Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Moderator: Hubert Cater
-
ThunderLizard11
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:36 pm
Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Last few matches as Axis my opponents have engaged in stat bombing of key Russian supply points by operating strat bombers out of Iraq/Iran. Any good counters? Doesn't seem like fighters, AA units or AA city upgrades are denting the strat bombers much.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
How are the Axis getting control of the Middle East? That sounds like your real problem to me. You should be able to counter the Axis coup in Iraq by marching two units (they can be zero-tech corps) adjacent to Baghdad and leaving them there for a few turns; there is an event that will make the Axis Iraqi government automatically surrender. If they're using diplomacy to get to Persia, then Persia has almost no starting units; just send a couple of Russian mechs or light tanks down there to knock out Tehran before they can significantly reinforce it, retreating a bit on the eastern front if you need to in order to free up the mobile forces.
If the Italians and/or Afrika Korps are making it all the way through Egypt, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and Iran then you need to take a look at your African strategy. The Italians can be weakened by building an army in South Africa, sailing it to Kenya with the free S. Africa HQ, and then attacking Addis Ababa; losing the national morale (and income) from Ethiopia hurts the Italians quite a bit. If the Germans send the Afrika Korps to north Africa, then you need to save some British cash to reinforce your Egyptian units and probably build one or two additional units there to support them, or at least operate over an extra fighter. Don't attack the Germans in Libya too aggressively until they've depleted their units; just like the real war, the further they get from their front lines, the weaker they will be due to lack of supply. The same problem applies to you, although not quite as harshly.
If the Japanese are sailing past India and taking Persia, then make sure you're choosing 'yes' when the event offers to let you build British warships in the Indian Ocean instead of near the UK (you really shouldn't need more than the minimum number of warships in the UK other than maybe the extra destroyers you get from the Destroyers for Bases event; the game starts you off with a ridiculously large Home Fleet), and make sure you're providing a credible threat with the American Pacific Fleet shortly after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese fleet can crush the British Indian fleet if you allow the entire Japanese fleet to concentrate and go off on a wild goose chase, but western India is far enough from, e.g., the Solomons, Carolines, New Guinea, etc. that the Japanese can't both handle American probes in the central Pacific and dispatch a large enough force to Persia to get through a reasonably-sized Indian navy. If American naval action in mid-to-late 1942 in the central Pacific goes unanswered, and the Japanese take Persia anyway, consider a direct attack on the Home Islands, or at least some national morale centers like Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Manila, and Truk -- you might catch the Japanese fleet so far out of position that they can't make it back in time.
That said, to answer your original question a little more directly -- make sure your fighters are attached to an HQ (they tend to get low priority for attachment if you leave them set to auto, so if there are too many Russian infantry units and not enough HQs then that will weaken your fighters), put your fighters in good terrain for entrenchment and leave them there for a few turns so they get the entrenchment bonus, try to spread out your fighters in a wide radius around whatever resource is being attacked so that one snowstorm won't weaken your entire air force, and check your supply lines to make sure the damage to your resources isn't stopping the fighters themselves from getting supply -- the fighters need to be in range of both the city being attacked and a city that's not being attacked, so they can use the healthy city's supply to protect the damaged city.
If the Italians and/or Afrika Korps are making it all the way through Egypt, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and Iran then you need to take a look at your African strategy. The Italians can be weakened by building an army in South Africa, sailing it to Kenya with the free S. Africa HQ, and then attacking Addis Ababa; losing the national morale (and income) from Ethiopia hurts the Italians quite a bit. If the Germans send the Afrika Korps to north Africa, then you need to save some British cash to reinforce your Egyptian units and probably build one or two additional units there to support them, or at least operate over an extra fighter. Don't attack the Germans in Libya too aggressively until they've depleted their units; just like the real war, the further they get from their front lines, the weaker they will be due to lack of supply. The same problem applies to you, although not quite as harshly.
If the Japanese are sailing past India and taking Persia, then make sure you're choosing 'yes' when the event offers to let you build British warships in the Indian Ocean instead of near the UK (you really shouldn't need more than the minimum number of warships in the UK other than maybe the extra destroyers you get from the Destroyers for Bases event; the game starts you off with a ridiculously large Home Fleet), and make sure you're providing a credible threat with the American Pacific Fleet shortly after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese fleet can crush the British Indian fleet if you allow the entire Japanese fleet to concentrate and go off on a wild goose chase, but western India is far enough from, e.g., the Solomons, Carolines, New Guinea, etc. that the Japanese can't both handle American probes in the central Pacific and dispatch a large enough force to Persia to get through a reasonably-sized Indian navy. If American naval action in mid-to-late 1942 in the central Pacific goes unanswered, and the Japanese take Persia anyway, consider a direct attack on the Home Islands, or at least some national morale centers like Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Manila, and Truk -- you might catch the Japanese fleet so far out of position that they can't make it back in time.
That said, to answer your original question a little more directly -- make sure your fighters are attached to an HQ (they tend to get low priority for attachment if you leave them set to auto, so if there are too many Russian infantry units and not enough HQs then that will weaken your fighters), put your fighters in good terrain for entrenchment and leave them there for a few turns so they get the entrenchment bonus, try to spread out your fighters in a wide radius around whatever resource is being attacked so that one snowstorm won't weaken your entire air force, and check your supply lines to make sure the damage to your resources isn't stopping the fighters themselves from getting supply -- the fighters need to be in range of both the city being attacked and a city that's not being attacked, so they can use the healthy city's supply to protect the damaged city.
-
ThunderLizard11
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:36 pm
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
@Argothair - It's Allies that have ME/Iran and are strat bombing German occupied supply points in Russia - this is killing supply for German units
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Ohhh, that makes a hell of a lot more sense. Sorry, I misunderstood.
I'm not sure how I'd counter that -- it's possible the game balance is off and you just need to mod the AA tech so that it's cheaper and/or more effective.
That said, you could try (a) focusing on the northern front, like, take Leningrad/Murmansk/Archangel, which should be out of range of bombers based in Persia; (b) build your own strategic bombers and bomb London, maybe even bluff a 1942/1943 Sea Lion in a way that forces the Allies to recall some or all of their planes from Persia; (c) launch an amphibious assault on Palestine directly from Greece and then use Palestine as a base to harass their bombers; (d) double down on Japan's attacks on Burma / eastern India, especially with medium and tactical bombers.
The theme in most of these ideas is to put an intolerable stress on the Allied fighters -- if they're using fighters to escort bombing raids out of Iran, then they should be short on fighters in other theaters.
I'm not sure how I'd counter that -- it's possible the game balance is off and you just need to mod the AA tech so that it's cheaper and/or more effective.
That said, you could try (a) focusing on the northern front, like, take Leningrad/Murmansk/Archangel, which should be out of range of bombers based in Persia; (b) build your own strategic bombers and bomb London, maybe even bluff a 1942/1943 Sea Lion in a way that forces the Allies to recall some or all of their planes from Persia; (c) launch an amphibious assault on Palestine directly from Greece and then use Palestine as a base to harass their bombers; (d) double down on Japan's attacks on Burma / eastern India, especially with medium and tactical bombers.
The theme in most of these ideas is to put an intolerable stress on the Allied fighters -- if they're using fighters to escort bombing raids out of Iran, then they should be short on fighters in other theaters.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Bombers in general are a bit too good right now. A brutal strategy is simply to create a death ball of fighters and bombers and no army can really stand up to that right now. Aircraft range is extremely underrated too. You don't even need high tech in adv fighters or heavy bombers, range is a super dangerous and useful upgrade. I sense some changes to aircraft + weather might be coming in patch 16.
Strat bombers in particular probably need a couple nerfs, but it isn't because of the recent change to weather. They're just really good, and they can completely halt entire enemy armies if you know the weak points in the supply system. You mention bombing Russia from Iraq, but there are other points such as bombing Kunming can completely stall an advance into India, or choking your opponent no North Africa. Worst of all, it's extremely difficult to prevent this even if you know it's coming and pay for precautions. You might damage their bomber, but even slight damage to a key city can knock your supply down from 10 to 6.
The strategic bomber unit is a strong and powerful unit, with potentially extreme range, like a B-29 (the most expensive project of WWII). That kind of aircraft costs a ton of resources to build, crew, maintain, and supply.
1. It should do less resource damage unupgraded (perhaps 2 instead of 3). Early in WWII, strategic bombing, or any bombing deep into enemy territory, generally failed miserably.
2. Range upgrade for heavy bombers should probably cost more. 5% is very cheap and it gives +3 strike range, for a maximum of 23 range at level 5. That's an extremely advanced and large aircraft and should be very expensive.
3. Japan should probably not have a strategic bomber in its build queue (replace with a couple naval bombers e.g. Genzan Air Group, Kanoya Air Group). I know Japan did "strategic bombing" in China but it was with Sallys not Fugakus.
Strat bombers in particular probably need a couple nerfs, but it isn't because of the recent change to weather. They're just really good, and they can completely halt entire enemy armies if you know the weak points in the supply system. You mention bombing Russia from Iraq, but there are other points such as bombing Kunming can completely stall an advance into India, or choking your opponent no North Africa. Worst of all, it's extremely difficult to prevent this even if you know it's coming and pay for precautions. You might damage their bomber, but even slight damage to a key city can knock your supply down from 10 to 6.
The strategic bomber unit is a strong and powerful unit, with potentially extreme range, like a B-29 (the most expensive project of WWII). That kind of aircraft costs a ton of resources to build, crew, maintain, and supply.
1. It should do less resource damage unupgraded (perhaps 2 instead of 3). Early in WWII, strategic bombing, or any bombing deep into enemy territory, generally failed miserably.
2. Range upgrade for heavy bombers should probably cost more. 5% is very cheap and it gives +3 strike range, for a maximum of 23 range at level 5. That's an extremely advanced and large aircraft and should be very expensive.
3. Japan should probably not have a strategic bomber in its build queue (replace with a couple naval bombers e.g. Genzan Air Group, Kanoya Air Group). I know Japan did "strategic bombing" in China but it was with Sallys not Fugakus.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
SBs are arguably the most powerful units in the game.
A combination of upgraded AA guns and upgraded resources with AA capability is your best defence. The frustration is that you can't see what, if any, damage the SBs are suffering.
A combination of upgraded AA guns and upgraded resources with AA capability is your best defence. The frustration is that you can't see what, if any, damage the SBs are suffering.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Agreed. Strat Bombers need to be nerfed like artillery was in the WW1 game. There is just no defense for them. The Allies suffered heavy Strat Bomber losses for quite some time over Europe but you don't see this in game. In my current MP game I have had to put 4 fully upgraded fighters units in France but to no avail...Chernobyl wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:41 am Bombers in general are a bit too good right now. A brutal strategy is simply to create a death ball of fighters and bombers and no army can really stand up to that right now. Aircraft range is extremely underrated too. You don't even need high tech in adv fighters or heavy bombers, range is a super dangerous and useful upgrade. I sense some changes to aircraft + weather might be coming in patch 16.
Strat bombers in particular probably need a couple nerfs, but it isn't because of the recent change to weather. They're just really good, and they can completely halt entire enemy armies if you know the weak points in the supply system. You mention bombing Russia from Iraq, but there are other points such as bombing Kunming can completely stall an advance into India, or choking your opponent no North Africa. Worst of all, it's extremely difficult to prevent this even if you know it's coming and pay for precautions. You might damage their bomber, but even slight damage to a key city can knock your supply down from 10 to 6.
The strategic bomber unit is a strong and powerful unit, with potentially extreme range, like a B-29 (the most expensive project of WWII). That kind of aircraft costs a ton of resources to build, crew, maintain, and supply.
1. It should do less resource damage unupgraded (perhaps 2 instead of 3). Early in WWII, strategic bombing, or any bombing deep into enemy territory, generally failed miserably.
2. Range upgrade for heavy bombers should probably cost more. 5% is very cheap and it gives +3 strike range, for a maximum of 23 range at level 5. That's an extremely advanced and large aircraft and should be very expensive.
3. Japan should probably not have a strategic bomber in its build queue (replace with a couple naval bombers e.g. Genzan Air Group, Kanoya Air Group). I know Japan did "strategic bombing" in China but it was with Sallys not Fugakus.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
I would first nerf the tactical and medium bombers frankly speaking. As axis you can basically get to baku/moscow/perm unstopped killing 4/5 russian units per turn.Tanaka wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:30 pmAgreed. Strat Bombers need to be nerfed like artillery was in the WW1 game. There is just no defense for them. The Allies suffered heavy Strat Bomber losses for quite some time over Europe but you don't see this in game. In my current MP game I have had to put 4 fully upgraded fighters units in France but to no avail...Chernobyl wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:41 am Bombers in general are a bit too good right now. A brutal strategy is simply to create a death ball of fighters and bombers and no army can really stand up to that right now. Aircraft range is extremely underrated too. You don't even need high tech in adv fighters or heavy bombers, range is a super dangerous and useful upgrade. I sense some changes to aircraft + weather might be coming in patch 16.
Strat bombers in particular probably need a couple nerfs, but it isn't because of the recent change to weather. They're just really good, and they can completely halt entire enemy armies if you know the weak points in the supply system. You mention bombing Russia from Iraq, but there are other points such as bombing Kunming can completely stall an advance into India, or choking your opponent no North Africa. Worst of all, it's extremely difficult to prevent this even if you know it's coming and pay for precautions. You might damage their bomber, but even slight damage to a key city can knock your supply down from 10 to 6.
The strategic bomber unit is a strong and powerful unit, with potentially extreme range, like a B-29 (the most expensive project of WWII). That kind of aircraft costs a ton of resources to build, crew, maintain, and supply.
1. It should do less resource damage unupgraded (perhaps 2 instead of 3). Early in WWII, strategic bombing, or any bombing deep into enemy territory, generally failed miserably.
2. Range upgrade for heavy bombers should probably cost more. 5% is very cheap and it gives +3 strike range, for a maximum of 23 range at level 5. That's an extremely advanced and large aircraft and should be very expensive.
3. Japan should probably not have a strategic bomber in its build queue (replace with a couple naval bombers e.g. Genzan Air Group, Kanoya Air Group). I know Japan did "strategic bombing" in China but it was with Sallys not Fugakus.
Same in North Africa if axis decides to bring there the air force.
Right now Strat Bomber is the only counter of the allied player and not that useful either as US can start using them with lvl 3 tech by end of 42...by that time usually China is dead and Axis already controls Baku, Stalingrad and heading for Moscow or Perm.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
I mean, this just ties into what we were saying on the other thread about aircraft and weather. The biggest problem isn't the balance between Strategic Bombers and Medium Bombers; the biggest problem is that all aircraft are too powerful if their demoralization and deentrenchment effects work at 100% even in snow. Either the effect of weather on planes needs to change, or the entire category of air units needs to be nerfed.
I do happen to think that strategic bomber upgrades should be a little more expensive in MPPs than 5% per level, but that's not the crisis here.
I do happen to think that strategic bomber upgrades should be a little more expensive in MPPs than 5% per level, but that's not the crisis here.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Not trying to take away from the weather issue. But I believe there are two separate issues going on.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
One issue is that escort ranges, both L0 [9] and upgrades [+4] are much too generous. Both the Brits and Germans struggled early in the war trying to escort their bombers to distant targets. With just L1 Long Range a Spitfire can escort to all of the eastern German mines, while a 109 can go to the Liverpool port and the mine up there. Far too often in the late game I'll see escorts coming in from wayyy off the current screen view, like they teleported from Mars or something.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Lol, yes, that's true and very entertainingly phrased.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
Escort range, intercept range, and passive spotting range always seemed really far to me. For fighters and for carriers.
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
The max escort range with lvl 5 upgrade for fighters is 27 hexes. That's farther than any other range in the game including strategic bombers strike range.Tanaka wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:44 am Yes this might be an easy fix to making things more balanced...
I'm looking at the map and I can't really see a need for anything beyond 5 base escort range + 2 per level = 15 maximum escort range. Even those values seem a bit generous to me. Short range fighters had trouble reaching London and back in 1940, and P47s had to turn back over Belgium in 1943. A lvl 4 fighter with 13 range could escort to Berlin from England with room to spare.
What do you think?
Re: Anti-Strat Bomber ideas?
I personally fully support Chernobyl's critic/proposal above. Both for historical reasons but also for gameplay balance and better gaming experience (i.e., reduced range will need better planning of air unit placement).
The following refers to the escort range of German level 1 fighters in 1940:
During the Battle of Britain, the Bf 109's chief disadvantage was its short range: like most of the 1930s monoplane interceptors, it was designed to engage enemy bombers over friendly territory, and the range and endurance necessary for escorting long-ranged bombers over enemy territory was not required. The Bf 109E escorts used during the Battle had a limited fuel capacity resulting in only a 660 km (410 mile) maximum range solely on internal fuel,[13] and when they arrived over a British target, had only 10 minutes of flying time before turning for home, leaving the bombers undefended by fighter escorts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messersch ... of_Britain
The following refers to the escort range of German level 1 fighters in 1940:
During the Battle of Britain, the Bf 109's chief disadvantage was its short range: like most of the 1930s monoplane interceptors, it was designed to engage enemy bombers over friendly territory, and the range and endurance necessary for escorting long-ranged bombers over enemy territory was not required. The Bf 109E escorts used during the Battle had a limited fuel capacity resulting in only a 660 km (410 mile) maximum range solely on internal fuel,[13] and when they arrived over a British target, had only 10 minutes of flying time before turning for home, leaving the bombers undefended by fighter escorts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messersch ... of_Britain