Strategic Bombing - overpowered?

[yamato2cz]

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.

why are you using 1939 bombers and 1939 heavy fighters when you use 1944 fighters? Also where is full AA coverage? only 10 AAs per 10 states. make it 50, make everything 1944 with no upgrades and dont reinforce ANY unit, be it defending or attacking side. why are you intentionaly chosing conditions favorable for your argument rather than general conditions? also if im not mistaken, heavy fighters can easily come from other zones rather than staying on bombed airfields thus reducing their effeciency massively. not talking about disparity between 1939 heavy fighter and 1944 fighter defending bombers. (heavy fighters wont get to bombers at all because fighters 1944 will get to them first due to their speed and send them home.

Lastly, you are wasting time, if you make experiments that favor your side.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Here are the results

I really like how you intentionally put all the defending fighters in the same airzone so they for 99% of the test duration operate at 0% efficiency out of size 0 airbases. And also how you didn't improve any airbases and stacked them intentionally with zero headroom so any miniscule damage will start reducing their efficiency.

Congratulations, you just proved that fighters lose if they try to fight from damaged or size 0 airbases...

It doesn't have anything at all to do with the argument though.

 

[Alex_brunius]

BECAUSE THEY GOT BOMBED THAT IS PART OF THE GOD DAMN PROBLEM

My god

So part of the problem is that the defending side let their fighters sit in bombed out airbases and fight for 4 months strait and fight at 0% efficiency instead of actually doing something about it?
( rebasing, repairing airbases, basing in 5 different airzones or larger airbases )

But the one bombing has no problems changing mission every 4 hours?

MY GOD.

 

[yamato2cz]

why you didnt reply to my point? is it because you cannot say anything to refute them? also, its legit argument that you could move planes for defense to other air zones and send planes from there. as i already said, its even more reasonable for heavy fighters with their better range. And did you set ALL defending planes for bomber hunting or only heavy fighters? and i said before, attacking planes will tie defending heavy fighters before they are able to intercept strategic bombers due to how air combat works. if you were to put 10k defending fighters + 50 AA guns vs 2k strats and 5k fighters and strats would still win by land slide, id accept your point. so far you are only evading it.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Anyone claiming that escorted strat bombers in vanilla can be counted by Heavy Fighters or Fighter 3s with upgraded guns, is, to be honest, someone who plays mostly singleplayer or just plays non-discord all welcome games.

I do agree with you that Heavy Fighters perform bad versus bombers properly escorted with light fighters. Especially if we are talking 1944 models. This is why I said that you should use Light Fighters with upgraded guns instead.

As I and Secret master already showed light fighters with upgrades in both engines and guns are better then +5 engine only light fighters, and they can do good damage against strategic bombers.


Make a proper test with +5 engine +5 gun only light fighters not in stacked airbases but properly spread out and they will easily win over any combination of strats and +5 fighters on the other side worth the same industry that you can throw at them.

 

[Marcus Arulius]

why are you using 1939 bombers and 1939 heavy fighters when you use 1944 fighters? Also where is full AA coverage? only 10 AAs per 10 states. make it 50, make everything 1944 with no upgrades and dont reinforce ANY unit, be it defending or attacking side. why are you intentionaly chosing conditions favorable for your argument rather than general conditions? also if im not mistaken, heavy fighters can easily come from other zones rather than staying on bombed airfields thus reducing their effeciency massively. not talking about disparity between 1939 heavy fighter and 1944 fighter defending bombers. (heavy fighters wont get to bombers at all because fighters 1944 will get to them first due to their speed and send them home.

Lastly, you are wasting time, if you make experiments that favor your side.

your singleplayer back ground is really coming out now. Both axis and allies get bonues to fighter reasearch so 1944 fighters is reasonable not 1944 heavy fighters, You would know this if you ever played MP. But you dont so you dont know.

 

[Marcus Arulius]

why you didnt reply to my point? is it because you cannot say anything to refute them? also, its legit argument that you could move planes for defense to other air zones and send planes from there. as i already said, its even more reasonable for heavy fighters with their better range. And did you set ALL defending planes for bomber hunting or only heavy fighters? and i said before, attacking planes will tie defending heavy fighters before they are able to intercept strategic bombers due to how air combat works. if you were to put 10k defending fighters + 50 AA guns vs 2k strats and 5k fighters and strats would still win by land slide, id accept your point. so far you are only evading it.

Lol i wrecked you for the final time. Have fun playing singleplayer buddy

 

[Marcus Arulius]

I do agree with you that Heavy Fighters perform bad versus bombers properly escorted with light fighters. Especially if we are talking 1944 models. This is why I said that you should use Light Fighters with upgraded guns instead.

As I and Secret master already showed light fighters with upgrades in both engines and guns are better then +5 engine only light fighters, and they can do good damage against strategic bombers.


Make a proper test with +5 engine +5 gun only light fighters not in stacked airbases but properly spread out and they will easily win over any combination of strats and +5 fighters on the other side worth the same industry that you can throw at them.

In the last experiment i combined light fighters and heavy fighters, they still got wrecked by escroted strat bombers

 

[yamato2cz]

your singleplayer back ground is really coming out now. Both axis and allies get bonues to fighter reasearch so 1944 fighters is reasonable not 1944 heavy fighters, You would know this if you ever played MP. But you dont so you dont know.

yes, comparing 1939 heavy fighters with 1944 fighters is very equal and sensible. No, you just dont want to accept facts. you already did the test two times. do third time. use one tech level, chose whatever you want, fully stack zone with AAs, if its possible, send fighters from other zone to defend if they get 100% coverage, 100% radar coverage, dont stack airfields to max capacity if possible. But you know that if you do that, it will show that you are wrong, so you will either not reply, or reply and call me "buddy" and post some other non objective test. So unless you do the test where conditions doesnt favor any side, im done. have fun with your games as well. although i spend more time modding than playing.

 

[Skritshell]

Alright, people keep coming to me and complaining that the people on the forums just do not understand strat bombers and just how broken they are. Now i am a big fan of seeing is believing, therefor in order to convince all of those that believe otherwise i wish to extend an invitation. My server hosts almost every day ~9pm Eastern time(That is GMT -5) Come on out, we will make a special exception for you. We will Unban stratbombers and allow you, playing the faction of ur choice, to show us just how easy it is to counter them. And i promice you this, in mid 1940 when the uk doesnt have 1 airbase or factory left in range of an axis air base, and when the soviet union has 20k planes but not airbases to put them in. You will know that strat bombers are broken. Or mayb when the allies biuld them? when the axis have 10k Heavy fighter 3s that get shot down at a bad ratio against 5k strats? When the axis no longer has any airbases left in all of europe? Mayb then you will understand. So come on out. We welcome you.

here is the TS

skritshellts.teamspeak3.com

Will see you soon.

 

[Marcus Arulius]

Alright, people keep coming to me and complaining that the people on the forums just do not understand strat bombers and just how broken they are. Now i am a big fan of seeing is believing, therefor in order to convince all of those that believe otherwise i wish to extend an invitation. My server hosts almost every day ~9pm Eastern time(That is GMT -5) Come on out, we will make a special exception for you. We will Unban stratbombers and allow you, playing the faction of ur choice, to show us just how easy it is to counter them. And i promice you this, in mid 1940 when the uk doesnt have 1 airbase or factory left in range of an axis air base, and when the soviet union has 20k planes but not airbases to put them in. You will know that strat bombers are broken. Or mayb when the allies biuld them? when the axis have 10k Heavy fighter 3s that get shot down at a bad ratio against 5k strats? When the axis no longer has any airbases left in all of europe? Mayb then you will understand. So come on out. We welcome you.

here is the TS

skritshellts.teamspeak3.com

Will see you soon.

Not one of these single player warriors will take you up on that offer. Yet they think they know better.

 

[yamato2cz]

Alright, people keep coming to me and complaining that the people on the forums just do not understand strat bombers and just how broken they are. Now i am a big fan of seeing is believing, therefor in order to convince all of those that believe otherwise i wish to extend an invitation. My server hosts almost every day ~9pm Eastern time(That is GMT -5) Come on out, we will make a special exception for you. We will Unban stratbombers and allow you, playing the faction of ur choice, to show us just how easy it is to counter them. And i promice you this, in mid 1940 when the uk doesnt have 1 airbase or factory left in range of an axis air base, and when the soviet union has 20k planes but not airbases to put them in. You will know that strat bombers are broken. Or mayb when the allies biuld them? when the axis have 10k Heavy fighter 3s that get shot down at a bad ratio against 5k strats? When the axis no longer has any airbases left in all of europe? Mayb then you will understand. So come on out. We welcome you.

here is the TS

skritshellts.teamspeak3.com

Will see you soon.

i get that strat bombers seem unbalanced, but could any of you actually do the test that will prove that with equal IC and AA coverage strategic bombers will get shredded? but it only works, if you have both AAs and defending fighters. When it comes to specificaly strategic bombers, in real life, ground AA and fighters shared about 50/50 ratio with land AAs. so combine those two. test it out.
You expect any "singleplayer warrior" to fare well against seasoned MP player? i think you and i both know that the will not work. All i ask you, is to consider making some more ground AA with sufficient fighter coverage. (so far 1 bomber v 2 fighters should be maximum effective because of engine limitation, because it uses dogfight mechanic for fights of fighters and bombers alike)

 

[Skritshell]

i get that strat bombers seem unbalanced, but could any of you actually do the test that will prove that with equal IC and AA coverage strategic bombers will get shredded? but it only works, if you have both AAs and defending fighters. When it comes to specificaly strategic bombers, in real life, ground AA and fighters shared about 50/50 ratio with land AAs. so combine those two. test it out.
You expect any "singleplayer warrior" to fare well against seasoned MP player? i think you and i both know that the will not work. All i ask you, is to consider making some more ground AA with sufficient fighter coverage. (so far 1 bomber v 2 fighters should be maximum effective because of engine limitation, because it uses dogfight mechanic for fights of fighters and bombers alike)

You just made the point for me. We play Multiplayer competitively(or to the extent u can in hoi) and we constantly push for the biggest advantage possible. We try everything, we read what gamefiles we can find, we scour the wiki. We search for every little advantage we can find, becasue in multiplayer the little things matter. So not to be offensive, but taking all of this into account, knowing that we play this game every day of every week 1-2 full length games a day. And all of us not just one or 2 say that strat bombers are broken and not balanced. Why would you try and argue we are those that are the best at this game. Not to b to cocky but this is what we do, literally all day, every day. If they could be countered by now someone would have found it. You say biuld aa? biuld enough aa to counter the strats(witch u never can) and u will not have enough mills to make planes to shoot them down. Build a lot of heavy fighters? You do not have enough light fighters and cas to win the air war. Their is no way to do it. I have played the soviets made, 4k heavy fighter 2s, and 10k fighters 3s. Put them ALL in an air region with 8k axis fighter 3s and 4k axis strat bombers. They blew up every airbase in eastern poland. then they moved to Ukraine, then Belarus then Baltic, then northern front, and so on and so forth. It is uncounterable. Simple as that. Dont believe me show up and we will prove it.

And yes I had full air doctrine right side.

 

[Louella]

I normally have it so any given air zone is covered 50/50 by aircraft based inside/outside that zone, spreading the air wings around bases as well, to minimise the chances of them being bombed on the ground.

But maybe that's just me. vOv

 

[Alex_brunius]

In the last experiment i combined light fighters and heavy fighters, they still got wrecked by escroted strat bombers

No they didn't. 0% efficiency heavy + light fighters go wrecked because they had 0% efficiency in bombed out size 0 airbases and because they sat there doing nothing but getting shot down as 200 enter battle when an airbase lvl is repaired vs 5000+ enemy planes for months on end...

In proper airbases light fighters with engines + guns upgraded slaughter both strategic bombers or any plane you choose to escort them with.

Stop dodging my argument.

 

[Louella]

Do you have puppet countries?

 

[Recreas]

Didn't this whole discussion start because someone asked why they're banned in MP? So why do you lads keep referencing back to SP, seems peculiar. Also, accept Skritshells invite and prove him wrong, best and easiest way to do it, unless we want to keep measuring our unspeakables.

 

[Marcus Arulius]

No they didn't. 0% efficiency heavy + light fighters go wrecked because they had 0% efficiency in bombed out size 0 airbases and because they sat there doing nothing but getting shot down as 200 enter battle when an airbase lvl is repaired vs 5000+ enemy planes for months on end...

In proper airbases light fighters with engines + guns upgraded slaughter both strategic bombers or any plane you choose to escort them with.

Stop dodging my argument.

Com one man take up Skritshells offer. You think you know better. Then play against escorted strats.

 

[Skritshell]

No they didn't. 0% efficiency heavy + light fighters go wrecked because they had 0% efficiency in bombed out size 0 airbases and because they sat there doing nothing but getting shot down as 200 enter battle when an airbase lvl is repaired vs 5000+ enemy planes for months on end...

In proper airbases light fighters with engines + guns upgraded slaughter both strategic bombers or any plane you choose to escort them with.

Stop dodging my argument.

You do not seem to understand. The strat bombers will destroy ALL OF THE AIR BASES, or at least enough that it will prevent you from putting up enough planes to counter it. lvl 10 airbase goes down 1 lvl? all those planes go to 0% efficiency, and the interception rate drops, even more airbases get blown up. It is a monster that feeds itself. And this is multiplayer You can not pause when ur airbases get bombed we play speed 4 till war, and speed 3 till the end. No pausing. 1min of bad micro over an 8hr game vrs strats? and you will lose to many airbases, to ever be able to recover. Like i said, WE KNOW HOW IT WORKS. Why would you argue? If you think different, like i said, come on out and show me how wrong i am.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

It's pretty linear in the current public version though. The defender actually needs a decent numerical superiority to get meaningful disruption-percentages. [...]

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.

Interesting. Not sure if something was changed in our internal build, but when I tested StratBombing last time, a simple 1:1 ratio for defender was enough to achieve a 80-95% interception ratio.

Also, it sounds more like the issue is less about STR being overpowered, and more about the fact that it is too easy to concentrate massive amounts of airplanes in a single air region, aplified by the fact that STRA has the highest default range of all the planes.

I am pretty convinced that the lack of any supply upkeep is the main reason why unit numbers tend to end up inflated to silly numbers as the game goes on. We'd probably need some sort of basic attrition (around 2-5% a month) to fix that.

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

Given that this seems like pretty much a best-case scenario for the bombers, I'd say that the result is actually pretty okay.
Those AAA guns will eventually auto-repair, so if there had been a decent number of FGT on Interception duty, that could have been a much longer, and much more bloody struggle.