Balance question - Is Strategic Bombing worth it?

[Hairog]

Number one most costly weapons system of WWII was the B-29. Number two was the nuke and number three was the VT fuse. Considering all the money spent on these they probably should be modeled or the player given some chance to re-prioritize his research or to at least consider his options like FDR/Truman had to.

I'm of the same mindset as jpinard. I would love to play the Battle of Britain or the 8th's AF campaign in Western Europe on a strategic level and make it mean something. Both were a huge part of WWII in the West. The resources spent by all sides to control the skies were huge and the decisions made won of lost the war.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Mithrilotter

...stuff...

HOLY COW. These are amazing tips.

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yes 1,000,000x. Oh the heart sinking feeling of having the AI do that to me or another human. Muahaha.

[Mithrilotter]

Thank you for your kind words.

[xwormwood]

Would be great if there would by some way to seduce the Allied player to start a strategic bomber warfare.

Like a DE to give the russian some desperately needed NM back by promising them to start the strategic warfare.
USSR gets x NM points back, but the USA and UK have to spend x MPPS for x turns to get x strat bombers and x research chits.

To make this DE tempting would mean to shock down the USSR NM unitl late 1942.

[CSSS]

The war was irretrievably lost for the Germans May 12th 1944. The Allies struck the German Oil and synthetic plants which from a fuel perspective they never remotely recovered.

[dhucul2011]

A true oil feature is the number 1 missing element from SC3. As the Axis I shouldn't be able to have all of my panzers and mechs ranging all over the USSR every turn in 1943 onwards. It would also give a reason for Allied strategic bombing. It's a bit too much fantasy for the Axis player to play without consideration for oil restrictions.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

A true oil feature is the number 1 missing element from SC3. As the Axis I shouldn't be able to have all of my panzers and mechs ranging all over the USSR every turn in 1943 onwards. It would also give a reason for Allied strategic bombing. It's a bit too much fantasy for the Axis player to play without consideration for oil restrictions.

Don't know if you all saw this or not, but there is a mention of synthetic oil in the manual [;)]. Maybe something for DLC or expansion down the line.

I'm not to bothered by the lack of it as I pretend Supply encompasses it for now.

[dhucul2011]

Yes, there are several things that were mentioned that I hope will be in the first expansion:

1. Oil (and synthetic oil plants)
2. Manpower
3. Atomic Bombs
4. Mulberry Harbours
5. Kamikazes (for Pacific)

Of course there are other things not mentioned that would also be great for an expansion:

6. At sea supply for subs and raiders
7. Auxiliary Cruisers

[sPzAbt653]

8. Naval Interception.

Currently, Naval Units can leave port, hit a target, and return home, and the other side can only sit and watch. I ain't smart enough to figure out how to do it, but Air Units get intercepted so there must be some sort of possibility. [:D]

[EdwinP]

If Oil is added, I would suggest that it impact the game by limiting the number of action points that can be expended per turn by mechanized units.

Example: 25 Oil = 100 actions points = 25 tanks can move 4 tiles each (25x4=100) OR 11 tanks can move 5 tiles and 14 tanks can move 3 tiles each.

The Axis should be allowed to stockpile unused oil action points and invest in synthetic fuel.

Strategically, adding oil would make the Mid East and Caucasus mountain areas key strategic objectives for the Axis.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: EdwinP


Strategically, adding oil would make the Mid East and Caucasus mountain areas key strategic objectives for the Axis.

You would even fight like hell for Romania and Hungary (which, by the way, had oil too, therefor the last German offensives during late 1944 up to March 1945)

[ncc1701e]

Yes always checking your oil consumption will be more realistic for Axis. We may also imagine to distinguish oil consumption for an unit attacking vs defending.
And introduce oil points inside convoys. Let's call it OPP vs MPP [&:]