Strategic bombers are too strong

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

    • Strategic bombers are too strong

      Strategic bombers operate now as "super units".

      A group of strategic bombers can destroy entire armies, even if they have AA units. It's very hard to fight against them especially when the group consists of additional few interceptors.

      I think their power should be significantly less, or other ground units should have more air defense.
    • wait strategic bombers?! they deal decent building damage over time however cant cope with intercectors/anti air so in situations where strategic bombers can be used rockets and nuke bombers are more effective, seeing as how they deal much more damage early and late game

      i think you might be refering to nuclear bombers, which require lvl 3 strategic bomber research and are very strong if you arent prepared for it with interceptors/ anti air
    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      strategic bombers CAN NOT deal with ground units, even though they should, in theory, do more damage than tactical bombers ....
      In theory? Yes, if your theory is based on maximum bomb load carried. The problem with that theory, of course, is that strategic bombers such as the B-17 were designed to drop 4 to 8 tons of iron-case gravity bombs from up to 25,000 feet. Even at a more typical combat altitude of 15,000 to 17,000 feet (roughly 3 miles up), the Norden bombsight targeting system simply could not account for the various atmospheric conditions affecting the trajectory of gravity bombs over that vertical distance to make them effective tactical bombers. Moreover, contrary to the twin-engine medium bombers shown as icons in COW, the most effective tactical bombers against ground units in WW2 were single-engine fighter-bombers like the Soviet Sturmovik, the American P-47 Thunderbolt, and the RAF's Hawker Tempest, which could fly lower and faster than medium bombers, and all of which proved to be excellent tactical weapons against ground troops and armor in particular. Even a single-engine carrier-based fighter like the Vought F4U Corsair was a better tactical bomber than virtually every medium bomber produced, let alone the big lumbering strats that were dropping their bombs from 3+ miles up.
    • Oh my...!!

      Of course I meant tactical bombers. I really apologize!

      Once I had an enemy with 35+ bombers, and a few interceptors protecting them. It was impossible to get close to them (the guy was 100% active), the AA units were like a sword against a tank, and the interceptors were like flies around him.

      It was a nightmare
    • build interceptors, put them in stacks of five. patrol over the enemy tacs. watch tacs fall from sky. for added effect, drop some rockets on their airbase. destroy airbase or catch tacs while refueling. now your nightmare is a sweet dream...

      Also, consider this. tacs are just as expensive as heavy tanks. do you think you would have done a lot better against 35 heavy tanks?
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”


      Genghis Khan

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Dixie ().

    • Dixie wrote:

      build interceptors, put them in stacks of five. patrol over the enemy tacs. watch tacs fall from sky. for added effect, drop some rockets on their airbase. destroy airbase or catch tacs while refueling.
      Ah, Dixie, you are the sweet voice of reason.

      The only thing I would add to your advice above is when you know the enemy tactical bomber swarm is coming for a particular formation of your ground troops, use the patrol function, and move several 5-squadron wings of top-level fighters over your targeted ground troops. The combination of fighter CAP and AA groundfire will inflict significantly more damage on the TBs than they inflict on your ground troops.

      As a recent example, one of my ground unit formations was attacked by a 10-squadron wing of TBs. Because I was watching when it happened, I knew the enemy's return flight time, his refueling time (L2 air base = 7.5 minutes), and his outbound attack time. Two minutes before his TB wing returned for its second attack, I swung three 5-squadron wings of L6 fighters over my ground troops using the patrol function. Six of his 10 TB squadrons disappeared when he attacked, with minor damage to my ground troops. Apparently the other player was so confident of his TBs that he left them on auto-attack and went to bed ---- he lost 3 of 4 remaining TB squadrons on his third attack, and the 10th and last TB squadron on his fourth attack. It was a massacre, and the other player woke up, checked in and discovered the exact opposite result of what he expected. No rockets, no nukes, no gold replenishment of unit conditions . . . just better tactics.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Dixie wrote:

      build interceptors, put them in stacks of five. patrol over the enemy tacs. watch tacs fall from sky. for added effect, drop some rockets on their airbase. destroy airbase or catch tacs while refueling.
      Ah, Dixie, you are the sweet voice of reason.
      The only thing I would add to your advice above is when you know the enemy tactical bomber swarm is coming for a particular formation of your ground troops, use the patrol function, and move several 5-squadron wings of top-level fighters over your targeted ground troops. The combination of fighter CAP and AA groundfire will inflict significantly more damage on the TBs than they inflict on your ground troops.

      As a recent example, one of my ground unit formations was attacked by a 10-squadron wing of TBs. Because I was watching when it happened, I knew the enemy's return flight time, his refueling time (L2 air base = 7.5 minutes), and his outbound attack time. Two minutes before his TB wing returned for its second attack, I swung three 5-squadron wings of L6 fighters over my ground troops using the patrol function. Six of his 10 TB squadrons disappeared when he attacked, with minor damage to my ground troops. Apparently the other player was so confident of his TBs that he left them on auto-attack and went to bed ---- he lost 3 of 4 remaining TB squadrons on his third attack, and the 10th and last TB squadron on his fourth attack. It was a massacre, and the other player woke up, checked in and discovered the exact opposite result of what he expected. No rockets, no nukes, no gold replenishment of unit conditions . . . just better tactics.
      remember, patrols only do 15% damage per 1 hit, while the Anti-plane stats do full damage, so directly attacking with your interceptors may be a bit more cost effective...
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
    • Dixie wrote:

      build interceptors, put them in stacks of five. patrol over the enemy tacs. watch tacs fall from sky. for added effect, drop some rockets on their airbase. destroy airbase or catch tacs while refueling. now your nightmare is a sweet dream...
      Mind you, one more interceptor only decreases SBE to 99% for any aircraft.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
    • Exactly. "Standard" air stacks should be 5 tacs and 5 interceptors, to be used both for attack (ground units) and defense (enemy air). Only use "tac-only" stacks when you're sure the enemy has no interceptors; only use "int-only" stacks, well, if the enemy has no interceptors (otherwise the extra tacs get "free" shots in air-to-air combat). Non-standard elements may be a strat bomber for extra hit points, or some rocket fighters for extra AA power.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • NukeRaider33 wrote:

      Mind you, one more interceptor only decreases SBE to 99% for any aircraft.
      6 interceptors shouldn't have an SBDE of 99% if that is what you are saying. It looks to be around 93% according to SBDE equations. In general, adding units beyond the optimal gives a small amount of additional strength but regardless of how much you add it doesn't get much stronger than the optimal count. The disadvantage of going over is that it's much easier to lose a unit as morale drops and in many cases it's an inefficient distribution of your usable units. In some cases, if it's going to be a long battle and you need to sleep it is a good idea to make your unit stack larger than the optimal.
    • Id like to offer some additional insight regarding that, though I have no hard numbers to back it up how it turns out for longer battles.

      When you do ground attacks (especially direct attacks) against forces with high AA values, you might consider beefing the stack up to 9/9 or 10/10 (which is the break even point in raw damage per hit). The reason is that you get 'hit' only once, instead of using the 5/5 version where you get hit twice. Yes you lose units a bit faster, but there are fewer intervals.

      Might need a math guy or a programmer to back up this claim (or reject it;) ). Im good with numbers, but not good enough to precisely make the call whether my version is better.

      edit: in some cases direct attacks are even hugely favored Ive noticed of late. Especially when your unit is at 80/84/86 etc percent (depending on stack size). After all, if you lose a plane, you lose a lot more fighting power relative to the SBDE, so you want to opt for that 100% attack instead of the 25% one:).
    • miech wrote:

      The reason is that you get 'hit' only once, instead of using the 5/5 version where you get hit twice.
      It is true in principle that you should lose fewer hit points with fewer rounds of higher power. It just depends on the situation. How many planes do you have? How important is it not to lose any, even if you lose more hit points? How important is it to finish the battle quickly? Who are you fighting? etc ...