Attack bombers: Why do you need them?

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

    • Attack bombers: Why do you need them?

      Convince me why I should build attack bombers. I never use them, for these reasons:

      1. Shorter range than tactical bombers, meaning you need more air bases and you spend more time refueling during hops.
      2. Less HP than tactical bombers, meaning they wear out and become ineffective sooner.
      3. Better at killing heavy armor, which is already countered by artillery, a unit everyone starts to build on day 2.
      4. Worse at killing infantry, which has a better AA value, and is harder to kill from the air to begin with.

      I've read posts where people claim to mix bombers to deal with mixed stacks. This to me makes the least amount of sense. You end up with the range of an attack bomber, just to wear out tanks faster. But tanks in mixed stacks are easy to kill. Just hit them with tactical bombers, the infantry take damage, and become even slower. Now the enemy has a mixed stack moving at the speed of wounded infantry. They are sitting ducks for your artillery, don't even need to waste air power on them any more. I love killing mixed stacks this way.

      In summary, I have no use for attack bombers, and I don't understand why people build them.
    • All valid point, but one question. Why do you wait until day two before starting to build arty? This is usually the second or third technology I research. I’ve waited until day two occasionally but it’s a rare situation. If I’m playing a Pan Asian island I’ll wait until day two when I have level two arty researched, because Pan Asian has access to level two on day two. This will save resources upgrading and you can rely on naval units for bombardment of your first conquest. Otherwise arty is too important to wait.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Convince me why I should build attack bombers. I never use them, for these reasons:

      1. Shorter range than tactical bombers, meaning you need more air bases and you spend more time refueling during hops.
      2. Less HP than tactical bombers, meaning they wear out and become ineffective sooner.
      3. Better at killing heavy armor, which is already countered by artillery, a unit everyone starts to build on day 2.
      4. Worse at killing infantry, which has a better AA value, and is harder to kill from the air to begin with.

      I've read posts where people claim to mix bombers to deal with mixed stacks. This to me makes the least amount of sense. You end up with the range of an attack bomber, just to wear out tanks faster. But tanks in mixed stacks are easy to kill. Just hit them with tactical bombers, the infantry take damage, and become even slower. Now the enemy has a mixed stack moving at the speed of wounded infantry. They are sitting ducks for your artillery, don't even need to waste air power on them any more. I love killing mixed stacks this way.

      In summary, I have no use for attack bombers, and I don't understand why people build them.
      Artillery can’t fly across the map to quickly counter a threat, artillery cannot strikes targets deep in enemy territory. Tactical bombers are useful against infantry but a lot of the time people just spam tanks themselves, plus how often do you see people stacking regular infantry with tanks? Dive bombers also have a use for fighting naval units, I find this especially useful as I can have a very versatile unit that counters 3 different armor types, of course dive bombers have their flaws, they can be shot down, need to refuel, and are almost useless against infantry. Call of war is made in a way so that every unit is somewhat unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses, there is no objectively “bad” unit, they each have their uses. Sorry if this got a little too long.
    • 6thDragon wrote:

      All valid point, but one question. Why do you wait until day two before starting to build arty? This is usually the second or third technology I research. I’ve waited until day two occasionally but it’s a rare situation. If I’m playing a Pan Asian island I’ll wait until day two when I have level two arty researched, because Pan Asian has access to level two on day two. This will save resources upgrading and you can rely on naval units for bombardment of your first conquest. Otherwise arty is too important to wait.

      Good point, I just played Pan Asian so that's exactly why my brain went to day 2. Otherwise you're totally right, artillery on day 1. By the time air power becomes viable (starting level planes are junk) I'm already rolling along with artillery. Enemy armor has been neutralized by artillery + screen of infantry with AT guns. What do I need attack/dive bombers for? I'm destroying tanks without taking casualties, or using oil, or wasting time and resources on researching another unit.


      randomperson0195 wrote:

      Artillery can’t fly across the map to quickly counter a threat, artillery cannot strikes targets deep in enemy territory. Tactical bombers are useful against infantry but a lot of the time people just spam tanks themselves, plus how often do you see people stacking regular infantry with tanks? Dive bombers also have a use for fighting naval units, I find this especially useful as I can have a very versatile unit that counters 3 different armor types, of course dive bombers have their flaws, they can be shot down, need to refuel, and are almost useless against infantry. Call of war is made in a way so that every unit is somewhat unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses, there is no objectively “bad” unit, they each have their uses. Sorry if this got a little too long.

      Planes in general can fly around the map to project force in more places without having to maintain a huge army. This is true, but less for for attack/dive bombers. Their range limits their mobility. Strategic and tactical bombers are better in the power projection role.

      I run into mixed stacks all the time. I almost never see a pure mechanized stack. If I did, I would blow it up with artillery, and use AT guns to slow them down if necessary. But like I mentioned, this is simply not necessary, because people slow down their tanks with artillery, AA guns, and foot infantry. Which means I can blow them up with artillery all day long. Armor is simply not a threat, the way most people use armor.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      All valid point, but one question. Why do you wait until day two before starting to build arty? This is usually the second or third technology I research. I’ve waited until day two occasionally but it’s a rare situation. If I’m playing a Pan Asian island I’ll wait until day two when I have level two arty researched, because Pan Asian has access to level two on day two. This will save resources upgrading and you can rely on naval units for bombardment of your first conquest. Otherwise arty is too important to wait.
      Good point, I just played Pan Asian so that's exactly why my brain went to day 2. Otherwise you're totally right, artillery on day 1. By the time air power becomes viable (starting level planes are junk) I'm already rolling along with artillery. Enemy armor has been neutralized by artillery + screen of infantry with AT guns. What do I need attack/dive bombers for? I'm destroying tanks without taking casualties, or using oil, or wasting time and resources on researching another unit.


      randomperson0195 wrote:

      Artillery can’t fly across the map to quickly counter a threat, artillery cannot strikes targets deep in enemy territory. Tactical bombers are useful against infantry but a lot of the time people just spam tanks themselves, plus how often do you see people stacking regular infantry with tanks? Dive bombers also have a use for fighting naval units, I find this especially useful as I can have a very versatile unit that counters 3 different armor types, of course dive bombers have their flaws, they can be shot down, need to refuel, and are almost useless against infantry. Call of war is made in a way so that every unit is somewhat unique and has their own strengths and weaknesses, there is no objectively “bad” unit, they each have their uses. Sorry if this got a little too long.
      Planes in general can fly around the map to project force in more places without having to maintain a huge army. This is true, but less for for attack/dive bombers. Their range limits their mobility. Strategic and tactical bombers are better in the power projection role.

      I run into mixed stacks all the time. I almost never see a pure mechanized stack. If I did, I would blow it up with artillery, and use AT guns to slow them down if necessary. But like I mentioned, this is simply not necessary, because people slow down their tanks with artillery, AA guns, and foot infantry. Which means I can blow them up with artillery all day long. Armor is simply not a threat, the way most people use armor.
      Imagine this scenario:

      You have an empire stretching from the Western coast of France/Spain to the Russian steppe. You just invaded whatever power is to the East, and are fighting a pretty brutal land war there. (Damn this sounding like WWII). You just don't have the unit numbers to keep your Western Front to optimal strength, and suddenly there is a surprise landing, heavily mechanized but with little AA. (This has literally happened to me before I just realised)

      If only you had built Attack Bombers.

      Now here is the reason:
      Since land units can't be transported West fast enough to blunt the enemy advance, your only real chance is to hit them from the air. Since your tactical bombers and fighters would be focused in the East, you can't really pry them away. Even if you did, they'd be useless because the enemy's stacks are mechanized. You may have built naval bombers earlier and stationed them in France, but even though they'll be useful on the ships, some cruisers should protect the convoys while they land. However, if you have an Attack Bomber reserve, they can swivel round and quickly decimate frontline enemy strength. If enemy does have AA, well at least the AB are still better than nothing.

      That was a very specific scenario, and someone above mentioned the word 'specialist unit'. That is precisely what Attack Bombers are. They aren't meta units like artillery or tactical bombers that just hoard fronts and roll through, but used in precise situations for precise strikes, and are often a RESERVE unit. They're good for blunting surprise armour moves, versatile regarding ability to seriously harm both ships and tanks (so rather than putting money on two types of planes you only put toward one), they can blow up mech. stacks. To everything I've said you might say 'well tacs can do that too' but frankly they can't. They don't have the speed of attack bombers, they don't have nearly the damage on armour necessary for anti-armour action, and they're *too useful for other actions to waste on a specific precise manoeuvre*

      Hope this helps

      EDIT: Also Heavy Tanks are pretty tough beasts, Attack Bombers are effective a lot on them, and also my argument for tactical bombers above also applies to artillery
    • The only rebalancing necessary is to just increase the range of Attack Bombers to the range of Tac Bombers, make both units' speed the same, and make both of them have the same number of levels. Then they will both be used to only counter their respective targets.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Convince me why I should build attack bombers. I never use them, for these reasons:

      1. Shorter range than tactical bombers, meaning you need more air bases and you spend more time refueling during hops.
      2. Less HP than tactical bombers, meaning they wear out and become ineffective sooner.
      3. Better at killing heavy armor, which is already countered by artillery, a unit everyone starts to build on day 2.
      4. Worse at killing infantry, which has a better AA value, and is harder to kill from the air to begin with.

      I've read posts where people claim to mix bombers to deal with mixed stacks. This to me makes the least amount of sense. You end up with the range of an attack bomber, just to wear out tanks faster. But tanks in mixed stacks are easy to kill. Just hit them with tactical bombers, the infantry take damage, and become even slower. Now the enemy has a mixed stack moving at the speed of wounded infantry. They are sitting ducks for your artillery, don't even need to waste air power on them any more. I love killing mixed stacks this way.

      In summary, I have no use for attack bombers, and I don't understand why people build them.
      I have often thought much the same thing. Their short range is particularly annoying where aircraft carriers are not available; inland, or in islands far from the action. When I played last as Australia in HWW, and later Queensland in W@W, I had to build a string of air bases through the East Indies to get aeroplanes to Asia. Attack bombers were too short-ranged, and would be produced locally in the Indian colonies just like tanks, artillery, or infantry, as convoys took far too long. I never build them above lvl.2 either, unlike most planes.
      In America: Homefront (my first coalition victory), however, for the first time I found them to be genuinely (somewhat, with range issues & other caveats remaining) useful. The geography and layout heavily favours large motorised armies, of which tanks are an important part. My central airstrip-belt also needed considerably more intervals to accommodate them. Nevertheless, I found them far less useful than any other aircraft. Tactical bombers proved indispensable in that campaign, and SP artillery filled all the roles of the attack bomber. In the end I only made 7 attack bombers, versus 8 each of naval and strategic bombers, 14 interceptors, and 37 tactical bombers, and 20 SP artillery.

      On a side note, experience has taught me never mix tp aircraft stacks except in extremely rare circumstances. If you stack them at all (and it is often better only to have many stacks of only 1 or 2 than a few 10-stacks) segregate types. If enemy interceptors are a problem, send your own to destroy them. If infantry or light armour are a problem, send tacs. If ships, then naval bombers. On the off-chance you do see a mixed stack and it does not (as many do) contain anti-air, attack with multiple separate-type stacks.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh

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

    • I use attack bombers, but not all the time.

      I rarely start making bombers at all in the first week of the game, other than naval bombers for coastal defense. As has been mentioned, arty can bombard all day and only take damage if there is return fire from other arty. Bombers always take a little damage from the ground units they are destroying and it adds up over time.

      The primary reason to use attack bombers is to deal with armored units. Many players over-rely on tanks in this game and attack bombers are an effective way to devastate them if they don't build AA. You can make the case for focusing your research on tac bombers as tanks have low AA values, but attack bombers can go after ships in a pinch.

      Bombers in general are the perfect counter offensive unit. Think about it. If you have airfields build up, you can use them to respond to enemy attacks without needing to divert your slower moving ground units. Plus most rushes are small numbers of fast moving light tanks or armored cars. Bombers are the perfect way to get there quickly and deal with small units before they get too far.

      I keep my bombers grouped together to spread out the damage. You can always ungroup your interceptors and send them after incoming enemy interceptors if you want.
    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I use attack bombers, but not all the time.

      I rarely start making bombers at all in the first week of the game, other than naval bombers for coastal defense. As has been mentioned, arty can bombard all day and only take damage if there is return fire from other arty. Bombers always take a little damage from the ground units they are destroying and it adds up over time.

      The primary reason to use attack bombers is to deal with armored units. Many players over-rely on tanks in this game and attack bombers are an effective way to devastate them if they don't build AA. You can make the case for focusing your research on tac bombers as tanks have low AA values, but attack bombers can go after ships in a pinch.

      Bombers in general are the perfect counter offensive unit. Think about it. If you have airfields build up, you can use them to respond to enemy attacks without needing to divert your slower moving ground units. Plus most rushes are small numbers of fast moving light tanks or armored cars. Bombers are the perfect way to get there quickly and deal with small units before they get too far.

      I keep my bombers grouped together to spread out the damage. You can always ungroup your interceptors and send them after incoming enemy interceptors if you want.
      Artillery and bombers complement each other.
      I prefer gun artillery (SP or otherwise) to rocket, and tactical bombers to attack bombers. As such they are usually specialised for different types of unit.
      Artillery also (particularly non-SP) take a while to get to the battlefield. Assuming airstrips are installed, tactical bombers can arrive within minutes. This makes artillery more suitable to bombard prior to a breakthrough or other large-scale, planned operation, and tactical bombers better for close air support as the need arises. In this role they are best used individually but operating from one airbase.
      As you said they are also highly effective against offensives, although can also be used similar to artillery to precede an offensive themselves (particularly carrier-based ops during amphibious assaults, where they can engage further inland than battleships).
      In my opinion, at least.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • Tactical bombers are more effective then attack bombers against their respective targets (unarmed/heavy armoured units)
      That's true but do you know that heavy armoured units are more expensive to produce/research and maintain and game made it to deal similar amount of damage towards enemy in terms of resources spended. They are good at loan or ranged heavy /light units like spa, rrg tank destroyers. In mid to late game they are much more effective as you unlock higher levels and increase attack range and enemy have more heavy units.

      Range is also justified as attack bombers carry heavier bombs then tactical bombers as they are ment to penetrate armour.
      Фарис Синановић, Суна
    • Suna232 wrote:

      Tactical bombers are more effective then attack bombers against their respective targets (unarmed/heavy armoured units)
      That's true but do you know that heavy armoured units are more expensive to produce/research and maintain and game made it to deal similar amount of damage towards enemy in terms of resources spended. They are good at loan or ranged heavy /light units like spa, rrg tank destroyers. In mid to late game they are much more effective as you unlock higher levels and increase attack range and enemy have more heavy units.

      Range is also justified as attack bombers carry heavier bombs then tactical bombers as they are ment to penetrate armour.
      Oh, how interesting.
      I may use them then. But probably not; usually all my aircraft factories are making tacs, I use ordnance against tanks.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • As a rather old player still (for some reason) utilizing mostly light armor for ground units, dives complement the speed of my attacks well and offer sound counters to heavy armor where my ground troops would otherwise get shredded by them. I do agree it's mostly a mid-late game unit, but it's definitely very useful when one's strategy prioritizes speed over range (hence why I'm kinda bad at using the allied doctrine).

      However, due to their range issue, I'd suggest having some strats (lone groups of them due to speed issue) if you really need that range boost, or rocket fighters to guard your airstrips from enemy strats. Note this is quite late-game stuff, and not really necessary for you to win.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Convince me why I should build attack bombers. I never use them, for these reasons:

      1. Shorter range than tactical bombers, meaning you need more air bases and you spend more time refueling during hops.
      2. Less HP than tactical bombers, meaning they wear out and become ineffective sooner.
      3. Better at killing heavy armor, which is already countered by artillery, a unit everyone starts to build on day 2.
      4. Worse at killing infantry, which has a better AA value, and is harder to kill from the air to begin with.

      I've read posts where people claim to mix bombers to deal with mixed stacks. This to me makes the least amount of sense. You end up with the range of an attack bomber, just to wear out tanks faster. But tanks in mixed stacks are easy to kill. Just hit them with tactical bombers, the infantry take damage, and become even slower. Now the enemy has a mixed stack moving at the speed of wounded infantry. They are sitting ducks for your artillery, don't even need to waste air power on them any more. I love killing mixed stacks this way.

      In summary, I have no use for attack bombers, and I don't understand why people build them.
      I have nothing to argue your points, but

      In my case, I use Air-force as the main component of my entire army until late game (I notice people don't tend upgrade anti air for quite some time in the game) so when I have complete air superiority then why won't I use dive bombers as well it will improve air force capability by far a lot beside I am a rushing player so if enemy is coming with medium tanks from all over the place, I can't waste time to move my arty from there to there and separating them will be really bad idea so the dive bombers will do the work by picking up one by one. After all, essence of time is also important to win the game.
    • Chet Zwe Han wrote:

      In my case, I use Air-force as the main component of my entire army until late game (I notice people don't tend upgrade anti air for quite some time in the game) so when I have complete air superiority then why won't I use dive bombers as well it will improve air force capability by far a lot beside I am a rushing player so if enemy is coming with medium tanks from all over the place, I can't waste time to move my arty from there to there and separating them will be really bad idea so the dive bombers will do the work by picking up one by one. After all, essence of time is also important to win the game.
      It depends on the game, but generally there are better uses for aircraft factories. Aircraft squadrons tend to have comparatively lengthy production times, even more so than ships.
      Kneel before the might of Bangladesh
    • For myself, well I usually have plenty of Rck ART and AC and Militia to counter INF types. I like Attack bombers cause:
      Less upgrades vs TAC
      Better against Naval
      If i've been caught by surprise, its usually by a stack of AC, LT or MT. A stack of INF is slow.
      Its hugely economical when you can find any type of tank running around as they have no AA.
    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Chet Zwe Han wrote:

      In my case, I use Air-force as the main component of my entire army until late game (I notice people don't tend upgrade anti air for quite some time in the game) so when I have complete air superiority then why won't I use dive bombers as well it will improve air force capability by far a lot beside I am a rushing player so if enemy is coming with medium tanks from all over the place, I can't waste time to move my arty from there to there and separating them will be really bad idea so the dive bombers will do the work by picking up one by one. After all, essence of time is also important to win the game.
      It depends on the game, but generally there are better uses for aircraft factories. Aircraft squadrons tend to have comparatively lengthy production times, even more so than ships.
      Yes Correct! production priority comes for Tac bombers and fighters but what i meant was i need to keep doing dive bomber researches. So, when in sudden requirement or no demand in other types i could produced a few out ready to be used against armored units.