Good Uses for Strategic Bombers....

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

    • Edepedable wrote:

      Sadly. I would have liked building destroying to be more of a part of the game then it is now
      Well, the other side of the coin is to capture those cities with minimum damage so you can produce troops much closer to your front lines without having to invest your own resources to repair everything.

      Does anyone know which unit(s) are best for capturing an empty city and causing the least damage?
      "Until there are clearly defined and enforceable rules for hand-to-hand combat, there can't be rules in global war. Kill em all!"

    • ike53 wrote:

      Well, the other side of the coin is to capture those cities with minimum damage so you can produce troops much closer to your front lines without having to invest your own resources to repair everything.
      True but I don't like that capturing enemy production capabilities is a large part of doing well in the game at all. For a diversity of reasons:

      - It makes spamming light tanks a viable strategy, good from a game perspective perhaps. I'd prefer more complicated strategies that would require building destruction as a larger part of the game. I mean when is the last time any of us actully used strategic bombers to take out a vital air port for example.
      - Devalues knowing how to both fuel an economy and use that to build an army, less need to develop your own core if you can take that of others.
      - Makes strategies one sided, always aimed at taking provinces instead of destroying buildings in them.

      I also did a proposal in the suggestion section that would make the production of units in non core provinces slower. Resources are produced in non core provinces 75% less efficient, why is unit production unaffected? I think this could be really cool.

      It would make core provinces more valuable production centers throughout games. This would mean troops would have to move a lot from players core to other places thus adding a layer of logistics to the game through troop movement. This would also mean that destroying buildings of other players would not mean cutting into your own 'future production' as much. Thus, building destruction would be more efficient and the strategic bomber can finally have a moment to shine.

    • Edepedable wrote:

      ike53 wrote:

      Well, the other side of the coin is to capture those cities with minimum damage so you can produce troops much closer to your front lines without having to invest your own resources to repair everything.
      True but I don't like that capturing enemy production capabilities is a large part of doing well in the game at all. For a diversity of reasons:
      - It makes spamming light tanks a viable strategy, good from a game perspective perhaps. I'd prefer more complicated strategies that would require building destruction as a larger part of the game. I mean when is the last time any of us actully used strategic bombers to take out a vital air port for example.
      - Devalues knowing how to both fuel an economy and use that to build an army, less need to develop your own core if you can take that of others.
      - Makes strategies one sided, always aimed at taking provinces instead of destroying buildings in them.




      It would make core provinces more valuable production centers throughout games. This would mean troops would have to move a lot from players core to other places thus adding a layer of logistics to the game through troop movement. This would also mean that destroying buildings of other players would not mean cutting into your own 'future production' as much. Thus, building destruction would be more efficient and the strategic bomber can finally have a moment to shine.
      I agree that added emphasis on infrastructure and industrial complex destruction should play a bigger role. Think about it....when a war starts whats usually the first things that are bombed, sabotaged or destroyed???? It's usually bridges, transmission towers, transport centers such as railroad hubs and ports and other vital and essential pieces of economic importance.

    • ike53 wrote:

      Does anyone know which unit(s) are best for capturing an empty city and causing the least damage?
      Militia? :)
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • ike53 wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      Sadly. I would have liked building destroying to be more of a part of the game then it is now
      Well, the other side of the coin is to capture those cities with minimum damage so you can produce troops much closer to your front lines without having to invest your own resources to repair everything.
      Does anyone know which unit(s) are best for capturing an empty city and causing the least damage?
      In general, the less fighting it involved, the better. Notoriously BAD for it is a prolonged battle, especially if indirect weapons (artillery, battleships, etc) were used to shell the city.

      If it was conquered without a fight, I don't think it matters which units did it, though there will still be some damage.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • One thing i have found them useful for other then long rage recon is using them in stacks of four with eight interceptors, and then bombing unprotected cities, it makes the moral sink like the titanic which will in a few hours get even a capital to go to levels where rebellion is likely, and unlike rockets which can only be used once, you can keep bombing them over and over again till they get anti air in the province. also they should only be used if you have near or total air superiority