Matrix Games Forums

I think there was a thread about this a while back, but I'm trying to understand why my defensive interceptors are being mauled by unescorted Allied bombers.

It's been 3 or 4 turns, and typical results are 0-1 bomber losses to 1-3 interceptor losses, with '43 tech interceptors (in 1942) and full supply.

These interceptors have 11 air combat rating and 8 defense while a '43 strategic bomber has 7 air combat and 8 defense. Given those stats and similar efficiency, I would expect the bombers to take heavier losses. Now this equation probably reverses for escorted bombers where the interceptors have to take a hit before engaging, but as it is the bombers do fine without escorts, so it seems like there is little incentive to build them.

Anti aircraft seems to be fairly effective at slowly wearing down the bombers, but as it is currently defending with interceptors just causes more losses to the Germans so is a double-win for the Allies. Is this just bad luck or is the formula for these combats set up this way? And if the later, is this intentional, or accidental?

My bombers are actually 44 tech and have been for a few turns...but mauled your fighters with 43.
I think it has to do with bomber defense as they have a good defense and save vs fighters.
I would also have guessed I used them differently. My first attacks were with the freshest bombers to wear down the interceptors that were hopefully worn from snow and Russia...though I don't honestly know.


I never had much luck using fighters to defend...Strat bomber normally maul them until the bombers are under 50% efficiency, which they do faster than interceptors. This turn my bombers took much heavier losses...
Though it has been snowing in England for over 10 weeks now...which is nearly 3x their normal snow fall. It has been ridiculous...that weather needs to be fixed.

Yeah, I can't really figure out how to stop the bombers. They seem super effective. I've never had that much luck with them, but I usually only build 2-3 and you probably need more than that to be really effective.

I'll be curious how it goes. I'll probably end up building 6 AAA on every site eventually, which is a huge cost.

Strategic bombers HAVE to be hugely effective otherwise German production gets out of control not sure they are effective enough, with 6 aa and good fighter back up they are blunted pretty good

How many strat bombers do you have?
How many air sups do you have?

Historically... Allies ~5 bombers.... some escorts forgot how many likely 5.
Axis...I think had ~2500 fighters devoted to homeland defense. ~9 air units.

I estimate, as well as my historical expert, the bombing campaign took ~30% of Germany's industrial output.

I have 5 Strat bombers...and a strat tactical bomber, for range.

And now I have interceptors that can help them as well as nice escort fighters...so getting pricy for Germany

Yeah, it's getting to the point my fighters are costing more to rebuild than I'm losing in production, but then again stjeand is focusing on oil ATM. But this way he causes production loss and oil losses, lol.

I will withhold judgement here until the game plays through, but in general it seems like interceptors vs unescorted bombers should be much more effective than they are. The bombers give more than they take. Now with the escorts it's of course even worse.

I would have to do more research.

I did not think fighters did all that great against bombers...especially since I had 1944 level strategic bombers last year which is close to the best overall. They have a really good defense...
Plus I tried to keep them efficient by using supply trucks. But only 4 attacks and the losses started to rise due to efficiency being so low.

Another interesting thing is night bombing is not offered. That was what the UK did...though I am not sure how effective it was overall vs day bombing. The US could have night bombed.

I did not build any UK strat bombers, just US...so they could have bombed during the night...and maybe that should account for something. Germany could not do much against them then...