nuke bombers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Yes, nuclear bombers are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. And attacks by interceptors. I have even shot one down by attacking it with tactical bombers.

      Bottom line: they are very vulnerable when unescorted.

      Nuclear missiles are a much better return on your investment in research, rare materials, and required air bases, reactors and industrial complexes.
    • MontanaBB wrote:


      Nuclear missiles are a much better return on your investment in research, rare materials, and required air bases, reactors and industrial complexes.
      But very slow to transport them to the battlezone.

      On worldmap a bomber can fly from Berlin to New York via Island - Greenland - St John or via Marokko - Cap Verde - Sao Luis - Havanna.

      Try that with Missles.
    • Arbales wrote:

      But very slow to transport them to the battlezone.
      Very true.

      But if 50% of your nuclear bombers are shot down by AA . . . . ?

      Moreover, if I know that you are building nuclear bombers, and I know there is a long range path across enemy air bases as you described, it is the height of incompetence not to have one or more fighter wings waiting along that path.

      Also, we both know that once nuclear weapons are being produced in a game, it becomes a matter of survival to engage in "strategic dispersion" of your units. Once you've entered a nuclear missile phase of the game, a player has to be a damn fool to keep more than 8 to 10 units in any single stack if they are within range of a nuclear bomber or missile.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • Orkhepaj wrote:

      How can u escort them ? Arent they different from airplanes so they are form 2 stacks?
      Good question. You can certainly combine two or more nuclear bombers in one stack, and since they are in the "aircraft" armor class, they should combine with fighters in a single air wing stack. My experience in using them, however, is limited; perhaps you should put that question to @Arbales.

      I do know that you can send a fighter wing ahead of the nuclear bomber, so that it provides combat air patrol cover for the bomber against fighter attacks, and you can advance the patrolling fighters as the bomber progresses.
    • Every airplane which is near enough the detonation radius will be destroyed.

      One time I had sent two nuke bombers to different adjacend targets at the same time and the same path.
      Big fail.
      As the first bomber detonats the second was in range and dissappeares.

      I do not know if patrouilling planes will be affected by detonations. May be patrouilling planes are handled as if they would placed in their home airfield or may be not. I dont have tried out.

      Because of the worth of tactical fighter squads I ever draw the patrouilling squads away minutes before the detonation.
    • MontanaBB wrote:


      Good question. You can certainly combine two or more nuclear bombers in one stack, and since they are in the "aircraft" armor class, they should combine with fighters in a single air wing stack. My experience in using them, however, is limited; perhaps you should put that question to @Arbales.

      You can, but the range of tactical bombers and fighters is not long enough to send them via island greenland bridge
    • Arbales wrote:

      I do not know if patrouilling planes will be affected by detonations.
      Patrolling aircraft squadrons are affected by nuclear detonations. I have destroyed stacks of aircraft units patrolling over a city by hitting the city with a nuclear missile.

      I didn't even think of that when I suggested a fighter escort for the nuclear bomber -- given the game dynamics, you can use the fighter escorts, but it's clearly a suicide mission for the fighter units.
    • of course it is

      but there is another trick to hit an enemy stack with a lot of anti air units.

      :evil:

      You do not have to attack it directely with a nuke if you can arrange that the nuke detonates close enough.

      So the enemy target has no chance to defend and it is possible that you can avoid a war, because game mechanice only count this as collateral damage.
    • I share your frustration with the vulnerability of the Atomic Bomber. They don't stack unless with other Atomic Bombers. If stacked, success of one, will destroy all. Any AA on the ground (even intrinsic AA) can ruin your day. I guess with great power comes great weakness.

      One plus for the Atomic Bomber compared to the Nuclear Missile is the ability to attack a moving target. The bomber will correct course all the way in. The missile is set on target at launch.

      With the referenced idea above of using the blast radius to gain the kill, the Atomic Bomber tactic is targeting a small, no AA unit that is moving into a high value target. The convoy will lead the bomber into the city or fleet.

      With the Nuclear Missile, you have an "unaimed" device. It will not follow a target. But it can't be shot down either. So, when dealing with a moving target, time your strike on a stationary object the moving target is approaching.

      One more thing to think about for that "stationary" target requirement. The game mechanic stops movement for battles between ground units and between naval units. If you are trying to put a nuclear missile on a high value but mobile target, send in a "spotting force" that engages it to force a stop. Your spotter will die but the high value target is hit.
    • It sems it works with nuke bomber+strat bomber escorting it combo , I sent them out and nuke detonated (yeah both planes died). I cant confirm how much dmg it did cause I was sleeping^^

      Yeah you can attack a smaller force or territory center close to the main enemy block to avoid its AA fire .I
      mho it is pretty stupidly designed as it works now. You can detonate it close if it there is a target to detonate it on ,but if there is not the enemy stack AA can shot it down easily :O It makes no sense.
      Only planes should be able to defend against it ,but they are much more easily than now. So if you have air superiority it should be able to nuke unhindered.
      It already has plenty of weaknesses , like its cost ,research time ,building time + building facilities.

      It should be redesigned to be much more reliable and can be realiably countered.

      The nuke rocket only has one disadvantage compared to this ,that it cant be trasported as easily. Yeah it cant follow moving troops but blast radius usually is large enough so it will even hit the moving stack if it hits the ground behind them.
    • Yes, nuclear bombers are vulnerable to interceptors and AA. One thing I've tried is to first gather via espionage or a patrolling plane if the target city has any of those. If it does, you know you should either destroy that unit and then nuke the city (presuming the city is worth attacking twice). If it does not, you can just send a single nuke bomber and it'll do the trick.

      Note: I was not at war with the victim country till then. The nuclear attack was my first "perfidious act of war"
      "Klotzen, nicht kleckern!" -Heinz Guderian
    • FWIW here is what a friend that I tried to get interested in the game said:

      "Nuclear bombers are available from 1945 on... they fly much much too high to be affected by flak guns, and there were no surface-to-air missiles for several years... it makes no sense for nuclear bombers to be vulnerable to flak."

      This, and this alone, was a deal-killer for him and he won't play. Of course that's only one person's idiosyncracy...
    • Feric Jagger wrote:

      FWIW here is what a friend that I tried to get interested in the game said:

      "Nuclear bombers are available from 1945 on... they fly much much too high to be affected by flak guns, and there were no surface-to-air missiles for several years... it makes no sense for nuclear bombers to be vulnerable to flak."

      This, and this alone, was a deal-killer for him and he won't play. Of course that's only one person's idiosyncracy...
      Perhaps your friend should check his history


      The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima from 31,060 feet.

      American Anti aircraft guns used from the beginning of ww2, the 90 mm M1, M2, M3 had a range of 43,500 feet.



      As 43,500 > 31,060 the argument is invalid.






      Of course we could also say that this is a game and not a historical simulation or re-enactment. :)
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<