foko Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think they have now become to powerfull. With AT 3, elite and high exp and a good HQ they are able to kill a full unit with 2 strikes. Lenigrad is not possible to defend Now in game 1943 the fully entrenched Malta Corps was killed in 2 strikes. And they alos take no more dmg making them to ultimate kill maschine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Powerful, yes. But too powerful? Cost you 300 mpps to get them there, minimum, plus the upgrade cost. And then they don't do squat in bad weather. Paying a heck of a price in opportunity cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Nah I like their use. Don't mention that Gibraltar is now toast with LR from Oran and some SB help, no need to DoW Spain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I agree much to powerful. A tactical bomber to reduce a any unit from ten to 2 with one stike..take four of them... Its much more deadly as any tank...or anything as tank at least takes damage and is afterwards vulnerable. SC" went away friom the SC1 syndrome of the all powerful airfleet..now its back with a vengance Problem is you can even escort them with other words you dont even need air superiortiy with fighters just as many as TAC bombers.. Antiair doest work well because its limited to 1 hex beside a unit. Air defense doesnt work for units in a city either..they are kind of helpless against tacbombers too.. [ November 16, 2007, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by SeaMonkey: Nah I like their use. Don't mention that Gibraltar is now toast with LR from Oran and some SB help, no need to DoW Spain. So in good weather no way to fight against them..bad weather grounds them... Looks like we are going for a lottery here ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Stick some AA next to the targets, that will reduce their strength and therefore their experience pretty quickly. This is something the Soviets have done to me rather effectively when I've been Axis. My tactical bombers still gained experience in the long run, but a lot slower than if you use fighter intercepts as my escorts could deal with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Given my druthers, I think I'll still take the Level 4 or 5 tank, thank you very much. Pretty much deletes two Corps per turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 and how army AARs can you build...? plenty of targets standing around if two armies are facing of.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Lars would you take a bet that you will change your mind after a few games human vs human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bylandt Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I don't think they are too strong. 1. In Waw tanks heavily dominate the battlefield. They need some kind of countermeasure. AT units can do something, but not enough. 2. Without LR tech they only have a range of four. Thus, you need to get them dangerously close to the battle lines for them to be effective. 3. You need to control the air to use them. With every tac bomber you buy, you better buy a fighter. Makes relying on them expensive. 4. Finally a way to take Gibraltar (without Spain) and Malta. Helps a lot at Leningrad too. 5. Any weakening of their strike power would make them useless as units, as compared to fighters and the new two-strike strat bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 WEll I heartly disagree with all my heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Blyant only your last three commetens show that SC2 moved back to an all about airpower game Land units can we wiped out with 1-2 strikes each.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by Sombra: Lars would you take a bet that you will change your mind after a few games human vs human? If I knew you were coming in with AT3 Tac Air? Sure. I'll just hold my Russian tanks back and your uber-air is going to die in the snow and rain and mud. Or you'll be forced to operate it, leaving what's left of your tech weak army to die in the snow and rain and mud. Either one works for me. What, you really think they didn't play-balance it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bylandt Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Originally posted by Sombra: Blyant only your last three commetens show that SC2 moved back to an all about airpower game Yes and no. It's important, but not all important. E.g. the Russians can hold the front without much airpower. And playing as Axis, I've gotten in trouble against the Russians because the lines of my land units got too streched to effectively protect my advancing air units. And when the new two-strike tank gets next to an air-unit it's not just a crippling hit, it's a kill. And when a land unit gets amongst your air park when bad weather sets in... To say nothing of the immense frustration of having your beautiful plains grounded for several months in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 at 300 MPPs I'm not sure what the gripe is? Who could even afford it.... Sure you might get them against an opponent whose weak, but against a player who has an army I think you're talking about a wonderweapon like Rockets again from SC2 Vanilla. Personally Fighter-Bombers were bunkerbusting, tankbusters, attrittion warfare, trenchwarfare busters. All that and more. Stukas were diving Death and lead to many of the early German victories! Though Spitfires Shredded them to pieces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 ´We will see. I think Suka are the new carrier (SC1) of SC2 ... treat them carefully and they destroy all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 As you say, we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 If you really think about it,Air power was real deadly.Look what the Germans did at the start and the Allies in the end.The German attack at Mortain in 1944 was stopped cold ,mostly by airpower.The Germans could hardly move by day because of Allied air power. I know being able to destroy a whole army with airpower is far fetched but because this is mostly a strategic game how else can you mimick airpower. Remember we all have the same choice weather or not to build tac.air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I'm with you A234. Do any of you here really doubt the seemingly omnipotent use of airpower on the battlefield? Don't let your logic be clouded, ever since their invention and evolutionary development, airpower is dominant. It exists in three dimensions and is not as restricted as the other 2 dimensional weapon systems. It has the high ground(surveillance). It possesses the inaccuracy of obliteration and the precision of a surgical strike. Please arrest any further assault on my intelligence. You have air superiority, you eventually win....now....and as it was in WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foko Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share Posted November 17, 2007 The problem is that HQs can be destroyed to quickly with 4 tacs. 1-2 strikes. Take a bomber, to take AA fire, Then when its clear use the tacs. They even kill a fully entrenched unit in Moskow with 2-3 strikes. I think the main problem is, when they are exp. >12 they do not take any more dmg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Originally posted by SeaMonkey: I'm with you A234. Do any of you here really doubt the seemingly omnipotent use of airpower on the battlefield? Don't let your logic be clouded, ever since their invention and evolutionary development, airpower is dominant. It exists in three dimensions and is not as restricted as the other 2 dimensional weapon systems. It has the high ground(surveillance). It possesses the inaccuracy of obliteration and the precision of a surgical strike. Please arrest any further assault on my intelligence. You have air superiority, you eventually win....now....and as it was in WW2. So you are able to to bomb out an army with tac bombers out of city ....and thats reality? Forget the other 3-4 armies you need to do the same a few hundred planes will scatter the troops of General Paulus in Stalingrad.... Sorry right now the carefully groomed carriers of SC1 look good in comparrison.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 The problem I have we have a very costly unit. Which is hard to defend against or even impossible if the other side has been lucky with tech in 2-3 key areas... The only defense is "weather" another "luck category"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Well, one counter is to overun air with ground units. This seems hard in WaW, not sure why but I've broken through front lines to target enemy air and done surprisingly little harm. Has something really changed here? I really like TAC and feel if you overuse it there will be counters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 As the tac bomber can strike anywhere and take out hQs with 2 strikes...quite hard to defend against...Bradley mountain...boom 2 strkes out he is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 [ November 17, 2007, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts