Two Newbie Questions

[HomerDog]

1. Is an air attack vs an army or corps in a city a soft attack or a strategic attack? In other words, does a fighter or a bomber better do better damage?

2. I like to get a bomber as the Axis to hit Allied naval units and reduce entrenchment in the east. My Axis opponents never get bombers--am I making a mistake to get one per game?

Thanks.

[hellraiser]

bombers are very expensive units ... unless axis played a very good early game (thus maybe 500 mpps won't make a huge difference) i think it would be better to avoid buying bombers ... of course it all depends on how the game plays out as at certain stages you may find it useful to buy a bomber

but one bomber won't help much, only it provides good spotting (helps at having a better look at allied sea movement) - of course if you'll focus on getting bomber tech, bombers become powerful and they can directly threaten those dreaded UK carriers.

Bombers reduce 2 levels of entrenchment each time they hit as opposed to any other unit which reduce only 1 - useful to mass bomb heavily entrenched units in cities, fortifications, etc and make the ground attack more facile - but again it is all a matter of how the game played out, if you can afford it or not - mpps are scarce

[hellraiser]

ref your first question: i think it is a soft attack; if the city/mine/whatever is empty, then the attack would be a strategic one.

veterans, correct me if i am wrong pls

[Terif]

If a unit attacks a defender, then the attacker uses the appropriate attack value depending on the unit type of the defender. I.e. if he attacks a soft unit, then he uses the soft attack value, if he attacks a ressource then he uses the strategic attack value...vs tank = tank attack value etc.

If a unit defends, then it uses the appropriate defence value depending on the unit type of the attacker. I.e. if the attacker is a soft unit it uses its soft defence value, vs air its air defence value, vs tank its tank defence value etc.

Since even airfleets (ground attack value: 2) are not really cost effective in anti-ground warfare (if you buy ground units for the same amount of mpps, you can do easily 3-4 times and more damage for the same costs..), a bomber (ground attack value 1) is even more ineffective in this role. You can´t hit a ressource if it is occupied by an enemy unit, so bombers are pretty much useless in a strategic bombing role - and you can´t use bombers in air combat (in contrary, you have to protect them with own fighters when they go on a mission or your bombers are toast against enemy fighters).

In the end, the only thing bombers are really good for, is to kill ships - especially enemy carriers. It is not their attack value vs ships. Bombers have 5, airfleets 4 - so you could also use airfleets. But the main advantage of bombers is, if they get intercepted they can be escorted by fighters, so they will not take 2 hits like an airfleet (interception + direct attack on the target), but they take only damage from their direct attack on the carrier/ship. When the enemy has lv 3+ jets, it is very likely that an airfleet will be destroyed when it attacks a carrier. But a bomber will survive .

So the answers to your questions are:

1. Armies and corps are soft units, so the attacker uses its soft attack value. An airfleet has a value of 2, a bomber only 1. That means (without experience) an airfleet is twice as effective vs soft units than a bomber (same vs all other land units). It is not possible to increase the attack value of AFs or bombers vs ground targets via research.

2. It depends on in which role you want to use the bomber, if you have enough ressources (like cosmin said) and if the enemy knows how to counter. For ground combat a bomber is useless and a waste of mpps. If you want to kill enemy carriers it can be useful - but if Allies know how to play you will usually get no chance to position a bomber within range together with an escorting airfleet (at least the AF will be killed/damaged before, so you can´t strike with the bomber). And you can´t use a bomber in another role, so if the enemy prevents an anti-carrier/ship use, then you have wasted 500 mpps - otherwise it can be useful if you can kill the enemy fleet .

[HomerDog]

Thanks. I guess I'll shelf the bomber plan. Now I am going to start a new thread about subs and rockets . . .

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by HomerDog:

Thanks. I guess I'll shelf the bomber plan. Now I am going to start a new thread about subs and rockets . . .

If your not playing a competitive game, why shelve it? Try out new ideas, especially if your playing a fellow newbie.

[Curry]

Using Bombers to attack land units is a common new player mistake. I play many new players in the SC PBEM league and many new players continue to do this. It is just not cost effective as Terif points out in his excellent explaination. Not to even mention that often the bomber is intercepted without any air cover. Or is intercepted with cover and then that fighter unit is open to a counter attack the following turn.

The only other use of Bombers that I have noticed that Terif didnt point out is that they can be effective in attacking highly fortified hexes such as Gibrater or Sev. A bomber will take two entrancement away while a normal air unit will only take one entrenchment away in an attack against a unit entrenched.

Hopefully we will see more usefullness of Bombers in SC II.

[Bill101]

I sometimes position a German bomber in Copenhagen as it can watch the coasts of both southern Norway and western Germany.

It is a bit more expensive than having 2-3 corps watching the coasts for allied commandos, but sometimes opportunities occur which the bomber can take advantage which the corps can't.

For example, if the allies keep bombarding Bergen then the bomber can move north one turn, and then strike the allied battleship the next. As long as the allied airforces are occupied elsewhere then this can prevent further attacks, and when the allies use weakened ships it can be a pleasure to sink them in this way.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily better than placing corps to guard key areas around Denmark and northwest Germany, but if I have a few MPPs to spare then it can be useful (and as you won't need the 2-3 corps to guard the coasts the bomber doesn't actually cost much more).

In one game I played some time back two Italian bombers put paid to a large number of allied raiders and a significant chunk of the Royal Navy, but it's not something that I'd try often. It worked in that game because the allies put a lot of effort into raiding and bombarding, and with the Luftwaffe escorting the Italians, the bombers soon built up a lot of experience (4 stars!) as they rarely suffered any significant losses.

I should point out that this was in a 1941 game where the Axis had been halted and needed to play defensively, and I've never thought of doing it in a 1939 game.

[ October 21, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Curry]

Bill, good points on a bomber. Another role a bomber can play is a great scout. Especially if you get some long range tech. The only problem is the cost for it is still so high. But as you point out it still may be much cheaper than trying to build an atlantic wall or something of that sort.

[Micheal Wittman]

can i add a couple more questions:

still waiting for my order, but i've read a few

faqs and haven't seen anything about airborne/paratroopers.

also wondering if you can do a simaltanious attack

from 2 or more adjacent armies. it would seem that

would help.

and last thing i'm wondering about/ for the moment/ is can you stack armies/units in the same

hex. it would seem if a hex is 50 miles, that you

would be able too.

CheerZ!

[SeaMonkey]

None

No

No

[pzgndr]

still waiting for my order, but i've read a few faqs

There is also a free Strategy Guide available for download at Strategic Command HQ. There's no guarantee it will make you an expert, but it will certainly get newbies up to speed quick enough.

[Curry]

Many questions are answered in the thread above which says

NEW PLAYERS PLEASE READ.