of damage.

If the bombs didn't land where they were supposed to it's of little consequence, they still landed somewhere damaging or destroying something and helping to sap the Axis will to fight (the idea being bombed boosts morale is a lot of bunk). That damage needs to be weighed against the cost in lost aircrews and aircraft, of course, so that's probably a push as well.

Thanks for not following the new tradition of automatically calling me a nazi-lover!

[ December 18, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[viper_ss]

I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points.

A strategic bomber could maybe reduce a unit's supply rating by 3 for the next turn. This could simulate the effects of softening targets when they defend, or slowing them down when they are on offense (taking cover, pinned by carpet bombing). For example, a unit in a city with a supply of 10 that is bombed would have a supply of 7 next turn. If you used three bombers you could reduce them to a 1 supply.

This could also bring up some interesting strategies like Russia purchasing bombers to slow the German tanks. For example, reducing a fast moving German tank from a 7 to a 4 next turn would chop his APs in half. I think alternate damage would raise some cool strategic and tactical ideas.

Finally, I don't think any land units should be able to cause any damage to strategic bombers. Only cities should. Land units didn't really carry sufficient AA or the kind to damage strategic bombers.

[JerseyJohn]

viper_ss

Very good ideas. I especially like the one about land units nor being able to inflict sac casualties -- it makes a lot of sense. Field units usually carried enough aa weapons to make tac units exhibit some caution, but there was little point in their carting around the high altitude variety; they were mainly dependant upon local fighter units for defense against bomber attacks. As mentioned earlier, the Germans were missing this protection in the St. Lo action of 1944.

Even with heavy anti-air defense, hitting bombers at high altitude was primarily a matter of chance. The best bet was plenty of volume. From 1943 onwards the Germans tied up about a million men (mostly Hitler Youth and returned veterans with wounds) in these defenses. The Allies had a comparable number tied up in the bomber units operating out of England -- as any airman knows, each flight crew member requires at least ten ground support airmen, and for a fully functional bomber wing it's probably more like twenty!

[ December 18, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I like the possible targets for the different air units perfect as is, with the exception of the Bomber's inability to bomb cities garrisoned by a corps.

CvM

[ December 18, 2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[viper_ss]

Thanks. That's the first reply to any of my ideas I've posted. I was starting to think that all my ideas were downright stupid.

Completely agree with your SAC/AA tidbit.

[JerseyJohn]

Viper_SS --

Never take anything in these forums personally. Most of it goes along on a random basis. I'm still hurt that nobody liked my Things to Come stills on page one of this thing. But what can you expect, they're all callous and insenstitive in this operation and -- hey, come to think of it, you didn't comment on my Things to Come stills either!

[ December 18, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Hehehe

[pzgndr]

As described earlier by Hubert, airfleets do not contain fighters alone, they also represent dive bombers, twin engine tactical bombers and interceptors

That's the issue here. Fighters and interceptors were organized primarily for air-to-air combat and air superiority roles, but also provided some ground support. Dive bombers and tac bombers provided most of the close air support for ground units. So we already have a dual-capability abstraction in the game by assuming air fleets do both equally well. And it works OK, but makes the air fleet omnipotent and the strategic bomber optional. Ideally we might have fighters, tac bombers and strategic bombers as separate units in the game, but IMHO that would be a bit much. Trying to shift some of the dual-capability abstraction onto bomber units would add some balance to the air arm that's currently missing. It's a subtle difference, but deserves consideration for SC2.

[viper_ss]

I think the air unit is good as is. It's decently balanced and fits into the game well except for the interception rules (I explain why in an earlier post in this topic). I just feel like the SAC needs to be improved in the tactical level like the ideas I suggested earlier. Also, if we wanted to be more historically accurate, the SAC should do minimal damage to navy vessels and the air unit (acting as a tactical bomber unit) should do the SAC's level of damage to navy units.

Also, shouldn't air units be able to transfer locations double their range? :confused:

If a air unit can fly a five hex mission (10 total hexes travel), shouldn't you be able to transfer bases up to 10. Just a thought.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Use operational movement

[JerseyJohn]

Carl von Mannerheim

"Use operational movement"

Yes -- because it represents a distant relocation and the cost would be for moving all the heavy equipment, specialized supplies, spare parts, etc., and the ground support personnel, which in manpower would make an airfleet comparable to an army corps.

Bill Macon

As a levelling gameplay device I agree with your idea. Gameplay aside, I think the response of the game units is pretty true to life except for the bomber losses, which I think should be inflicted primarily from intercepting fighters and heavy anti-aircraft batteries such as those used to protect cities, harbors and strategic resources like mines and oil fields.

As stated earlier, I don't think bombers of the early forties were highly developed as precision weapons, they were fine for dumping large amounts of explosives, but it was usually a crapshoot. The game pretty well reflects this weakness. Again as I stated earlier, I think the only problem is the attrition rate of bombers against ground units. That should be lower.

Of course, these are only my personal opinions and I hope nobody comes back with the sort of explosive reaction that has been popping up more and more often lately.

[ December 18, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by viper_ss:

I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points....

Exactly. Bombing with Strategic Air should effect cities irregardless of garrison. This would stop operational movement into that city.

Regular air fleets should hinder/degrade land movement(if air superiority has been established).

I am looking forward to an SC "air superiority rule" that models historical results. This rule would effect land movement AND air recon. The Axis had a hard time with both in June of '44. There is no way the Axis could operate/move a panzer army from the Eastern Front to Normandy in one turn/week. They could barely get a recon flight over England to view the Allied build-up. Conversely, in June of '41, Axis air superiority in Russia helped protect the flanks of the breakthrough through the interdiction of Soviet counterattacks, plus, the Soviets were hampered for lack of air recon. Perhaps an air superiority ratio of three or four to one over each paticular hex could be determined for effect.

The effect on movement cost could be +1 for example. Air recon might be nullified for that hex.

Gee, I'm hittin' Santa Hubert pretty hard this Christmas, aren't I?

End of rant.

Sincerely,

Ken

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by An Old Man:

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....

Can the British bomber be used to bash the ports so they can't be used for Sea Lion?

Just wondered. I have yet to play a human so I don't know if this strategy works.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Hueristic]

I think Zappsweden had a good point that I missed earlier about the long term effects a bomber can have when he said:

"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!"

Bah i lose 1 point of unit for every point Mpp Do that math!

I like rambo's plan sell the POS

I believe they should take no damage. Maybe have less chance to hit but i don't care what anyone says armor cannot shoot down a bomber period. If u don't cover ur **** with interceptors it's ur tough ****.

It worked, but only because the Germans had no air support and were packed together in a small area. The bombadiers never sighted on tanks and probably never saw any -- they were only concerned with saturating an area, and succeded.

The same thing can be done in SC already if your opponent has insufficient air cover and you've got three or four bomber fleets available to target a single defending unit. It doesn't require any change in the rules or game mechanics.

That's the facts jack.

Thanks for not following the new tradition of automatically calling me a nazi-lover!

I never pre-judge. :cool:

I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points.

Great idea. it's got my vote

Finally, I don't think any land units should be able to cause any damage to strategic bombers. Only cities should. Land units didn't really carry sufficient AA or the kind to damage strategic bombers.

Can't agree on this point often enough

posted December 18, 2002 03:49 PM    

  

  

 

   

 

I think the air unit is good as is. It's decently balanced and fits into the game well except for the interception rules (I explain why in an earlier post in this topic). I just feel like the SAC needs to be improved in the tactical level like the ideas I suggested earlier. Also, if we wanted to be more historically accurate, the SAC should do minimal damage to navy vessels and the air unit (acting as a tactical bomber unit) should do the SAC's level of damage to navy units.

Also, shouldn't air units be able to transfer locations double their range?

U would think so it's not like it has to return anywhere. lol

[JerseyJohn]

Viper_SS

"I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points."

As mentioned by several posts after mine above, this is an excellent suggestion and I wanted to show it further down the page as I believe it to be the best suggestion posted so far. Great idea, Viper and a lot of others agree.

Hueristic -- from page 1.

"... 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...."

Good point and a terrific recap. Most of the time these forums go on and fizzle out with nobody summing up what was said. Recaps help considerably.

[ December 19, 2002, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by An Old Man:

I think Zapp also said that this would be more if it were attacks on mines? Why would mines be more costly to the enemy though Still just 10 same as ports or cities right Zapp?

Based on all the great feedback I think my strategy for English bomber is:

1. Use bomber for sub hunts or possible 2 cruiser 1 sub attks by germany.

2. When Italy joins or close to join, dop bomber down to Med to attack Italian Navy and gain some xp.

3. Return Bomber to england after fall of france and bomb the city and port on the NW tip of France.

I could also see the value in purchasing a bomber if Germany is tangled up in Russia or is not going for Sealion. Draining of German resources could be a great help for the Russians.

Thanks again for all of the great replies!

--An Old Man

An Old Man, why an air attack on a mine, oil or a capital does more damage is because they are worth 2 or 3MPP/operational level.

Also, an attack with say a level 3-5 bomber normally brings a level 10 resource DOWN TO values in the range 0-4. so it's almost one turn per resource. That can make a single bomber capable of holding 7-8 resources on constantly low values simultaneously.

Now to your bomber strategy:

Your strategy (comments on your points 1, 2, 3 above)

1. Is ok.

2. Not good, since your bomber will still be on low level tech so it imposes no threat. Also, the axis might transfer an air unit to southern italy and, Boom!, you will get high losses. Keep the bomber in UK for cheking out axis forces.

Addition to the strategy:

When Axis-Russia wars start, u can see how much air axis uses against Russia and check the report section on how much air units axis has. If axis has 5 air units and 4 of them attack in Russia, you KNOW that france, northern germany, denmark or norway is an easy target. The axis interceptor cannot cover it all. be aware for sudden decreasing axis air activities in Russia because it could mean they switched some air west. In that case lay low for a while. An option is now to bomb with interception if u have escorts. That depends on your jet aircraft tech versus the german one.

Places like norway are preferred bombing areas since axis likely will lack an HQ so the interception intends to cost them.

[ December 19, 2002, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Scorpion_22]

Fine. Forget about the idea of making air units more expensive and less omnipotent.

Hubert says that the Air Fleets include tac bombers, yes, I know that, but I can just as well say that the Strat bomber unit includes ALL bombers, not just strat ones.

Anyways, most of you are just happy with the way things are. That´s good. That means you should never experiment, I guess.

At least there´s an option to walk away to, now.......

(Walks away....)

Seriously, I need to test this out. Perhaps I´ll put up some sort of an AAR with this rule (played against myself, of course, since no-one will want to play with this rule besides me) and my soon-to-be-ready historical 1939 OOB scenario.

[JerseyJohn]

Scorpion_22

"Fine. Forget about the idea of making air units more expensive and less omnipotent."

Scorpion, I agree with you, they're a bunch of unimaginative slugs.

In addition to your idea they've successfully ignored about 30,000 ideas I've submitted.

We ought to find a way of getting back at them.

Why, do you realize not a single one of them had anything nice -- or anything at all for that matter! -- to say about the beutiful stills I posted on page 1 of this thing from that old classic Things to Come and --

and hold the fort, I didn't notice you saying they were great pics either! :confused:

[ December 19, 2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[viper_ss]

kenfedoroff

I like your idea of SAC disrupting operational movement (simulating the bombing of railroads, etc). Maybe any unit that is SAC bombed cannot operate the next turn.

I'm not to sure about the air superiority ratio and it affecting movement. I think for one, it would be too difficult for players to track, having to calculate the ratio and its effect on movement. Also, if you really had 4 SAC to your opponent's 1 fighter, you pretty much could bomb the crap out of them especially if you added your operational movement and my supply reduction rule.

Good idea though on the operation movement reduction.

[ev]

I believe strategic bombers should have a longer range, while perhaps air fleets should start with a shorter range. The range gap between bombers and airfleets should be wider. Strategic bombers should start with a range of 7 or 8. Airfleets should start with a range of 4. :cool:

A shorter range for Airfleets would make it harder for Airfleets to intercept bombers, since the airfleets would have to be closer to the target. Meanwhile a longer range for the bomber would give it more targets to chose from, hence, being able to avoid interceptors.

A shorter range for the Airfleets would make Airfleets less viable as a substitute to bomb cities and resources.

A shorter range for airfleets would make it a bit more difficult to concentrate such huge number of airfleets in a single target. This is a double edge sword since it may lead to stalemates, but, sometimes it seems odd how many airfleets you can bring from all over the place to attack a single land unit.

A longer range bomber would add value to bombers for recon ...the more so if airfleets have a shorter range.

A longer range bomber could be based a bit further back. Right now, any british bomber that wants to bomb a german city must be based within range of German Airfleets accross the channel. Likewise, German Bombers intended to bomb London must be based within range of Brit Airfleets accross the channel. At least, we should be able to base bombers beyond Airfleet range (LR Tech equal on both sides).

Bombers should have sufficient range to reach enemy cities while based beyond enemy Airfleet range. :mad: When I play Axis I force the Allied AI to base Bombers so far back that they cannot attack anything, even if they wanted to. Even after the Allied reaches air superiority, the bombers remain sitting ducks. When an airfleet attacks a bomber, the MPP loss will be substantially worse for the bomber defender. Hence Brit bombers become worthless until Brits pretty much destroy all German Aifleets in northern France. This is excessive. A longer range would allow bombers to attack cities accross the channel from safe bases behind enemy airfleet range.

I believe this proposal is historically accurate insofar as the preasure to develop Long Range aircraft was always on the escort side of the equation. ...right now that is not the case. In my games, Bombers are based one or two hexes behind Airfleets, in order to keep them away from the enemy Airfleets. Hence, in practice, Airfleets reach any city that can be reached by a Bomber. :confused:

Finally, perhapps Airfleets should have an even shorter range when engaged in strategic bombing (of citires, ports and resources). This would make Airfleets very poor substitutes for bombers. And is probably realistic since a light tactical bomber would probably face tighter range limitations when ladden with very heavy bombs (though I admitt I am only guessing here ).

...in any event ...tweeking with the relative ranges of Bombers and Airfleets may help to balance the relative value between these units... :mad: