Tac vs Heavy Bombers

[JasonGT]

Hey Guys,

Just wanted to run something I've noted after the 1.033 patch, a suggestion for the future, and get peoples opinions.

Does any one else agree with me that Heavy Bombers basically got the short-end of the stick after that patch? The WA & Japan changes to them, combined with the world standard change to Land Attack value has pretty much invalidated the need for HBs in my opinion. Tac-Bombers are cheaper (except for Japan), tend to have better stats across the board sans Speed, and are cheaper to research up to higher values. Even for the Allies with the armor it just doesn't seem to me to be enough. Don't get me wrong, I think with enough research, Heavy Bombers can be better than Tac-bombers, but as part of a wholistic strategy, Tac-Bombers just seem to blow their ungainly cousins away.

My suggestion (for WaW2, which will be coming out right? would be to either make Tac-Bombers troop pounders only and remove their ability to hit infrastructure. Or to make a new stat, that is the Infrastructure Attack value of the unit and give Heavy Bombers the clear advantage in it.

Anyway, just my 2c.
J

[SSnordland]

I totally agree. I rarely make Hbombers with Germany, only with WAllies. A cool feature would be a morale factor(maybe too complicated) and the Stuka could have a huge affect on lowering enemy morale(force enemy inf to flee or lose combat bonuses).

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: JasonGT

Or to make a new stat, that is the Infrastructure Attack value of the unit and give Heavy Bombers the clear advantage in it.

That's the way to go. There was no way to turn Marauder into Flying Fortress and vice versa. However, I disagree with the armor given to Allied bombers. No British bomber was armoured and they created the majority of bombers for most of the war.


Drax

[aletoledo]

No British bomber was armoured and they created the majority of bombers for most of the war.

what? I've never heard anyone say that before! over 12,000 b-17s were produced by the USA. are you saying that england produced more than that?

[Wayllander]

I'd be truly amazed if the British produced more bombers then the States.... You can argue quality but surely you can;t argue quantity?

--way

[SeaMonkey]

Don't agree Jason. You have a point, but IMO, hvys range, with quick upgrade for sub and torpedo attack, not to mention the ability to transport paratroopers makes them a viable necessity, not to minimalize TAC's contribution.

5 Paras, teched to 7 LA & ev, + SAC teched to 5 LA makes a nice little rapid deployment force to threaten many enemy assets.

[Bromley]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

No British bomber was armoured and they created the majority of bombers for most of the war.

what? I've never heard anyone say that before! over 12,000 b-17s were produced by the USA. are you saying that england produced more than that?

I read his post to say that the majority of bombers were British for most of the war. That doesn't mean that the US didn't substantially outproduce the UK, just that the UK (a) started earlier, so they got 2 years where they were ahead just because the US wasn't in the war, (b) were already geared up for war production in 1941 and (c) they presumably didn't suffer 100% losses, so they already had a bomber fleet from previous production.

The US appears to have taken a couple of years to get up to their high levels of production. See table 79 here from the AAF Statistical Digest (no idea what that is, but it looks reputable).

The only stuff I could find on British production was here. These are targets rather than actuals though, so you probably need to round them down a lot. Still, it looks like the US only accounted for the majority of bomber production in '43 onwards.

[5cats]

I notice that some Canadian production is included in the USA tables too.
*sigh* Small wonder we're forgotten! Mixed in with both the British and Americans, lol!

[aletoledo]

cheers to our 51st state 5cats!

nice table Bromley! if I read it correctly though, doesn't it say that the only area that england outproduced the US was in light bomber production and that was only in 1940. I liked the listing of "very heavy bombers"! I suppose they refered to b-29s.

[Bromley]

It's not opening for me atm, but from memory my reading of the first link is that it is US production. That US production is then separated into the various recipients; so the US gets most, the British Empire not much. Still, it's US-only production.

I seem to remember reading in a note that the Canadian reference is to factories set up and run in Canada by the US. That is separate to Canadian production (if there was any).

If there was, I'm not sure if the second table represents UK production targets or British Empire production targets. I suspect the former, although I also suspect that the non-UK Empire territories did not contribute much to the bomber production of the Empire. That's an uniformed guess though.

[EDIT - Checked and it is deliveries from US factories, including US financed Canadian production]

[SeaMonkey]

Well I'm not sure if this tally includes Canadian production, but according to the Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures for WW2 the UK produced 17760 Bombers with a bomb payload of greater than 5000 pounds. 29330 was the UK production figure for Bombers capable of a bomb load of less than 5000 pounds.


For the US, the figure is 42250 > 5000 lb payload, and 20230 for < 5M lbs.

I have the individual productions types figures, but this is the general difference I drew the line at, 5000 lbs. For example, the Martin Marauder B-26 was considered a medium bomber with a max 5,200 lb bomb payload, 4700 produced.

[Bromley]

Nice - some directly comparable figures. Assuming you have the Ellis book, you'll be in a position to settle this one decisively. I found the index on Amazon and it looks like the best tables are:

Table 38: Bomber Command Aircraft Strengths, by Type . . . September 1939 - April 1945

Table 41: US Army Aircraft Strengths, by Type, 1939- 45


Is it possible to see from there in which year the US bomber fleet overtook the British Empire one? I'm happy with whatever cut-off you decide to use when considering which aircraft are represented by Heavy Bomber in the game.

My guess is 1943, although it might be as late as 1944.

[JasonGT]

Ignoring the seques into history arguments, and coming back to actual gameplay discussion...

You have a point about being able to move troops with HBs SeaMonkey. Actually not just Paratroopers, but being able to move regular troops too. Although I don't think that part sees that much use

Even so, since their movement is halved while transporting, its good, but I've never found it to be spectacular. And the paratrooper use is actually offset by the extremely long build cycle for paratroopers themselves.

But I don't agree about their Sub attack, the two types have the same world standard. Torpedo, is true. But, that's offset by Carrier Air Groups. Which are different enough from the other two in their functions that I see no point in upping sea attack capacity with Tac & Heavies.

In some sense you could say what I'm arguing is that their isn't enough differentiation between the two types of aircraft. So why bother having 2 types? And if you are going to have two types, make sure they are different enough to justify them.

[MrQuiet]

Even so, since their movement is halved while transporting

That is incorrect.
You can transport up to full movement points either one infantry unit or 5 supply units. Of course if you go the full movement points it will be a one way flight.

-MrQuiet

[JasonGT]

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

Even so, since their movement is halved while transporting

That is incorrect.
You can transport up to full movement points either one infantry unit or 5 supply units. Of course if you go the full movement points it will be a one way flight.

-MrQuiet

It is correct, at least for what I was intending to talk about, which I agree I was not clear on. I meant it was halved when dropping Paratroopers off into enemy territory, which is the use SeaMonkey was originally talking with using them to threaten the other side.

J.

[Bitterboy]

He may be incorrect on that one point but his point taken as a whole is a good one. Why bother building heavy bombers when tac bombers can perform the same functions? They are cheaper to research and faster to make. If paratroopers didn't take so long to make they might make HB's worth investing in. Maybe another world standard adjustment is in order...

[Maginot]

I think if paratroopers were easier to build then we would see more Heavy Bombers. Remember though -- the only nations that really need to build extra seem to be Japan and the Western Allies. Germany has no need to build any more unless they plan on building more paratroopers. The Western Allies can use them to bomb the inner Axis countries and Japan to harras infastructure and transports. For the most part however all the players are not attacking more then 2 or 3 territories, and thus, only build the cheaper tacticals.

[aletoledo]

In some sense you could say what I'm arguing is that their isn't enough differentiation between the two types of aircraft. So why bother having 2 types? And if you are going to have two types, make sure they are different enough to justify them.

I agree, there really isn't a great need to build both. but there isn't necessarily a need to build both fighters and AA either.

I think after the patch, I favor tac bombers more as axis. they can get their land attack up cheaply. as the allies though I think the extra range for the heavy bombers is essential and a waste to bring up the range on tac bombers.

so if any change was made, it would have to make me as axis want to build heavy bombers and as allies want to build tac bombers. seems like an unlikely change to address both sides.

[JasonGT]

Actually Aletoledo, even as the WA I find that Tac-Bombers are all I need. Just bringing their range up to 3 is really all you need. 4 is candy, but 3 is high enough for the meat of what you need to do with them (see Maginot's comment about this). Beyond that, being able to get their Land attack value so much higher, so much more easily than a heavy bomber... Well its pretty devastating The armor that Heavy bombers have is nice, but is just not enough to offset the extra cost both to build and power them up. Mind you, I do realize that this is all my opinion, so take it as you want.

J.