Fighter bombers much more effective than heavy bombers.

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Journier
Captain
Posts: 103
Joined: May 07 2004

Fighter bombers much more effective than heavy bombers.

#1 Post by Journier » Apr 03 2006

ok dont have all my tests done yet BUT, i have a few things jotted down right now.

all these prices are with a -2.7% inflation rate. so they may vary when checked with your own pricing.

the numbers under the names of the planes are for Soft attack-Hard attack-mid Air attack then the last number is Missile capacity

Heavy bombers
B2-A bomber costs $15,665m
250-231-0-30 stealth ability-120

B52H costs 987.41M
199-175-0-42

Fighter bombers

F-121 Aurora costs $1,314M
82-90-48-6 stealth ability-110

FB-111F Aardvark costs 1,066M
84-102-0-8

A-10 Thunderbolt costs 239.13M
72-88-14-0

F4E Phantomcosts 205.56M
40-56-18-0

These are the planes i have available as the north americans in the world scenario.

Now, heavy bombers arent very cost effective compared to fighter bombers at all.

Especially the B2-a, any stealthy bomber is a horrible use of money when you can build a fighter bomber that will end up doing MORE DMG because it can fly over the target and keep attacking, UP TO 10 attacks with the F-121 Aurora

While the bombers only receive I believe 1 attack chance and for some reason i usually see my bombers only make 1 attack then run back to base with whatever supplies they have. usually they have quite alot of supplies left when running back to base.

Its almost as if they were meant to be able to do 2 bombing passes?
Heavy bombers do have an advantage though Sorta, they are indirect attack meaning they hit everything in the pile of troops.. but i think the bombers attack is divided up between all the units Please someone correct me if im wrong on this. So that makes having very few bombers almost useless, Especially the B2 which costs so much money.

if the enemy has a stack of 7 soft units and you have 2 groups of B2-A's and bomb it for 250/7= 36 attack per unit x2... thats not exactly going to make a player run for cover.each unit will take a hit of 72, which yes is a bit, BUT, is not nearly as powerful as having 24 F-121 Aurora's which cost the same amount as the 2 groups of B2-A's bombing those same units and killing them 1 by 1 creating large losses for the enemy.

the F-121 aurora's would be causing 1,968 soft dmg per attack if they all attacked at once and attacked the same unit. not to mention they could kill off most any fighter attack upon them with no problem, and outrun the fighters. Not to mention the F-121 can make 10 of these attacks before having to run back to a airbase to resupply.

now those numbers are with just 2 Heavy bomber squadrons of B2-a's, one of the least cost effective units in the game At this point in time

Now what if I do a more early tech comparison between the B-52H and the F4E- Phantom.

the B52 as said above has an cost of 987.41M

the F4E- Phantom has an cost of 205.56M

meaning i can build 4.8 or 5 phantom's for the same cost as the 1 B-52H

B-52's have the attack of 199-175-0
F4E phantom's have the attack of 40-56-18 x5 = 200-280-90

now i just took one of the least effective fighter bombers in the game, and it is still going to be far more superior than the B-52.

The big reason to use fighter bombers is because they will make multiple attacks while heavy bombers are 1 use then gotta run back home for supplies. Which takes time, alot of time sometimes on the world scenario.

if i was in a real competitive game, i wouldnt touch a bomber for this reason, the long loading and travel times take forever to get to the enemy for a 2nd run at there units before they move lots of anti air there.

i am still getting all the numbers for this im building all the above fighters in a game right now and checking how many times each of them makes an attack and then double checking it so please bare with me :)

hopefully some of this info makes sense ill be double checking it and trying to make it a little more sensible.
Last edited by Journier on Apr 03 2006, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#2 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 03 2006

:lol: Actually I know exactly what u are meaning. I like to use the F/B's more that bombers. Mainly for all the reasons and examples u gave. There isn't much more I could give since u have all that's needed to be here. I think I haven't built a bomber squad in awhile. The only thing I see the bombers having advantage wise is they don't take causalities when they make bombing runs except when AA units are around that can actually hit them. Other than that F/B's I think will be all I use now on.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

Journier
Captain
Posts: 103
Joined: May 07 2004

#3 Post by Journier » Apr 03 2006

Definately, i havent used a bomber since some of my earlier games , me thinking they would rip apart some soft targets, but instead they really dont.

also ,

someone said the reason you use heavy bombers is for missile capacity, but thats incorrect also, since you can build regular fighter bombers with missile capacity, and once you buy however many fighter bombers to equal the same price of construction, the fighter bombers will hold more missiles also. but the B-52 is more inline with the cost it should be at.. but the attack needs to be bumped..

Im sorta surprised at how pricy the B2 really is though, all the stealthy bombers are pretty worthless in my opinion, the next stealthy heavy bomber costs like $3,000M thats 3 B52's worth of price.

BUT maybe the B2 will be worthwhile once the stealth ratings are fixed, then again maybe it wont, the Aurora really is a great fighter bomber with high stealth rating.

right now, if i was in a serious game, id be massing A-10 thunderbolts, for the price they are unbeatable as fighter bombers probably most bang for buck compared to any of the other fighter bombers.

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#4 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 03 2006

:lol: I still use the A-10's more than the F-121's even without missile loads. I guess I love the things too much or something. The only place I didn't use them was in the world map when I jumped across the pond toward Europe and the rest of the world. Some of my A-10's had over 200 kills I missed them when I took over the rest of the world.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#5 Post by tkobo » Apr 03 2006

I think this really depends on your use of each type.

For instance im fairly convinced there is nothing more devastating in the game than a large strategic bomber force armed to the teeth with the appropriate missiles.

However that same strategic bomber force used to just drop bombs is fairly ineffective in comparrison.

With the strategic bombers just using missiles, you can litterly get an AI opponent to surrender without your own forces ever coming under fire.

Watch some of my missile movies and you'll get a glimpse at just how devastating missiles can be.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#6 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 03 2006

That may be true but the cost alone for enough missiles point to F/B's being more cost effective. I still see the F/B's better than bombers.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

Journier
Captain
Posts: 103
Joined: May 07 2004

#7 Post by Journier » Apr 04 2006

fyi Missiles (the decent ones) cost usually 1M each give or take a few hundred thousand.

now what if you are trying to hit a unit and its moving? half those missiles are gonna be wasted :/

or, what if your missiles get fired at garrison or conscript forces, which are very cheap (i believe 8-14 million a piece) ? missiles arent gonna make those bombers more cost effective, more likely they will make your bombers LESS cost effective, consider 48 missiles per B52, thats an extra 48 million per bombing run.

how many infantry/mech infantry do you expect to kill with those missiles?

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#8 Post by tkobo » Apr 05 2006

Well for one, i manually target most of my missiles.

Also many missile types will follow a target. I think the only types that dont are the area of effect missiles,which if i remember correctly was said by a Dev to only target the hex.

And while missiles may be expensive in pure money upfront costs, they never need to be repaired, they almost never result in losses of men on your side when used (I do occassionaly get a friendly fire event, but its always been my own fault.IE I wasnt paying attenttion enough),they dont reguire oil OR supplies while in the field,and they can reach and destroy multiple targets FAR faster than anything else in the game.

So theres ALOT to look at cost wise,that isnt reflected in just upfront cost.

I havent actually done any cost analysists on this yet.BUT i suspect its not as bad as people think.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”