Are Strat. Bombers still banned in MP? Why if so?

[Sid Meier]

In a few weeks my MP grand campaign will be converting from Victoria II to Hoi4, some of our players who claim Hoi4 MP experience are suggested very strongly that we should just ban Strategic bombers; that nerfing them via modding would just "make them worthless" so banning them is just "simpler".

I've been googling around the forums and reddit, most information on banning them for MP seems to be older than a year.

I did see this video:

which seemed "scary" about the alleged OP'ness of Strat bombers... But the UK player seemed to have over 5,000 of them though? I don't know enough about the context of the game in that video to know how it relates to other discussions I've seen/been reading.

How have "balance" mods attempted to address the issue? Has there been any success there?

 

[Louella]

it depends mostly on the kind of multiplayer game you want to play, and how strongly your group can adhere to voluntary house rules.

strategic bombers can be extremely strong, especially when you're using 5000 of them (the UK historically never really managed to field more than 1000 strategic bombers at maximum effort).

but in the current mechanics, submarines and light cruisers are considered the only naval units worth building. And that whole 40 width divisions thing for land warfare.

 

[Sid Meier]

I think ideally we want a "holistic" game that adhere's to a vanilla-esque "historical" and intuitive sense of fighting World War II (albeit with completely random borders from 1,200 years of alternate history starting from CK2).

So I think our goal is we'd like to ban only the worst most excessive "race to the bottom" exploits; there's no 1936 road to war and the actual war probably starts 1 year into the game.

Essentially our game isn't a hypercompetitive game where it comes down to whoever has the most indepth knowledge of the games mechanics; the winner should be about which alliance/faction cooperated well and militarily performs the best in winning battles and controlling the sea and so on and not about, "Creating perfect 40 width medium tank divisions".

 

[Fulmen]

Strats have been perfectly counterable for several years now. This is another one of those silly legacy rules that still persists. Strats were broken back when you could ping-pong level everything in any state in range at the snap of your fingers and there was nothing the other side could do about it. That's no longer the case. Yes, spamming state AA and (heavy) fighters to counter them is a big investment, but it's an even bigger investment for the side that spams strats, only to find them neutered against targets of value. Imagine the opportunity cost there.

 

[Vin55]

I would ban those and subs 3 or at least 4, the screening for them with a snorckel is nearly impossible and no navy in the world is big enough to screen in each tile. Also paratroopers are worth it to lock into. If you dont play against or with that you might not counter it in time. Also make some rules about expansion pre world war, eg Italy can take yugoslavia in 38 or Greece before WW2 starts stuff like that. The last thing you might want to add is a rule about volunteers, eg Soviets in China how many and what technology and so on.

 

[Sid Meier]

I would ban those and subs 3 or at least 4, the screening for them with a snorckel is nearly impossible and no navy in the world is big enough to screen in each tile. Also paratroopers are worth it to lock into. If you dont play against or with that you might not counter it in time. Also make some rules about expansion pre world war, eg Italy can take yugoslavia in 38 or Greece before WW2 starts stuff like that. The last thing you might want to add is a rule about volunteers, eg Soviets in China how many and what technology and so on.

As I mentioned, this is a game converting from Victoria II. The borders and nations are completely different so this is largely irrelevant.

 

[Vin55]

It was just meant as an idea on how one might lay out the rules, as I dont have an idea how your world would look like, so as to put it into perspection. But strat bomber with concentrated industry and no airforce are really bad ^^ (you can destroy much of your enemies economy and no one goes heavy fighter they are very expensive).

 

[Fulmen]

I would ban those and subs 3 or at least 4, the screening for them with a snorckel is nearly impossible and no navy in the world is big enough to screen in each tile. Also paratroopers are worth it to lock into. If you dont play against or with that you might not counter it in time. Also make some rules about expansion pre world war, eg Italy can take yugoslavia in 38 or Greece before WW2 starts stuff like that. The last thing you might want to add is a rule about volunteers, eg Soviets in China how many and what technology and so on.

SS 3s at least are counterable with proper use of spotting and ASW and SS 4s should be banned until 43'ish with anti-tech rushing rules anyway.

 

[Happy Trigger]

SS 3s at least are counterable with proper use of spotting and ASW and SS 4s should be banned until 43'ish with anti-tech rushing rules anyway.

Indead, SS3 are counterable, but i believe that should exist a better mechanic in game to prevent tech-rush despite the increasing in time. It's too easy to rush anything if you have the bonuses. Maybe some techs should require exp, or you get a debuff on time needed.

 

[Happy Trigger]

Strats have been perfectly counterable for several years now. This is another one of those silly legacy rules that still persists. Strats were broken back when you could ping-pong level everything in any state in range at the snap of your fingers and there was nothing the other side could do about it. That's no longer the case. Yes, spamming state AA and (heavy) fighters to counter them is a big investment, but it's an even bigger investment for the side that spams strats, only to find them neutered against targets of value. Imagine the opportunity cost there.

The only thing that i don't like in Strats is that you can't counter them with normal fighters. They simple aren't able to deal enough damage to destroy them, while they die against the bomber defenses.

 

[Happy Trigger]

I would ban those and subs 3 or at least 4, the screening for them with a snorckel is nearly impossible and no navy in the world is big enough to screen in each tile. Also paratroopers are worth it to lock into. If you dont play against or with that you might not counter it in time. Also make some rules about expansion pre world war, eg Italy can take yugoslavia in 38 or Greece before WW2 starts stuff like that. The last thing you might want to add is a rule about volunteers, eg Soviets in China how many and what technology and so on.

You can easily counter subs with NAVs and TACs. It's because people neglect them, that they suffer so much to protect their convoys. UK players suffers even more than Japaneses, because normally Japan focused on TACs early on and keep producing them the entire game. While UK only build fighters.

 

[Vin55]

Japan can use planes to cover sea tiles, u can use them to kill off subs very easily, you dont even need naval bombers just close air support, but yeah I mean most players will just ignore any naval tech, by no all major nations should have 4 starting slots and 6 in total end game (7for US).

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

Because they are broken. Because Paradox STIL have not fixed obvious exploit

 

[Sid Meier]

On a related note, do mp games ban mines?

It was just meant as an idea on how one might lay out the rules, as I dont have an idea how your world would look like, so as to put it into perspection. But strat bomber with concentrated industry and no airforce are really bad ^^ (you can destroy much of your enemies economy and no one goes heavy fighter they are very expensive).

Its more that in our game we basically have it that everyone is drafted/assigned to a faction and then the war starts whenever after a 1 year truce is expired.

 

[Fulmen]

On a related note, do mp games ban mines?

Many games do, but IMO those are lower quality games. There needs to be rules governing them so that they're not laid everywhere, like along the coasts of then-neutral future opponents (e.g. the UK laying Japan's coasts full of mines in 1940), but outright banning them is stupid as it's just taking away another element of strategy, making the game more predictable, boring and unrealistic. There have also been claims of large amounts of mines causing lag, but it feels like a lot of this is just hearsay, and I've never seen it myself.

 

[Squating like a slav]

The main reason why strats are banned in most multi servers is that you have to counter them specifically you have to build hv fighters or state aa and if you don't do these counters you can end a game cuz u have a new zeeland with 12 mills on strat bombers. I believe that it Strat bombers are mostly banned due to they can be potentially game-ending so people just ban them than risk them ruining a game.

 

[Forster]

You keep saying your mega-campaign countries don't look like the HOI4 countries. I am curious, could you post some pics of your maps?

 

[Sid Meier]

You keep saying your mega-campaign countries don't look like the HOI4 countries. I am curious, could you post some pics of your maps?

You asked for it!

 

[Secret Master]

Many games do, but IMO those are lower quality games. There needs to be rules governing them so that they're not laid everywhere, like along the coasts of then-neutral future opponents (e.g. the UK laying Japan's coasts full of mines in 1940), but outright banning them is stupid as it's just taking away another element of strategy, making the game more predictable, boring and unrealistic. There have also been claims of large amounts of mines causing lag, but it feels like a lot of this is just hearsay, and I've never seen it myself.

We probably have some decent rules in place now, but it took some time to get them right.

Once you know that minesweepers can protect other ships in the fleet they are with even without actually running a minesweeping mission and getting rid of the mines, you can counter a minelaying strategy.

However, against the unprepared, spamming mines can create hilarious situations. Like the time I sank 25% of the Regia Marina with mines because they didn't realize I could mine a sea zone to 1000 mines in 30 days.

The only thing that i don't like in Strats is that you can't counter them with normal fighters. They simple aren't able to deal enough damage to destroy them, while they die against the bomber defenses.

No. It is possible to design a light fighter that trades favorably with strategic bombers in terms of research and IC costs.

Here are some links to tests I did a couple of years ago when it was harder to defeat STRs than it is now.

Rocket interceptor II, with +5 to range, still gets a -15% penalty to mission efficiency due to lack of range when trying to defend Berlin.

With +5 to Range and +5 to Reliability, they still have 50% reliability. They use 1 more aluminum than Jet I. They cost 18, versus the 30 cost for Jet I and the 28 cost for 1944 light fighter. To research Rocket Interceptor II, you need to push past 1944 rockets to 1945 rockets, while jets require 1944 rockets, jet engines, then the jet tech itself.

Rocket Interceptor II (base model) does have an air attack of 56, placing it well ahead of Jet I, 1944 light fighter, and slightly ahead of 1944 Heavy Fighter. It is much faster than 1944 Light Fighter and Heavy Fighter, and slightly faster than Jet I. Never forget that speed also affects air to air combat, not just agility.

Let's test their performance against unescorted bombers and escorted bombers. We will test Rocket Interceptor IIs, Jet I, 1944 Heavy and Light Fighters, versus unescorted 1944 Heavy Bombers and 1944 Light Fighters as escorts. I will use 500 STRs (for a total IC cost of 32,000) versus an equal IC cost of rockets (1777), jets (1066), light fighters (1142), and heavy fighters (1000).

For this test, since we aren't trying to measure bomber performance, we will use "final form" fighters. That is, the fighters will have all upgrades I think they should have regardless of the XP cost. The fighters will get their appropriate design company: light fighters get the light fighter one, the heavy fighters get theirs. No design company affects rockets or jets. The bombers and escorts get 100% of the Strategic Destruction tree filled out, the defenders get 100% of the Operational Integrity. We will have the bombers fly from Britain to the Ruhr valley, with the Germans defending. Both sides get maximum RADAR to aid in detection (these are all late war techs, so all these goodies make sense).

View attachment 395207

Rocket Interceptor IIs get +5 engine, +5 range, and +5 reliability. I don't increase their guns, because their reliability starts out so poor that if it gets much lower, they will just catch on fire upon take off.

View attachment 395208

The Jets get +5 engine, +1 guns, +4 range, and +5 reliability.

View attachment 395209
The light fighters get +5 engines, +1 guns, +1 range, +3 reliability

View attachment 395211

The heavy fighters get +5 engines, +5 guns, and +3 reliability (remember, the medium aircraft designer gives them increased reliability, so I don't need as much on the plane if I boost guns all the way.)

From these screnshots, it's clear that jets are catching up to rocket interceptors in terms of speed, are better at agility and range. Heavy fighters have far better air attack than the rockets, but lose in terms of speed and agility. The light fighters dominate agility, but don't have the firepower or speed of the rockets.

Against unescorted bombers, for 30 days, here's what it looks like with rockets:

View attachment 395213

No buildings lost, 232 rockets dead from both enemy fire and accidents (4176 IC) versus 121 STRs dead to enemy fire (no AA in the state, 7744 IC dead). Not bad at all. Note, though, that rockets can only run interception. They cannot provide air superiority at all.

Against jets:

View attachment 395214
0.5 buildings were hit by the STRs. (That's practically nothing, though.) 101 jets lost to all causes (3030 IC) versus 63 STRs lost to enemy fire (4032). Jets win against unescorted bombers, but they are far less IC efficient than the rockets.

Against Heavy Fighters:

View attachment 395215
1.1 buildings were damaged by the bombers (again, this is practically nothing). Heavy fighters lost 84 planes to all causes (2688 IC), while the STRs lost 115 (7360). Despite some minor bomb damage, the heavy fighters performed really well, beating rockets and jets.

Against Light Fighters:

View attachment 395217

1.0 buildings damaged (again, that's practically nothing). The light fighters lost 94 planes to all causes (2632 IC) versus 70 bombers lost to enemy fire (4480 IC).

With these results, it's clear that Heavy Fighters are winning. Jets are the big losers here, with light fighters and rocket interceptors having comparable performance. Note that if we increased the guns on the rockets (say to +5), their number of bombers killed should go up, but their reliability drops to 25%. This could potentially double their accident losses, not necessarily giving them that much of an increase to their ratio. It's worth pointing out that the reliability increase for the Heavy Fighters from their design company really shines here, as adding guns is no big deal for them.

But what about escorted bombers? This is where things get ugly for, well, everyone. We'll give the RAF 500 escorting fighters. This should make the defenders perform much worse.

Against Rockets, this is what happens:

View attachment 395219

The bombers only did 0.6 bomb damage to buildings, which is practically nothing. The rockets lost 450 planes to all causes (8100 IC) and shot down 119 fighters (3332 IC) and 60 bombers (3840 IC). That's much worse than earlier, and is no surprise. The Mustangs are basically killing them indiscriminately, while the bombers get their share.

Against Jets:

View attachment 395220

The bombers did 2.7 building damage (worse, but not too serious). The jets lost 218 planes to all causes (6540 IC lost) to 172 escorts (4816 IC) and 31 STRs (1984 IC).

Against Heavy Fighters:

View attachment 395221
4.8 buildings damaged (that might cause concern given the fact that heavy fighters are involved and it's their damn job to stop these bombers). 188 heavy fighters lost to all causes (6016 IC) with 71 escorting fighters lost to enemy fire (1988 IC) and 53 STRs lost to enemy fire (3392 IC).

Against light fighters:

View attachment 395223
3.3 buildings damaged by the bombers. 192 light fighters lost to all causes (5376 IC) versus 177 escorting planes shot down (4956 IC) and 27 STRs killed (1728 IC).

I clicked post early, so here's a second post with my conclusions.

1) As I've said before, numbers matter when intercepting bombers. More planes in the sky mean more chances to disrupt bombing. This is why rocket interceptors seem to be the best at preventing bomb damage: the sheer number you can build per IC makes it easier for them to disrupt bombers even when they are escorted.

2) Against unescorted bombers, heavy fighters win hands down. This is not a surprise. Even if you were willing to accept 25% reliability on the rocket interceptors, I'm not sure their ratio would be better than heavy fighters thanks to more planes lost to accidents. Note, though, that the rockets killed more unescorted bombers overall than the heavy fighters. It's just that the rockets lost a lot more planes, while the heavy fighters returned to fight again.

3) Against escorted bombers, things get dicey. The performance against the bombers is far closer in terms of IC cost in this round than it was last time. Rockets get a 0.88 IC-kill ratio against the RAF. Jets get a 0.73 kill ratio against the RAF and kill fewer STRs. Heavy Fighters got a 0.89 IC-Kill ratio. And Light fighters come out on top with a 1.24 IC-kill ratio. This makes it look like light fighters win 100%...

4) ... but these numbers hide dark secrets. The Light Fighters win overall, but they aren't killing as many bombers per month. They win, because they can dogfight with the escorts. The bombers themselves live to fight another day. If you care about killing bombers, rockets killed twice as many bombers, while heavy fighters also did far better. It's just that the rockets and heavy fighters do so much worse against the escorting fighters.

5) These tests indicate the importance of speed when intercepting bombers. Air to air combat mechanics have bonuses for agility and speed, but the bombers have such poor agility that the fighters always cap out. But speed is another beast entirely. The rockets seem to be using their speed advantage to get past escorting planes and hit bombers, while the heavy fighters just kill bombers more efficiently when they actually get to them.

6) These tests really showcase the poor performance of first tier jets. They can't beat 1944 light fighters in dogfights, they can't compete with heavy fighters or rockets against bombers, and they can't slip past escorts to hit bombers like rockets seem to be able to do. The only advantage they seem to have over rockets is that the jets can run air superiority, while the rockets can only sit there and do nothing on intercept.

7) These tests really confirm what I've been advocating a long time in vanilla HOI4. Light fighters, as long as they are designed properly, are king in Europe. They need a bit of gun upgrades to deal with bombers, but they win in situations that matter. There are specialized planes that do better in specialized situations, but none can match the light fighter in terms of whatever needs doing. While not as good as the heavy fighter against unescorted bombers, they did just fine getting a good kill ratio, and did well even compared to the rocket interceptor. Against escorted bombers, they did the best. They can run air superiority, unlike rockets. They have comparable range to jets, and while not as fast, they still beat jets in all ways that matter. The heavy fighter owns the light fighter against unescorted bombers, but if enemy light fighters appear, the heavy fighter faces difficulty (or it has to be designed with less guns so it can dogfight, but then it loses performance against bombers).

Short version: While they are not as good at shooting down unescorted strategic bombers as heavy fighters or rocket interceptors, they can perform the role adequately. But when the bombers are escorted by light fighters, light fighters are a better choice than heavy fighters, because the light fighters are good at dogfighting in ways heavy fighters are not.

Note that these tests do not even factor in static AA. In the current version of the game, static AA in states can do some damage themselves on top of defending planes.

The days of strategic bombers being better at shooting down fighters than other fighters is long over.

Special note: I've done other tests in the years since this one, and I will say that upping guns to +3 can result in even better performance of light fighters against bombers and other fighters.

Another special note: That test was done back when there was no fuel, so the rockets and jets had an advantage then that they don't have now.

 

[Sid Meier]

We probably have some decent rules in place now, but it took some time to get them right.

Once you know that minesweepers can protect other ships in the fleet they are with even without actually running a minesweeping mission and getting rid of the mines, you can counter a minelaying strategy.

However, against the unprepared, spamming mines can create hilarious situations. Like the time I sank 25% of the Regia Marina with mines because they didn't realize I could mine a sea zone to 1000 mines in 30 days.



No. It is possible to design a light fighter that trades favorably with strategic bombers in terms of research and IC costs.

Here are some links to tests I did a couple of years ago when it was harder to defeat STRs than it is now.






Short version: While they are not as good at shooting down unescorted strategic bombers as heavy fighters or rocket interceptors, they can perform the role adequately. But when the bombers are escorted by light fighters, light fighters are a better choice than heavy fighters, because the light fighters are good at dogfighting in ways heavy fighters are not.

Note that these tests do not even factor in static AA. In the current version of the game, static AA in states can do some damage themselves on top of defending planes.

The days of strategic bombers being better at shooting down fighters than other fighters is long over.

Special note: I've done other tests in the years since this one, and I will say that upping guns to +3 can result in even better performance of light fighters against bombers and other fighters.

Another special note: That test was done back when there was no fuel, so the rockets and jets had an advantage then that they don't have now.

Hey any chance can you look at this image and contextualize it for me?:

One of the players in the game I'm in arguing for banning Strategic Bombers put up this image as "proof", what am I looking at, what is the problem are they claiming, and if they are presenting something without proper context, what's the context that mitigates this?


It also seems like, the reason to ban strategic bombers also comes from a position where Axis/Allies mp relies on having Romania and shit specializing their nations to only outputting bombers/fighters etc hence 5k bombers in 1942 (or the US/UK ONLY spamming strats?). This seems like a toxic way of playing mp, I think nations in general should do whats fun, not what is "essential" to winning, howdo you solve that?