Strategic bombers Vs rockets as anti-building specialists

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

    • Strategic bombers Vs rockets as anti-building specialists

      Which is better?
      Well putting anti-army capacity aside....
      One is invincible when launched, fast like lightning, cheaper but only useable once (so I think not really cheap considering potential produced damage with the bombers?)...
      ...the other can be used indefinitely (so very good concerning cost on the long run?) , But is relatively very slow, also is vulnerable to interceptors and other AA units...

      Which do you think is best to destroy buildings ? That includes airports to down enemy planes and/or just bombing enemy cities to cripple production and economy.
    • Kyrollous wrote:

      Which is better?
      Well putting anti-army capacity aside....
      One is invincible when launched, fast like lightning, cheaper but only useable once (so I think not really cheap considering potential produced damage with the bombers?)...
      ...the other can be used indefinitely (so very good concerning cost on the long run?) , But is relatively very slow, also is vulnerable to interceptors and other AA units...

      Which do you think is best to destroy buildings ? That includes airports to down enemy planes and/or just bombing enemy cities to cripple production and economy.
      Both are good ,but depending on situation, if your in a pickle and need some good damage to units and buildings fast get Rockets. But if your just starting to wage war i would mass produce strat's, to use throughout the war, and as i stated before, only really use rockets as anti-builings in emergencies, its better used on troops in large quanities.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • Kyrollous wrote:

      Which is better?
      Well putting anti-army capacity aside....
      One is invincible when launched, fast like lightning, cheaper but only useable once (so I think not really cheap considering potential produced damage with the bombers?)...
      ...the other can be used indefinitely (so very good concerning cost on the long run?) , But is relatively very slow, also is vulnerable to interceptors and other AA units...

      Which do you think is best to destroy buildings ? That includes airports to down enemy planes and/or just bombing enemy cities to cripple production and economy.
      in game there are only 5 important cities for everyone , there are no many valuable target to destroy with strategic bombers
      so If you want to destroy airstrips and attack enemy planes , rockets enough for it
      if you want to destroy enemy cities , also spies can help to destroy enemy buildings too


      interceptor and AA cant stop rockets ,
      you can have rocket fighter and nuclear rocket at the same tech tree
      with nuclear rocket you can destroy big stacks and rocket fighter is very good at air battle
      going rocket is help about gain time at research
      rockets can help to destroy railroad gun stacks and slow enemy speed

      strategic bombers are very slow and there is no way to destroy many buildings before your enemy wake up
      you need to research another tech tree and will lose time



      yes you can finish game for enemy with destroying 5 enemy cities
      but for example you are at europe and enemy at east asia
      carriers cant carry strats , probably your strat bombers wont have enough range until 22 day
      so you need other units to fight

      need many strat bombers to destroy enemy cities , it is not useful , you will spend a lot of resource to here


      I think produce rockets to destroy airstrips more useful strategy dont need to focus enemy cities along all game
      after spy reports , attacking to enemy airstrip with rockets and planes will help more
    • Fox-Company wrote:

      Kyrollous wrote:

      Which is better?
      Well putting anti-army capacity aside....
      One is invincible when launched, fast like lightning, cheaper but only useable once (so I think not really cheap considering potential produced damage with the bombers?)...
      ...the other can be used indefinitely (so very good concerning cost on the long run?) , But is relatively very slow, also is vulnerable to interceptors and other AA units...

      Which do you think is best to destroy buildings ? That includes airports to down enemy planes and/or just bombing enemy cities to cripple production and economy.
      Both are good ,but depending on situation, if your in a pickle and need some good damage to units and buildings fast get Rockets. But if your just starting to wage war i would mass produce strat's, to use throughout the war, and as i stated before, only really use rockets as anti-builings in emergencies, its better used on troops in large quanities.
      what happened to LT tank spam strategy ?
    • Undaunted wrote:

      Fox-Company wrote:

      Kyrollous wrote:

      Which is better?
      Well putting anti-army capacity aside....
      One is invincible when launched, fast like lightning, cheaper but only useable once (so I think not really cheap considering potential produced damage with the bombers?)...
      ...the other can be used indefinitely (so very good concerning cost on the long run?) , But is relatively very slow, also is vulnerable to interceptors and other AA units...

      Which do you think is best to destroy buildings ? That includes airports to down enemy planes and/or just bombing enemy cities to cripple production and economy.
      Both are good ,but depending on situation, if your in a pickle and need some good damage to units and buildings fast get Rockets. But if your just starting to wage war i would mass produce strat's, to use throughout the war, and as i stated before, only really use rockets as anti-builings in emergencies, its better used on troops in large quanities.
      what happened to LT tank spam strategy ?
      There was a time before even the great LTS.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • Definitely not rockets, but I think investing in strats is also a bit questionable, when you could use that time and those resources to make more TACs, for example. With TACs you can at least take out the troops in the city then bomb or patrol the city to destroy buildings without taking damage.
    • DxC wrote:

      Definitely not rockets, but I think investing in strats is also a bit questionable, when you could use that time and those resources to make more TACs, for example. With TACs you can at least take out the troops in the city then bomb or patrol the city to destroy buildings without taking damage.
      aircraft carrier + tac bombers can do it , dont need to wait for strats
    • Undaunted wrote:

      DxC wrote:

      Definitely not rockets, but I think investing in strats is also a bit questionable, when you could use that time and those resources to make more TACs, for example. With TACs you can at least take out the troops in the city then bomb or patrol the city to destroy buildings without taking damage.
      aircraft carrier + tac bombers can do it , dont need to wait for strats
      can an aircraft carrier to go the middle of the USA or into Russia or the inland of China? ACC+Tac cant fix everything
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • Fox-Company wrote:

      Undaunted wrote:

      DxC wrote:

      Definitely not rockets, but I think investing in strats is also a bit questionable, when you could use that time and those resources to make more TACs, for example. With TACs you can at least take out the troops in the city then bomb or patrol the city to destroy buildings without taking damage.
      aircraft carrier + tac bombers can do it , dont need to wait for strats
      can an aircraft carrier to go the middle of the USA or into Russia or the inland of China? ACC+Tac cant fix everything
      If you are playing with allies doctrine yes

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

    • I think I like strats better,

      -you can "scout" before attacking (patrol), if heavily defended scout another target.
      -you can manoeuvre by patrolling over sea or friendly area so you can fly far unnoticed. If not intercepted or little resistance, can be reused.
      -longer range
      -no secret lab required if you dont use it in your strategy

      -Rockets have their uses, but yeah this fire and forget thing is difficult as calvinist.
    • My opinion there is no need for rockets, neither atomic stuff!
      I don't build normally Strats because there is no enemy that it would be for use.
      I there is on Strats and if there are Interceptors just destroy there airfields and convoy through partol.

      High health and range speak for them and they lure interceptors onto the field! After you destoyed them your path is clear for Airforce!