Strategic bombers dying

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

  • In addition to Jacques answer, strategic bombers are a very poor choice against units, so it takes a long time to destroy 6 tanks. Each patrol tick attack will also cause the return fire defense of the tanks to damage the planes.


    The stated result is logical to me.
    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
    Main Administrator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
  • VorlonFCW wrote:

    In addition to Jacques answer, strategic bombers are a very poor choice against units, so it takes a long time to destroy 6 tanks. Each patrol tick attack will also cause the return fire defense of the tanks to damage the planes.


    The stated result is logical to me.
    Yes, next time, use tactical bombers to destroy units and strategic bombers to attack buildings. Naval bombers are (obiviously) for naval units. Interceptors are good for everything.
    If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill
    FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant :00000461:
    CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
  • I'm sure what @obsidian_order meant is: How could a tank damage a strategic bomber in reality? Strats were flying at an altitude that was way out of range for the weapons tanks could use as air defense (machine guns).

    You only answered that it's an explicable result in CoW - which I'm sure was obvious to @obsidian_order already when writing his question. He certainly only meant to say that such battle results could never occur in reality. With which he's right.

    Unfortunately, with how CoW is structured, it's not easily possible to correct this. A second armour class for planes flying and attacking at high altitude (i.e. strats) would be needed. Would then make sense to introduce heavy AA, which would be able to defend against them (but on the other hand be much more expensive, slower and weaker against unarmoured ground targets than light AA), while all other ground units would hardly be able to damage strats (unless landed).

    But I probably wouldn't blow up complexity of the game that much (as an additional armour class would) just to model this one aspect realistically, so I think this should rather be kept as it is.
  • SirMcSquiggles Jr. wrote:

    Strategic bombers are nice as a damage absorber, but otherwise I tend to avoid it. You want to try to take a province with as much morale and infrastructure as you can, not destroy it.
    Yes, I only use it to bomb capitals in special cases.
    If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology, and British Officers, I would rule the world. -Winston Churchill
    FORUM GANG Second Lieutenant :00000461:
    CALL OF WAR TECHNICIAN THIRD GRADE
  • Bombing runs were frequently done at lower altitudes in order to locate targets, bringing planes into reach of ground weapons.


    In actual WW2 events, planes were frequently lost due to malfunction, navigation errors, or other things that aren’t simulated in Call of War. So if you want to match gameplay to reality these losses due to accidents are accounted for by the defense values of units even when it would not be “practical” to you.
    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
    Main Administrator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

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