What do i use tactical bombers for? Are they as good as CAS?
- Thread starter Spelaren
- 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.
They're not as good as CAS as ground support on a enemy damage / production cost basis.
They are, however, flexible. You build TACs when you don't have the production to spare to build three different entire air forces for NAV, STR, and CAS. Build less of those three, build some TAC, and rotate them between the missions to help as needed. (You may not need all three types at the same time. For instance, NAV becomes pretty useless once you've sunk the enemy fleet. TAC could at least start doing something else. You have to research an extra plane type, but can save production cost on the three specialists.)
You can also use TACs in places where you need the range, like far Eastern Europe, Asia / Pacific, South America, Africa. Range means air zone coverage which means higher mission efficiency. CAS have pretty short range, so you need a lot more of them in big air zones to get whatever number you need to actually be in the battle.
They are, however, flexible. You build TACs when you don't have the production to spare to build three different entire air forces for NAV, STR, and CAS. Build less of those three, build some TAC, and rotate them between the missions to help as needed. (You may not need all three types at the same time. For instance, NAV becomes pretty useless once you've sunk the enemy fleet. TAC could at least start doing something else. You have to research an extra plane type, but can save production cost on the three specialists.)
You can also use TACs in places where you need the range, like far Eastern Europe, Asia / Pacific, South America, Africa. Range means air zone coverage which means higher mission efficiency. CAS have pretty short range, so you need a lot more of them in big air zones to get whatever number you need to actually be in the battle.
Last edited:
I agree that the versatility is great. It almost makes me want to focus only on tacs to improve my production. I'm curious if its worth switching to heavy fighters too.
Heavy Fighers are not as bad as most people think. If you fight at oversized airzones, they will actually trade in your favor against light fighters. Sometimes in quite an astonishing ratio, provided you also attain higher detection rates.
Also, sometimes funny things might happen with very few [heavy] fighers actually produced and involved into operations, thanks to their capability to grant full air superiory bonus at vast regions (and to which light fighers of the enemy simply can not reach out). Over here I had 400 HFs (pretty much my entire airforce by then):
Basically, it's 4 motorized divisions (no tanks) and initial breakthrough by infantry [space marines, I admit, ableit pierced] with 400 Heavy Fighers atop who are smashing 1.5 million AI troops. Right, they overstretched their supply limits, but still without HFs slowing them down that wouldn't have been possible in that particular case. I'd love to have had some TACs there too, but I just couldn't afford any.
But I personally mostly use heavies because of the necessity to protect fleets from bombers over large and hostile distances in campaigns like this:
All in all, it's merely a tool which you pick according to your particular gameplay scenario. One can easily come up with many more cases where both HFs and TACs are a plain waste.
Last edited:
In places with huge air zones like Africa Tactical bombers are able to fight at full efficiency
If I'm playing a minor I can rarely afford more than a line of fighters and a line of all-purpose bombers. Enter the TAC, which can do a little bit of everything, but not nearly as well as other craft which are designed to excel in specific roles.
In recent patches the games has xp inflation (training, attachee) that change balance. A fighter with xp boost can replace heavy fighter on many place. The extra air defense of bomber is now less relevant against weapon boosted fighter. Most ealry air doctrine only help CAS not bomber.
So use TAC if you need range in asia, or attack ships in big sea zones. TAC is good to kick the Japanese navy out of Jappan ports by port strike. Even in Northern China CAS is better than TAC if you can hold the Beijing Airstrip. Yes, use TAC mostly if you need ship attack on large sea, otherwise you can manage with CAS with extra number or build new air strips. Small amout of TAC is useless to strategic bombing.
So use TAC if you need range in asia, or attack ships in big sea zones. TAC is good to kick the Japanese navy out of Jappan ports by port strike. Even in Northern China CAS is better than TAC if you can hold the Beijing Airstrip. Yes, use TAC mostly if you need ship attack on large sea, otherwise you can manage with CAS with extra number or build new air strips. Small amout of TAC is useless to strategic bombing.
Another advantage to the Tac range is you can base them farther back when your AI allies start crowding the airfields. 
Playing UK right now and I am torn. European air zones are small, and both my CAS and Tacs are getting murdered by German Army AA. CAS is certainly cheaper to replace, if I buff up the engines will this reduce losses to AA as well as to air combat?
Playing UK right now and I am torn. European air zones are small, and both my CAS and Tacs are getting murdered by German Army AA. CAS is certainly cheaper to replace, if I buff up the engines will this reduce losses to AA as well as to air combat?
Against state AA, air defense is the only stat that protects planes. The divisional AA works very similar to the ones on ships, i.e. the percentage of planes getting shot depends only on the AA value and no stat of the planes has any influence (as far as I can tell).
The thing is the coverage, tacs are good, as heavy fighters in any place out of Europe-close Russia, they give better coverage and better effectively. Mine in Europe that's no advantage. Tacs also are a bit meter better for naval bombing for the range.
Only if you are planning to fly in really large air regions. They aren't worth it otherwise.
Which is one reason why I never bother engine upgrades on bombers. It does help them a bit against fighters, but the impact is barely noticeable compared to the impact upgrading fighters has.
Of course you are correct on this point. After all you are the @Secret Master! But you usually end up with so much air XP that you have nothing else to spend it on. I don't upgrade bomber engines as a priority but I almost always have enough XP to eventually upgrade them.
Do you upgrade range or payload or reliability on those bombers before the engines?
That depends on the bomber and which country. For example in my USA let Germany take over world and then take it back after 1944 games I'll upgrade the range first for my strat bombers. Playing as Germany using CAS I upgrade the engines before payload or range. Naval bombers it's weapons and/or range and never agility as these seldom face enemy fighters. TAC will be engines then range as the weapon upgrades are split between ground attack and strat bombing and therefore not that good.
Usually weapons and range have a reliability hit. So it's usually one or the other and not both as I want to keep reliability at starting values. Weapons also have an agility hit so engines are needed to at least counterbalance that negative impact.
Eventually come 1944 models I can get everything I want, provided the game is still going on. Of course few games go that distance and in that case air XP is only spent on fighters anyway.
This is the only part of your post I find surprising. Are you doing this to capitalize off Germany's head start in Battlefield Support Doctrine?
Yes. For early model CAS I won't increase range because you don't need to since airbases are close for those fights and air zones are small. Weapons are already nicely increased per doctrines. So I increase engines to help CAS survive in situations where my fighters are off going against UK planes and my CAS are operating with little or no fighter support as enemy fighters are few in places like Yugoslavia, Greece and even North Africa where I send them to help the Italians.
I also assign CAS to specific armies so I don't have to micro them. Using specific armies for most fights allows the CAS to be there in support of those battles. Better engines means slightly more CAS are not disrupted or shot down, not many but a couple.
A few fighter for escort will do wonder than no fighter. For example in Spanish Civ war 30 fighter can fully escort 200 TAC. Make them both fly at day only.
I don't even have air XP during the CSW so I can't upgrade anything. Besides I'm saving all possible air XP to get +5 engines on my 1940 fighters which is the #1 priority.
Still I think TAC cost is a bit off for their payload values (i.e. land and strategic attack).
Assuming resources are no constraints, for every 100 TAC (1940 model) you can produce 162 CAS; assuming Aluminium is not unlimited, every 100 TAC cost you about 216 CAS planes you could have produced instead.
I.e. realistically you're getting only half as many planes, and given that efficiency drop in huge airzones is a simple multiplier to the number of aircrafts actually put into combat (provided it still occurs within the range, though), you have to get like 35-40% CAS efficiency (mind the attack values) for your whole TAC endeavour to just break even.
Assuming resources are no constraints, for every 100 TAC (1940 model) you can produce 162 CAS; assuming Aluminium is not unlimited, every 100 TAC cost you about 216 CAS planes you could have produced instead.
I.e. realistically you're getting only half as many planes, and given that efficiency drop in huge airzones is a simple multiplier to the number of aircrafts actually put into combat (provided it still occurs within the range, though), you have to get like 35-40% CAS efficiency (mind the attack values) for your whole TAC endeavour to just break even.