Strategic bombers too much hp.

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

    • Strategic bombers too much hp.

      This is using Axis doctrine so numbers might be slightly different (although since hp% and damage% are increase by same amount so it shouldn't matter?):
      A lv 4 strategic bomber has 75 HP and 5.8 attack vs planes
      A lv 3 interceptor has 29 HP and 11.5 attack.
      75/11.5 = 6.5 (round up as it would require an extra attack)
      29/5.8 = 5.
      Interceptors have a bit better ratio on their defense, so it's possible that they'd win if they're just patrolling around each other, but the fact that this is even close is kinda crazy. Either strategic bombers have way too much hp and damage or interceptors way to little hp. Realistically this would not be a close battle between these 2 units irl (or at least I don't believe so), and in general feels bad for game balance.

    • strategic bomber cost signifatly more than a interceptor, also interceptor lvls come earlier.

      Irl american heavy bombers such b17 or b24 were heavily armored with machine guns through all directions, if one fighter fight against a bomber could surely be take down if the pilot were not disciplined
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • In general the costs will be much higher for the strat. I ran 1 vs 1 axis strat vs int in various scenarios and used manpower cost to replace lost HP as a proxy for cost. In all cases the strat loses and it's cost is 1300 MP. Below are the MP costs for the int in different scenarios.

      245 int direct attacks
      860 strat direct attacks
      408 both attack each other
      421 patrol with int ticking first
      465 patrol with strat ticking first

    • While other comments make good points I still think that strategic bombers may be too strong. Fighters IRL were easily able to out maneuver and eviscerate larger planes, as the machine guns were just not effective enough. They usually needed fighter escorts to get past air defenses. I think their damage against planes should be reduced a bit. They literally had no way of taking on say fighters, which could easily stay out of the way of their guns and pelt them.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Iam self also for a little nerv... but I have no Idea which could be good..(hp or damage vs planes were suggested and I know nothing against one of this or both a real little bit... but both would be harder to balance (iam self a little bit more for the dmg. vs planes nerv becouase in the discription its said that they are extrem weak vs planes....).... not too big nerfs....... it's clear that they aren't good vs interceptors... but it's said that they are EXTREM weak... and I dont see that compared to other bombers right now)

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

    • I mean, strategic bombing was heavily used in WW2 so I think it is fine on that front. We also don't strive to resemble reality in every aspect, there are alot more unrealistic things in the game than this (but which are also mostly fine).

      We will take note and probably look into the topic with our next balancing update.

    • DxC wrote:

      245 int direct attacks
      860 strat direct attacks
      408 both attack each other
      421 patrol with int ticking first
      465 patrol with strat ticking first
      Regarding these comparisons, I wasn't necessarily implying that strats' anti air is weak enough or ok as is. Strats probably shouldn't be that competitive vs ints. However, it should be noted that most of the time strats will be outnumbered by ints in a skirmish. As an example, 2 ints attacking 1 strat will lose 134 MP. 1300/134 = 9.7 so that's almost a 10 fold advantage for the ints. Of course, it won't always be 2x vs x, but in terms of resource cost it should normally heavily favor ints. One can build about 3 ints per 2 strats, so in an arms race the relative cost from battle losses (3 ints attacking 2 strats) is about 8.

    • The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers. They also have to stop tactical and attack bombers. Not to mention fighting other interceptors for air superiority. In practice, there just aren't enough interceptors to defend in depth as far as strategic bombers can reach. And not enough manpower to build the kind of defense in width and depth that would be required.

      Others have suggested placing stacks of AA in strategically important cities and provinces. Again, the manpower costs would be exorbitant. Strategic bombers are too dangerous, too tough, and too long ranged to counter effectively.

      One possible solution would be to decrease the manpower costs of slow moving, defensive units like AA and AT guns. That works make it easier to defend a wider front, negating some of the OP advantage that is currently given to air and light armor units. Those kids of formations should be more expensive to operate.

    • It would be nice if there were terrain such as "ultra high altitude" and if strategic bombers and rocket fighters could reach such terrain.

      The fact that fighters can engage strategic bombers without any restrictions is a bit frustrating to begin with.

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

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers. They also have to stop tactical and attack bombers. Not to mention fighting other interceptors for air superiority. In practice, there just aren't enough interceptors to defend in depth as far as strategic bombers can reach. And not enough manpower to build the kind of defense in width and depth that would be required.

      Others have suggested placing stacks of AA in strategically important cities and provinces. Again, the manpower costs would be exorbitant. Strategic bombers are too dangerous, too tough, and too long ranged to counter effectively.

      One possible solution would be to decrease the manpower costs of slow moving, defensive units like AA and AT guns. That works make it easier to defend a wider front, negating some of the OP advantage that is currently given to air and light armor units. Those kids of formations should be more expensive to operate.
      Another idea would be the ability to make static AA defenses in cities. In real life many anti air guns were built in strategic areas and immobile, used only for defense. Tack on a manpower cost to man the guns, and it would make perfect sense to add them.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers. They also have to stop tactical and attack bombers. Not to mention fighting other interceptors for air superiority. In practice, there just aren't enough interceptors to defend in depth as far as strategic bombers can reach. And not enough manpower to build the kind of defense in width and depth that would be required.

      Others have suggested placing stacks of AA in strategically important cities and provinces. Again, the manpower costs would be exorbitant. Strategic bombers are too dangerous, too tough, and too long ranged to counter effectively.

      One possible solution would be to decrease the manpower costs of slow moving, defensive units like AA and AT guns. That works make it easier to defend a wider front, negating some of the OP advantage that is currently given to air and light armor units. Those kids of formations should be more expensive to operate.
      Another idea would be the ability to make static AA defenses in cities. In real life many anti air guns were built in strategic areas and immobile, used only for defense. Tack on a manpower cost to man the guns, and it would make perfect sense to add them.
      With towed ground-based anti-aircraft guns, bullets cannot reach strategic bombers flying at extreme high altitudes.

    • pod_than wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers. They also have to stop tactical and attack bombers. Not to mention fighting other interceptors for air superiority. In practice, there just aren't enough interceptors to defend in depth as far as strategic bombers can reach. And not enough manpower to build the kind of defense in width and depth that would be required.

      Others have suggested placing stacks of AA in strategically important cities and provinces. Again, the manpower costs would be exorbitant. Strategic bombers are too dangerous, too tough, and too long ranged to counter effectively.

      One possible solution would be to decrease the manpower costs of slow moving, defensive units like AA and AT guns. That works make it easier to defend a wider front, negating some of the OP advantage that is currently given to air and light armor units. Those kids of formations should be more expensive to operate.
      Another idea would be the ability to make static AA defenses in cities. In real life many anti air guns were built in strategic areas and immobile, used only for defense. Tack on a manpower cost to man the guns, and it would make perfect sense to add them.
      With towed ground-based anti-aircraft guns, bullets cannot reach strategic bombers flying at extreme high altitudes.
      Well the higher level AA guns are artillery. I’m not sure if guns of that size existed in a towed form but the images and guns stated mod for the description of guns that could reach that high. Not to mention lower level strategic bombers flew lower, which allowed weaker guns to reach them. Of course this doesn’t explain low level guns being able to slightly damage high level SB’s but it’s a game in the end.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Others have suggested placing stacks of AA in strategically important cities and provinces. Again, the manpower costs would be exorbitant.
      To provide a frame of reference I looked at a lvl 1 axis strat bombing a city with a single lvl 1 axis aa. The MP loss ratio is 1300/138 = 9.4. An axis strat vs a weaker allies aa gives 1300/192 = 6.8. Again, I'm not suggesting a change is or isn't needed. This example may not be realistic, but it is a reference point to help think about the topic. I realize putting aa in a lot of cities could get expensive, but it's probably a good tactic on an "as needed" basis.

    • DxC wrote:

      This has probably been mentioned before, but you also have the "zero manpower cost" option of building bunkers in key cities. These will protect both your aa and your buildings making it much more costly for the strats.
      Problem is it takes up time and resources, which takes its own bite out your industry, sort of doing the opposite of what was intended. Of course in certain circumstances it can be useful, but a lot of the time it can be somewhat detrimental.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Bunkers are great, they are very powerful and consequently very expensive.
      They make a lot of sense in front line cities that anticipate a siege.
      However, building bunkers in every strategically important city and province would be far too expensive.

      How about introducing the notion of stealth to strategic bombers?
      That would require higher-level interceptors to reach higher-altitude bombers.
      Bomber HP could go down to compensate for the difficulty of engaging them in combat.
      Regular towed AA would not be able to engage them at all.
      To compensate, we could get a new city+province improvement: fixed, high-caliber flak guns.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Bunkers are great, they are very powerful and consequently very expensive.
      They make a lot of sense in front line cities that anticipate a siege.
      However, building bunkers in every strategically important city and province would be far too expensive.

      How about introducing the notion of stealth to strategic bombers?
      That would require higher-level interceptors to reach higher-altitude bombers.
      Bomber HP could go down to compensate for the difficulty of engaging them in combat.
      Regular towed AA would not be able to engage them at all.
      To compensate, we could get a new city+province improvement: fixed, high-caliber flak guns.
      Splendid idea, I love this!

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Only problem with this is the flood of tickets from confused users who see their provinces getting shredded without seeing any unit doing that :D Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.

      Buildings which deal damage to units are also not supported in the code right now, would also be new feature implementation to allow that.

      We can only have stationary units and could fake some buildings that way, e.g. producing a stationary anti aircraft gun unit, or a unit which can convert into a defense tower. The stationary unit could even receive the structure armor class so that only units good vs structure can fight it well.