Balance question - Is Strategic Bombing worth it?

[jpinard]

There may be something I'm missing about Strategic Bombing, but when I look at the cost benefit analysis of Strategic Bombing as a whole it currently feels like a massive money sink that can't possible pay off. When Germany is making 400 MPP's per turn, and you send Strat Bombers to hit and they ding 1-4 MPP, but also take damage that will require 10-40 MPP's to fix - it just seems like a waste for both the Human and AI's precious resources. Couple that with the large cost/time just to build Strategic or Medium bombers and they're usually the last thing I buy. That's fine for me, but very bad for the AI, because I see the AI buying them when they're in tough shape (or thought they were doing better) and all I can think about is how much that hurt the AI's ability to fight me.

I coudl be way off since I don't know all the capabilities of a Strat strike, but right now I feel like they need to take away a lot more MPP than they currently do. Maybe double? But I could be way off, so please educate me. [:)] [&:] [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

I feel the same way, in that either I don't know what I'm doing, or a Strategic Bombing Campaign is not worth it. I've taken to using Strats near the end of my turn to reduce Supply Values of specific and important enemy cities.

Maybe the way it is now is fairly historic as the Allies put a ton of resources into Bomber Campaigns and barely made a dent in Axis production ?

[EdwinP]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I've taken to using Strats near the end of my turn to reduce Supply Values of specific and important enemy cities.

They are useful this way, to cut off units from supply and isolate a region. With Long Range tech they can strike far behind enemy lines.

[TheBattlefield]

If you bomb the connecting towns of a frontier city under "5" supply, the opponent will not be able any more to bring in or out units with operational moves. This can be very helpful in offensive as well as in defensive situations.

[xwormwood]

Nevertheless strat bombing isn't too well integrated into the game engine.

Maybe it should affect research, unit cost and production times. too. At least at a % chance.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

Nevertheless strat bombing isn't too well integrated into the game engine.

Maybe it should affect research, unit cost and production times. too. At least at a % chance.

Interesting thought. But this would mean a rather massive intervention in the game balance. Particularly for the loser's side in late game. Then so this effect should be limited to capitals and industrial centres.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maybe the way it is now is fairly historic as the Allies put a ton of resources into Bomber Campaigns and barely made a dent in Axis production ?

But the Allied bombing campaign did hurt Germany badly. Germany had to divert massive, massive resources (which is part of when they much of their labor to slaves and prison camps) to try and build/man new facilities. The resulting quality of German products was terrible (sabotage). Without Allied bombing campaigns Germany could have held off a lot longer, some of their counterattacks may have have been successful, better equipped their troops faster, and would have much more advanced technology.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

Nevertheless strat bombing isn't too well integrated into the game engine.

I think I'd like to see Strat bombing hurt supply even more then and take a few more MPP as well. I have never felt like I needed to place AAA to protect a city, port, or major supply center. I've made some AAA to help protect troops but that's it. The battle of the Atlantic is a fun mini-game in itself. I love the fact this game feels like it has a game within a game. Making Strategic bombing more involved would create that same feeling of a whole nother mini-game inside the main game.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: jpinard

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maybe the way it is now is fairly historic as the Allies put a ton of resources into Bomber Campaigns and barely made a dent in Axis production ?

But the Allied bombing campaign did hurt Germany badly. Germany had to divert massive, massive resources (which is part of when they much of their labor to slaves and prison camps) to try and build/man new facilities. The resulting quality of German products was terrible (sabotage). Without Allied bombing campaigns Germany could have held off a lot longer, some of their counterattacks may have have been successful, better equipped their troops faster, and would have much more advanced technology.

You forget about the impact for the Allied cause if the strategic bombing ressources would have gone into different branches of the war business. These men and resources might have been able to break the german army quite a bit faster.
Many historians come to the conclusion that the Allied strategic bombing offensive was in the end a gigantic waste of men and material.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Many historians come to the conclusion that the Allied strategic bombing offensive was in the end a gigantic waste of men and material.

Quite disagree, it has destroyed the Luftwaffe. A lot of german pilots has been lost and a lot of fuel has been used to stop Allied bombers.

The problem in the game is that fuel consumption for units are not taken into account. I had suggested to add it post #27 of this thread:
fb.asp?m=4106148

At the end of the war, German production of tanks and planes was still high but without fuel for them, it was useless.

Agree with you the strategic bombing was costly for the Allied but it did have an impact.

[xwormwood]

It had of course an impact, but all in all it was a "costly, brutal failure".

[EdwinP]

What is the reasoning for a bomber unit taking damage if they are not intercepted by enemy fighters nor encounter defending AA batteries?

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

What is the reasoning for a bomber unit taking damage if they are not intercepted by enemy fighters nor encounter defending AA batteries?

Every Recource owns virtual AA batteries. These can be still upgraded by research in the area of air defence. This might explain the losses, even if no anti-aircraft unit is nearby.

[Scook_99]

I think the modelling matches the analysis the Allies came up with as the bombing campaign was on-going. The bombing itself didn't have a huge impact on production, and the biggest impact is forcing the Germans to launch fighters and use fuel to help defend the Fatherland. I think that is modeled perfectly in the game, as an Allied played, my return on the investment is on the low side. Based on game mechanics, each city recovers one MPP per turn, so if you have 3 cities bombed to 0, it would take 10 turns to recover to a level of maximum normal production.

I have a rather lengthy dissertation about strategic bombing in Strategic Command, but this isn't the place to post it, as this is still beta. However, some big tips:

- Any xp on a strategic bomber, even a half bar makes a huge difference. With no xp, a strategic bomber suffers too heavy casualties. Look for safe, easier (5 strength or less) places to bomb to help build up xp before committing to targets in Germany.
- Either fully commit, or don't go at all. Extended range is the most important thing, two fighters per bomber helps, and building out all strategic bombers by 1943 is key. This is a philosophical commitment, which mean air dominance over whatever you want to bomb. This will really limit how many ground troops you can build, depending how much the Axis will commit.
- It will cost you more as Allies than it will as Axis to achieve victory (that is historical). If you are looking for the "we win!" button, this isn't it. If you can define it as collapse of a rail network in an area, reducing the Axis income by 200-300 MPPs per turn, and control of the air after a long fight as victory, this will work.

-- IF (big if!) the Axis don't respond and let you bomb targets and achieve what we can consider victory, this can actually be an effective strategic move, and cost effective. I normally don't follow this kind of bombing campaign, but if you play humans on a regular basis, occasionally it is something I do, just to make my opponent "play honest". It makes the Axis player react to something you do, and not act. It is more a psychological thing, but depends on how well you know your opponent ([;)]), but making the Axis react can be huge.


Haven't played enough Allies yet to see if I can make this part of my strategy as a viable, affordable option, but going to try it out in SC3. Hopefully before beta is over.....no scratch that, hopefully will have to test long after release of this game for sale.

[jpinard]

I think my desire for Strategic bombing to hurt more, is less based on real life results, and more a case of it would be much more fun. As I mentioned the war for the Atlantic is an entire game in itself for me. At first I was annoyed, then as I learned, I began to cherish the cat and mouse dynamic. It is awesome now. I would love to feel that same level of respect towards Strat bombers where the side getting bombed is like "Holy crap I need to get AAA there ASAP" and you're sweating thinking about every turn that goes by without proper defense.

Maybe it would be a good mod however if no one else thinks this way. Can Strategic bombing MPP and supply losses be changed or is that hard coded?

[sPzAbt653]

Those values are modifiable, in the Combat Target Data [:)]

[Mithrilotter]

Historically, strategic bombing did little damage until the Allies targeted the critical resource of oil production. But by that time, the war was basically over anyway. So historically from a bomber loss vs. production loss ratio, strategic bombing in Europe was a very expensive failure. I believe that the game actually models strategic bombing in a more effective manner that historically.

In my opinion, the best available Strategic Bomber MPP target is raiding a convoy line that are in range. If there are no defending fighters in range, no damage is ever done to to the Strategic Bombers. The best available MPP ground targets from England are mines (double MPP's without a Capitol's increased defenses). But that attack will still likely cost the bomber more than it will do in MPP damage. And the mine will be repaired one point per turn for free.

But daylight strategic bombing can have very nice side effects, both in real life and in the game. That is because Strategic Bombing forces fighter combat. The Allies can cause a beneficial fighter loss ratio. If sufficient Allied air forces are available during the same turn, one can then attack again with other fighters or tactical bombers and destroy the damaged Axis fighter units on the ground. This kind of air warfare is cost effective.

One can Strategically bomb the cities that form a rail link back to a Capitol. That will reduce the value of all of the cities on the other side of the break, multiplying the MPP damage effect. That will also temporarily stop all operating in and out of that area. Strategic Bombers can damage a port that one needs to evacuate through, rendering evacuation impossible for a few critical turns. Strategic Bombers can damage naval ports to the point that damaged ships can't repair as needed. Strategic Bombers can reduce the value of a particular city that a critical defending unit needs for supply. That will weaken the defense of the unit and reduce how much the damaged ground unit can be repaired. This is especially effective if the city is already isolated. If these types of attacks are carefully timed, the net results are much greater that just simple MPP damage.

Strategic Bombers can attack the city next to a naval port. Besides doing MPP damage, it will reveal a fog of war ship. That is a nice bonus. Then that revealed ship can then be damaged or sunk with Tactical Bombers, Subs or Carriers.

So in my opinion, using Strategic Bombers simply for MPP damage is generally a bad deal. But using Strategic Bombers for other purposes can be very effective.

[sPzAbt653]

That should be put in the Manual somewhere, if it isn't already. Very well put !

[EdwinP]

ORIGINAL: Mithrilotter

One can Strategically bomb the cities that form a rail link back to a Capitol. That will reduce the value of all of the cities on the other side of the break, multiplying the MPP damage effect. That will also temporarily stop all operating in and out of that area.....If these types of attacks are carefully timed, the net results are much greater that just simple MPP damage.

....But using Strategic Bombers for other purposes can be very effective.

I would like to see the AXIS AI use this strategy; of bombing cities to isolate units from supply, on the Eastern Front.

[sPzAbt653]

I have seen that, and it is quite annoying when I am playing as the Soviets. However, I have noticed that giving the bombed resource an AA upgrade will stop the Axis computer bombing attempts [:)]