Escorted bombers shoot down a lot of defending fighters ? I for one am shocked, shocked to learn that this is happening.
Strategic Bombing - overpowered?
- Thread starter xb.
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Escorted bombers shoot down a lot of defending fighters ? I for one am shocked, shocked to learn that this is happening.
It doesn't matter what upgrades you make to fighters they will get annihilated by ESCORTED strat bombers. Strat bombers are still the problem because when escorted they gain unassailable air superiority, which is obviously unbalanced.
As you are unable to send strat bombers on missions over your own territory you are unable to use your own escorted strat bombers to engage them. So you in turn attempt to use your strat bombers over the enemy's bases in a bid to destroy the airports, they will, in turn, do the same to yours.
This means its a dice roll as to who will win, as you are unable to contest escorted strat bombers with fighters over your own territory. Obviously this is NOT historical. and alo utterly unacceptable from a MP game prospective.
indeed. It is utterly stupid, in singleplayer its not really important. In MP its obviously game breaking.
I might be a bit late to the party, but what is the problem with using H-FGT against (unescorted) enemy STR?
If they are escorted, I'd assume that enough FGT on the defending side would still ensure that you intercept the majority of the planes?
If they are escorted, I'd assume that enough FGT on the defending side would still ensure that you intercept the majority of the planes?
I have seen lvl 5 AAA murder hundreds of enemy TAC and STR per week in some games, so I am not sure if that statement is entirely accurate.
You completely ignored the part that fighters with upgraded guns while taking heavier losses also shoots down more enemies (it's the relation of kills/losses compared to IC that matters, not the number of aircraft).
It's all a question of IC over time. Fighters with upgraded guns shoot down more IC in Strats (even escorted ones) than their cost in IC. And no their bases and the IC isn't bombed away as long as you keep the disruption levels to some healthy number (you need a lot of aircraft in any case).
Add to that that repairing IC and INFRA doesn't have an IC-cost associated with it. It's essentially free (even though you lose the damaged structures for the repair-duration) while building new STRATs isn't.
If you haven't built up airbases, radar and AAA in your IC-heavy zones to field aircraft and protect said zones vs Strategic bombing then you're out of luck when said bombers arrive. You just can't neglect that part just like you can't neglect invasion-defenses, reserves, airbase defenses etc against a skilled human opponent.
And there are other ways of mitigating Strat bombers in addition to just protection. Heavy fighters and counter-bombing works wonders and is very efficient combined with adequate fighter, radar and AAA on the defensive home-front.
Unopposed Strats will wreck havoc. Properly opposed STRATs is a net IC-loss for the attacker (but can still be an efficient tactic for the US or other emergent IC monsters). It's also a question of where you chose to build your IC, Refineries etc. You need to think in air-zones first and INFRA bonuses second (just like you check the supply-zones in relation to air-zones when doing ground offensives).
Now I'm not saying that stuff cannot be improved, especially to get rid of some micro intensive stuff and in regard to conveying information to the player but STRATs are very expensive and that's where the balance is. Or w might as well start complaining that CVs are OP compared to Destroyers.
My only major concern (other than whack-a-mole tendencies) is the superiority-thing. For best results vs escorted bombers you don't want your fighters running anything except interception in the strategic target-zones. With STRAT power and escorts that'll mean you'll lose air-superiority which is pretty shitty if the enemy chooses to combine their operations with ground operations. It's a bit of a cheapshot to throw in a bunch of STRATs over an area to create encirclements. Sure the attacker will "pay" in the form of shot up INFRA and eventually bad supply but it's probably not working as intended (even though there's some form of historical uses possible, immersion-wise).
Last edited:
escort fighters were usually bigger fighters until drop tanks were a thing. so they fared more badly in fight with attacking fighters. also many missions werent escorted to their destination and had to fend for them selfs against fighter force. thing is, if you want to shot down bomber, you have to fly against it, that means flying against its weapons directly.
And can you drop your tone a bit?
Alright so to Test the AA theory.
Bomber: 2k Strats w/ Strat Designer & +5 Bombing and Strategic Destruction (Right Side) fully researched
No radar
Bombee: Full Radar Coverage, 50 AA Guns
It takes 325 strats to disable all AA Guns
https://prnt.sc/h85bsb
Bomber: 2k Strats w/ Strat Designer & +5 Bombing and Strategic Destruction (Right Side) fully researched
No radar
Bombee: Full Radar Coverage, 50 AA Guns
It takes 325 strats to disable all AA Guns
https://prnt.sc/h85bsb
Would that be 1944 bombers? Because that's a whooping 20.800 IC lost for the attacker while the defender gets to build up those bombed buildings for no cost other than time (repairs).
The way STRAT bombing is implemented you're trading MIC for enemy CIC and MIC-days. The defender could have afforded losing up to 742 fighters in the same zone without them shooting down a single bomber (highly unlikely though) and still been ahead in terms of MIC cost/loss.
The great thing with AAA is that it only costs CIC and no resources, and once built they simply regenerate if they're bombed. It won't stop bombing on it's own (and neither it should) but as an augmentation to Fighters or HFs it's great.
Once the AA is destroyed, the bombers don't stop the bombing, you lose all the factories in the area as well, as you can see from the screenshot. The AA cant repair properly because it just keeps getting bombed.
These were strat 2s (1939)
Well AAA stopping bombers on their own would just be silly. I don't really see the problem. You apparently gave the attacker way more than 2000 bombers as 325 are already shot down and there's still 2000 bombers flying missions. You normally can't keep a strategic bombing-campaign up and running for any period of time with losses such as those (and that's without any fighter opposition). How long time did it take? It's also an important factor.
One does not stop building planes once you start them on a mission..... so they air wing reinforces, as it would in a MP game. This was in answer to the developer who claimed that he had seen AA kill "hundreds of strat bombers in a day"
This also proves that AA is not an effective counter to Strats.
yea, provincial AA is very underpowered. should be about twice as strong if you ask me. other than that, now throw in 2k of same level fighters.
also its not nice of you to reinforce the unit once it looses its strength. very unscientific method.
Why the hell would you not reinforce the air wing?
When you are playing the game do you just stop building planes once you reach a certain number? Do you actually think that is what people do? Do you think people fly understrength air wings when the can reinforce them? The fact that you would even bring such a question up goes again to my point about the meta gap between online players and single players.
AAA alone isn't an effective counter no (and it shouldn't be in the time-period we're discussing), as an augmentation to fighters they're great though.
Regarding the building of aircraft. Of course you don't stop the production but if losses are greater than production you'll soon be in a deficit and that's where stuff becomes important. Thus if the time it took to lose those 352 bombers is shorter than the time in whichever number of factories (that you can sacrifice for building them) can produce planes you're on a sliding slope. Losses over time is important because if the number of bombers drop they'll become less and less efficient due to air-combat and disruption.
If the amount of IC the attacker can spend on STRATs is lower than the amount of IC the defender can spend on fighters to counter them it's a loss.
For strategic bombing to be truly effective you have to keep the attacks up for a long period of time and you need the IC to spare to do it (otherwise you're better off building fighters and CAS or tanks or whatnot).
There's always an element of risk to it. The most common situation is the US and/or UK basically sacrificing MIC to slow German IC, it's a trade that CAN result in success (if you can get a strategic advantage with you STRATs or it can be an IC-sink if the Axis have enough Fighters, Radar and AAA to counter it). Basically rock-paper-scissors(lizard-spock).
That's the balance in question and that's the important part in the discussion on whether strats are OP or not.
Last edited:
when you are playing game, you would also reinforce bombed region with fighters, would you.
It's pretty linear in the current public version though. The defender actually needs a decent numerical superiority to get meaningful disruption-percentages. If the attacker can stack enough fighters on-top of the STRAT-campaign it quickly turns ugly. It's not impossible to defend against but it take a lot more than I believe most players are aware of (and thus they get caught with their pants down in MP, and the AI is just cannon-fodder in that regard). We're talking 2-3000k STRATs and as many fighters attacking and the defender thus needs 10-12k fighters and HFs to spend on homeland bomber-defense. If you can just spare 4000k fighters for defense and the enemy brings 3000k STRATs and 1000 fighters you're done for.
If you smell a STRAT player in MP you need to dedicate thousands of IC on producing aircraft for home-defense and building up radar, airport capacity and AAA beforehand. Once those STRATs start flying in numbers it's too late and that's part of what I believe are peoples biggest concern. It's basically a leap of faith if you don't prep 100% for it and use that IC to build more tanks or something else instead to get an edge in some other theater.
Last edited:
There were some numbers earlier about how much production it cost to build the strategic bombers. Max industry efficiency with focus that gave a cost reduction plus the continuous focus that have a further reduction, and 15 factories produced 3 bombers/day building str3s.
With 325 losses that's 100ish days of production for 15 factories.
With str2s and earlier industry tech limiting max output then what is it? 150 days of production to make up 325 losses?
And how long did it take to destroy the AA guns?
With 325 losses that's 100ish days of production for 15 factories.
With str2s and earlier industry tech limiting max output then what is it? 150 days of production to make up 325 losses?
And how long did it take to destroy the AA guns?
Alright lets keep testing
Both sides radar
Bomber: 2k Strat (1939 +5 bombing, Strat designer company) 5k Fighter (1944 +5 Engine). Strategic Destruction air doctrine right side
Bombee: 4114 Heavy Fighter (1939 +5 Gun) 5k Fighter (1944 +5 Engine). Operational Integrity researched
Bombee has construction repair national focus
Bombee has 10 AA
1:00 15th April 1936 - 22:00 8th Nov, 1937
Here are the results
https://prnt.sc/h864xg
Estimation for bomee IC loos as heavey fighetera and light fighters are shownsas the same entity 300 000
IC loss for bomber: 136 732
Most others in the MP community think im wasting my time trying to convince you people, in fact they think its funny that im even trying, This will probably be my last post here. If you guys think that you can beat escorted strat bombers come play MP with us, we will happily unban them for a game or 2 and have a laugh.
Both sides radar
Bomber: 2k Strat (1939 +5 bombing, Strat designer company) 5k Fighter (1944 +5 Engine). Strategic Destruction air doctrine right side
Bombee: 4114 Heavy Fighter (1939 +5 Gun) 5k Fighter (1944 +5 Engine). Operational Integrity researched
Bombee has construction repair national focus
Bombee has 10 AA
1:00 15th April 1936 - 22:00 8th Nov, 1937
Here are the results
https://prnt.sc/h864xg
Estimation for bomee IC loos as heavey fighetera and light fighters are shownsas the same entity 300 000
IC loss for bomber: 136 732
Most others in the MP community think im wasting my time trying to convince you people, in fact they think its funny that im even trying, This will probably be my last post here. If you guys think that you can beat escorted strat bombers come play MP with us, we will happily unban them for a game or 2 and have a laugh.