Make Strategic Bombers Great Again

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

    • Make Strategic Bombers Great Again

      Do you use strategic bombers ? 18
      1.  
        Rarely or not at all (12) 67%
      2.  
        Sometimes (4) 22%
      3.  
        Often (2) 11%
      TLDR : do a few small changes to strategic bombers, and you might make them much more interesting, useful, and relevant, with the added benefit of historical accuracy.


      Introduction

      I have asked a fair number of experienced players who told me almost unanimously that strategic bombers are scarcely ever used nowadays in gameplay, the main reasons for which I try to summarise below :

      1. Unable to defeat units and vulnerable to any ground AA defence
      2. Expensive and lengthy to construct, especially due to the need for ( one-time ) investment in a level 3 airbase
      3. Damages buildings which the attacker may later wish to possess



      Objective

      Historically, strategic bombers served a very important role in the European Theatre. With the right changes and balancing, I believe you can successfully implement them so that they become relevant to gameplay and emulate the roles they served during WWII.


      To start, I try to identify the key characteristics of a WWII-era strategic bomber :

      1. Long range, able to reach deep into enemy airspace, often their home cities
      2. Typically fly at high altitude
      3. Typically target civilian and military production centres, causing disruption in logistics. Do not typically look for enemy units or soft targets in general.
      4. Vulnerable to enemy fighter aircraft, but not completely defenceless
      5. Imprecise ( due to lack of guided bomb technology at the time )
      6. Return immediately after completion of mission
      7. Able to significantly weaken enemy morale
      8. Suitable for a lengthy war in which neither side has a clear strategic advantage, and must therefore resort to war of attrition


      Suggestions

      So based on these characteristics and my own experience, here are some changes I suggest for your in-game Heinkel 117’s, Handley-Page Halifaxes, and Boeing Superfortresses, which I match to the corresponding number in the previous list. Please refer back-and-forth to between these.

      1. No change or small calibration ( already long range )
      2. Remove or significantly reduce damage from ground units, including AA guns, which were less effective at such altitudes. Heavy bombers may need to become a wholly separate type of attack.
      3. Strategic bombing primary damages buildings and fortifications, potentially disabling production of certain units ( already good ), but may also delay existing production ( open to calibration ).
      4. No change or small calibration ( already good ). High-altitude interceptors become primary form of defence against strategic bombers
      5. No change or small calibration ( strategic bombing already ineffective against enemy units )
      6. Disable the patrol function on strategic bombers. The patrol, although unrealistic in terms of fuel / pilot fatigue, tactically make sense for interceptors and other light attack aircraft, which historically did so to defend an area or look for targets of opportunity. These tactics are not relevant for strategic bombers.
      7. Add morale loss in the province recently bombed ( this neatly takes care of economic impact )
      8. As previously touched on, strategic bombers take longer to make and are more useful in a strategic sense than in tactical engagements. Additionally, they would only come into play when two powerful factions are fighting each other, and neither side are able to achieve a breakthrough in the front lines. These changes will heighten the distinct role of strategic bombing and allow players to correspondingly adjust their tactics. For instance, a player may choose to invest in more strategic bombers than tactical bombers to destroy factories and infrastructure in the enemy core territories, to delay production or cause reinforcements to arrive more slowly to the front lines ( bombed-out roads, bridges, etc. ).


      Other ideas :

      1. Because strategic bombers are not used as often in combat and in the early stages of a war, you can very well make them unavailable in the first 3 days, for instance. Additionally, perhaps not so many stages of upgrade that require players to devote rare materials to a unit that serves a highly specialised function.
      2. Availability and construction speed of course will favour the Allied ( and / or Axis ) doctrine.




      Conclusion : how these changes may impact game-play

      1. No impact for short-term engagements and one-sided wars in which they offer little advantage
      2. Increased defensive use of interceptors in non-border areas ; increased importance of air-superiority
      3. Increased relevance of intelligence in predicting enemy strategic bombing runs
      4. Increased importance of maintaining infrastructure and industrial facilities, which may prompt players to devote more resources to upgrading and repairing them, if an enemy uses strategic bombing
      5. Less “spamming” of tactical bombers and increased unit variety.



      Happy to hear feedback and other suggestions. Cheers.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Marechal Saoul: Wording clarity ; added poll ().

    • GeneralAumSum wrote:

      this is a great idea! Strateigiv bombers are even more crap then nukes. If it was changed up like this it would be amazing.
      Nuclear bombers should also not be shot down by a couple of AA guns, right ? They're always high-altitude anyway to avoid the mushroom cloud.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • I think they said there was an issue with the code where strategic bombers don’t work how they’re supposed to, they don’t deal the correct damage to buildings. They can correct me if I’m wrong but I think they said they’re working on it but it’s not a big priority for them.

      So I guess before they can make any changes you suggest they got to figure out why it doesn’t work
    • Vlanchavic wrote:

      I think they said there was an issue with the code where strategic bombers don’t work how they’re supposed to, they don’t deal the correct damage to buildings. They can correct me if I’m wrong but I think they said they’re working on it but it’s not a big priority for them.

      So I guess before they can make any changes you suggest they got to figure out why it doesn’t work
      It definitely is working for me...the morale is decreasing a bit and the buildings are being damaged.
    • The problem with strats is that they require a drawn out war to be effective. They don't repay themselves by destroying enemy units but rather by preventing the enemy from building new ones,and thus are worthless in a war decided by the combatants' starting forces. In my experience this is most conflicts in CoW. It isn't uncommon for timely reinforcements to be of great use, true, but the majority of units in any given war between two nations will already be on the map (if maybe not at the front) when the first guns fire. Because only one side can ever survive any engagement, most deaths usually happen quite quickly, as soon as the main armies find each other. Thus, unless you expect a drawn out conflict strategic bombers simply cannot repay themselves, and if your enemy used their resources to invest in more tacs and tanks, well, your airbases will probably fall fairly quickly.
      In the early game there is simply no time to spare a research slot for strats, and few people can afford the airbase network required to use them effectively them. In the mid game even more than other parts wars are decided quickly and brutally. And in the late game, when wars can actually sometimes be rather drawn out, if you have airbases in range of the enemy's core regions you've already won.
      It's far more efficient to invest in land units and close air support to simply capture enemy production and economic centers rather than destroy them from afar and hope you can extend the conflict long enough for your industry to win. Heck, even just be sneaky and send a few fast suicide units around the enemy front line to capture their core areas temporarily; this actually slows the enemy because they have to turn around to defend & recapture.
    • Damaging buildings simply isn’t an effective way to win at Call of War.

      In order for the strategic bombing of buildings to be more effective the function of buildings would have to be more important. Such as unit movement without an infrastructure building would have to be very very slow.

      Now of course that will work both ways, as an invading army will be very very slow until infrastructure was constructed.
      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 <<<
    • Marechal Saoul wrote:

      GeneralAumSum wrote:

      this is a great idea! Strateigiv bombers are even more crap then nukes. If it was changed up like this it would be amazing.
      Nuclear bombers should also not be shot down by a couple of AA guns, right ? They're always high-altitude anyway to avoid the mushroom cloud.
      True
      "Hitler's Come and go, but Germany and the german people remain" -Joseph Stalingrad
    • eruth wrote:

      The problem with strats is that they require a drawn out war to be effective. They don't repay themselves by destroying enemy units but rather by preventing the enemy from building new ones,and thus are worthless in a war decided by the combatants' starting forces. In my experience this is most conflicts in CoW. It isn't uncommon for timely reinforcements to be of great use, true, but the majority of units in any given war between two nations will already be on the map (if maybe not at the front) when the first guns fire. Because only one side can ever survive any engagement, most deaths usually happen quite quickly, as soon as the main armies find each other. Thus, unless you expect a drawn out conflict strategic bombers simply cannot repay themselves, and if your enemy used their resources to invest in more tacs and tanks, well, your airbases will probably fall fairly quickly.
      In the early game there is simply no time to spare a research slot for strats, and few people can afford the airbase network required to use them effectively them. In the mid game even more than other parts wars are decided quickly and brutally. And in the late game, when wars can actually sometimes be rather drawn out, if you have airbases in range of the enemy's core regions you've already won.
      It's far more efficient to invest in land units and close air support to simply capture enemy production and economic centers rather than destroy them from afar and hope you can extend the conflict long enough for your industry to win. Heck, even just be sneaky and send a few fast suicide units around the enemy front line to capture their core areas temporarily; this actually slows the enemy because they have to turn around to defend & recapture.
      Yes, I believe I've touched on most of your points regarding lengthy research investment, cost efficiency, and usefulness in short engagements. I think if AA cannot shoot down strategic bombers, then at least players will consider using them for the right occasion. Of course this also better suites more patient strategies where players do not simply rush all of their units to the front line in a massed offensive.

      I just thought of another use - perhaps strategic bombing can be used to destroy certain units in the secret branch, such as the Rail Gun and Rockets ? At the very least, if you find out that the enemy is building nuclear facilities, you can send strategic bombers to take out their enrichment plants if not guarded by interceptors.

      By the way, high-altitude nuclear bombers is another suggestion I made, so invulnerability to AA in that case should make nuclear bombers more relevant as well.

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Damaging buildings simply isn’t an effective way to win at Call of War.

      In order for the strategic bombing of buildings to be more effective the function of buildings would have to be more important. Such as unit movement without an infrastructure building would have to be very very slow.

      Now of course that will work both ways, as an invading army will be very very slow until infrastructure was constructed.
      I agree, and I think heightening the logistics aspect would make the game more realistic, even if it might potentially frustrate players who don't enjoy managing behind the lines. Movement in this game is designed based on a "road network", and even in the open sea it's "sea channels", so absolutely I think this can be implemented to a further extent.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • Sorry there's one more thing I forgot to add to the point about cost efficiency.

      Buildings cost lots of money and resources.
      New units cost lots of money and resources.
      Time costs gold
      .

      Strategic bombers, if improved, are worth it because they take away things that cost your enemy money, resources, and the equivalent of gold, which could otherwise be invested into more units that might make an impact on the war. In large games, late stage, countries routinely produce 20-30 units per day depending on number of industrial complexes, so making those unavailable and delaying their supply line might very much make an impact.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • I always use them in war to clear buildings like infrastructure but anti air (or stacks of 3 infantry somehow) keep shooting them down or make them 7% health (but the buildings are hardly damaged)
      Don’t judge people by their records or their rank, but however their skill; and the kindness.

      the game should be played happily and not too aggressively.
    • Strategic Bombers are already great!

      They are a versatile and dangerous weapon in this game .. :thumbup:
      .. but, as with any good tool, it's of course important to know how to use it properly. ^^

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!
    • New

      Well I just tried them out in v1.5

      Sent 10 lvl 2 strat bombers (51% health) against a city. Lost 1 to intrinsic anti-air (no AA-units). Damage to buildings: secret lab damaged to a negative value (?), surprisingly no damage to local industry. Morale lowered by just 7%. Info on the city is updated - it is within spotting range.

      What is the formula for bombing morale? It seems like airfleet size doesn't do much difference. 1 lvl1 missile will do like 2% and 10 strat bombers do 7%??? Anyone knows how this is calculated?

      bombing.jpg
    • New

      NoobNoobTrain wrote:

      Well I just tried them out in v1.5

      Sent 10 lvl 2 strat bombers (51% health) against a city. Lost 1 to intrinsic anti-air (no AA-units). Damage to buildings: secret lab damaged to a negative value (?), surprisingly no damage to local industry. Morale lowered by just 7%. Info on the city is updated - it is within spotting range.

      What is the formula for bombing morale? It seems like airfleet size doesn't do much difference. 1 lvl1 missile will do like 2% and 10 strat bombers do 7%??? Anyone knows how this is calculated?

      bombing.jpg
      The calculation is a mess and it's on our plan to update it so it makes sense :)
    • New

      alvar von haffen wrote:

      Really good ideas .
      It's neccesary to improve realistic Battle situations and tactics.

      The problem is that the game doesn't take account of the alitude
      I disagree. Strats do less damage to unit because their high altitude makes them less accurate, but they have higher HP to represent not just their stronger structure but also the difficulty of attacking them at high altitude by both fighters and AA. How would you suggest they represent it?
    • New

      eruth wrote:

      alvar von haffen wrote:

      Really good ideas .
      It's neccesary to improve realistic Battle situations and tactics.

      The problem is that the game doesn't take account of the alitude
      I disagree. Strats do less damage to unit because their high altitude makes them less accurate, but they have higher HP to represent not just their stronger structure but also the difficulty of attacking them at high altitude by both fighters and AA. How would you suggest they represent it?
      I think many players have complained that despite the higher HP, strats still get taken out too easily by fighters ( which is fine, since high-altitude fighters did more or less exist ... ), but also by ground AA ( which is less realistic ). So my suggestion would be to make a separate category for planes that operate uniquely at high altitude, such as strategic bombers and nuclear bombers, the same way that they differentiated between light armour and heavy armour in 1.5

      Would something like that work for you, Herr Guderian ? Only a game designer can tell you how expensive it would be to implement though :thumbsup:
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • New

      freezy wrote:

      NoobNoobTrain wrote:

      Well I just tried them out in v1.5

      Sent 10 lvl 2 strat bombers (51% health) against a city. Lost 1 to intrinsic anti-air (no AA-units). Damage to buildings: secret lab damaged to a negative value (?), surprisingly no damage to local industry. Morale lowered by just 7%. Info on the city is updated - it is within spotting range.

      What is the formula for bombing morale? It seems like airfleet size doesn't do much difference. 1 lvl1 missile will do like 2% and 10 strat bombers do 7%??? Anyone knows how this is calculated?

      bombing.jpg
      The calculation is a mess and it's on our plan to update it so it makes sense :)
      Honesty right there! Thanx ^^
    • New

      Marechal Saoul wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      alvar von haffen wrote:

      Really good ideas .
      It's neccesary to improve realistic Battle situations and tactics.

      The problem is that the game doesn't take account of the alitude
      I disagree. Strats do less damage to unit because their high altitude makes them less accurate, but they have higher HP to represent not just their stronger structure but also the difficulty of attacking them at high altitude by both fighters and AA. How would you suggest they represent it?
      I think many players have complained that despite the higher HP, strats still get taken out too easily by fighters ( which is fine, since high-altitude fighters did more or less exist ... ), but also by ground AA ( which is less realistic ). So my suggestion would be to make a separate category for planes that operate uniquely at high altitude, such as strategic bombers and nuclear bombers, the same way that they differentiated between light armour and heavy armour in 1.5
      Would something like that work for you, Herr Guderian ? Only a game designer can tell you how expensive it would be to implement though :thumbsup:
      Well I wish they'll worlk on that .
      I support your ideas of making a separation on categories of planes .

      But on my defense, Everything is posible with the avaliable tecnologies and the level of development in the Game area.

      Best regards :beer:
      Command Sgt Major

      Alvar von haffen