Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is strategic bombing worthwhile?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Is strategic bombing worthwhile? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 3:05:10 PM   
Zerosen4281857

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 8/29/2015
Status: offline
Tech level 4 strat bombers seem to be ineffective. The cost to repair is
far more than the damage I am inflicting.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 4:51:07 PM   
SlickWilhelm


Posts: 1854
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
I agree. The cost to both escorting fighters and the bombers themselves seem to be prohibitively high. I've been saving my fighters to use for escorting my medium and tactical bombers.

(in reply to Zerosen4281857)
Post #: 2
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 5:55:10 PM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 354
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline
. . . only as bait for the air war.

(in reply to SlickWilhelm)
Post #: 3
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 6:20:53 PM   
Solaristics


Posts: 130
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor57

Tech level 4 strat bombers seem to be ineffective. The cost to repair is
far more than the damage I am inflicting.


I use them to hit HQs when they are out of range of the other bombers. Knocking 3 or 4 points off an HQ can significantly disrupt an enemy's logistics in some cases.

I've found them cost-inefficient for actual strategic bombing of resource hexes.

(in reply to Zerosen4281857)
Post #: 4
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 9:00:18 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8979
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
well lets look at it this way, it is high but forces the enemy to drain away fighters from active fronts or failing that you can pummel the riech, and every time they take fighter losses.. etc.. think of it like stretching the front anddraining away enemy resources that are critical for late war Germany...
I love using a fleet of bombers to play a mpp tug of war in the west while the red army laughed and steam rolls the front...

(in reply to Solaristics)
Post #: 5
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/19/2017 11:49:34 PM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline
Bombing rail centers to isolate a part of the battlefield can work pretty well if you have a strong enough force. Eg western France before D-Day.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 6
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 1:40:02 AM   
Malor

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
I found it useful to pay attention to the defending air units and the damage they were taking. Find the ones that are in range of tactical bombers. I attacked in the same area with my Strat. bomber units to damage them multiple times when they defended my attacks. Once they were damaged, I hit them multiple times as needed with tactical bombers. A few attacks and they were destroyed. Very effective way to kill fighter units, but it did cause damage to my units. However as the Allies, it was easier to replace those loses than it was for the Axis to do so. Air units on the coast are particularly vulnerable because you can also us naval units to assist in the attack.

Malor

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 7
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 4:33:19 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
Yeah the damage you do is to fighters not to industry. Allies have so much MPP they can waste points the Germans can't. Germans are better off not even trying to resist.

(in reply to Malor)
Post #: 8
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 5:11:13 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8979
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
well, if the axis player does not resist they end up losing 20-30 mpp

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 9
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 2:46:45 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

well, if the axis player does not resist they end up losing 20-30 mpp



Per turn just getting one fighter unit beat to hell will cost more than that.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 10
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 2:59:00 PM   
EntropyAvatar

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 2/14/2011
Status: offline
Take a mine that has 5 health points and produces 2 MPP per turn per health point. Left alone that mine will give 50 MPP over the next 5 turns. One hit from a strategic bomber at level 4 will probably level that mine, so over the next turns it produces 0,2,4,6,8 MPP, or 20 total. So one strike from a bomber deprives you of 30 MPP. But unopposed, a bomber can level two such sites each turn, so costing you 60 MPP per turn. Six bombers with escorts can really start to lay waste to every MPP source in range.

What I've found is that it's very costly to run a bombing campaign, but it's also very costly to defend against a serious campaign. There comes a point where the number of number of bomber strikes overwhelms the local ability to defend against them, and the pain starts to really pile up. Especially if you take steps to try to wipe out the defending interceptors after they've been worn down from escorts and bombers.

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 11
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/20/2017 11:49:58 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
I've been the recipient of an Allied bombing campaign with the max build of level 5 stealth bombers based in the Med, Middle East and of course UK. They were also escorted by level 5 jet planes.

Let me tell you the devastation was incredible, I had level 4 fighters and they were eating me up. One mission would sometimes reduce my fighters from 10 strength to two. Try reinforcing 4 or 5 high tech fighters every turn, that's like 4 to 5 hundred MPPs.

Takes a real toll on your income which is also being diminished by the bombers.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to EntropyAvatar)
Post #: 12
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 8:42:44 AM   
The Land

 

Posts: 453
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

well, if the axis player does not resist they end up losing 20-30 mpp



Per turn just getting one fighter unit beat to hell will cost more than that.


Of course, if you have fighters in the defence, then the player doing the bombing is also taking expensive casualties.

Maybe AA is a more efficient method of defending against strategic bombers than fighters are?

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 13
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 9:45:03 AM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 852
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land


quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

well, if the axis player does not resist they end up losing 20-30 mpp



Per turn just getting one fighter unit beat to hell will cost more than that.


Of course, if you have fighters in the defence, then the player doing the bombing is also taking expensive casualties.

Maybe AA is a more efficient method of defending against strategic bombers than fighters are?



A combination of upgraded AA, upgraded Fighters (stationed outside of counter-attack distance by Allied aircraft) and both attached to a reasonable HQ should help. The AA also may be able to gain experience, which could help also.

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 14
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 4:15:02 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
There is always a counter! The application there of needs to be precise.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 15
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 4:54:03 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7362
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Biggest problem with strategic bombing is the opportunity cost, even if the numbers can be made to work with high tech bombers.

MPPs spent there can't be used elsewhere for greater immediate effect. It's simply an enormous investment that takes much time to pay off.

I just finished a hard mode game against the AI as allies and one of the things that had to be streamlined out of this was the strategic bombing campaign. (It took me 3 tries to beat the German AI at the hardest level, plus a lot of cheese. Strategic bombing is a luxury item at these settings, one which the allies cannot afford. Clinched the win in July of 44, for whatever it is worth.)

It might make sense at lower difficulties or perhaps in multiplayer, but the Allies are on a tight schedule here to beat the AI when it is jacked up. (Key here is to knock out Italy early, as in mid 42, in order to give the Russians some badly needed relief. Otherwise, the beefed up AI can really grind down the Sovs in 42. +2 morale is no joke.)

As for the cheese: suicide the French navy against the Italian navy, and spend heavily on diplomacy (including French MPPs) from the getgo to activate the USA early. You can get them in mid 1940 this way, and you'll need them, too.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 16
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 5:08:48 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8979
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
well, ok.. in a NORMAL game, not your super game against ai, strategic bombing is an effective mid war use of US mpp.. pulling fighters from the East.. in your economy I would agree...strat bombers cannot replace armies on the ground esp when you early activate US

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 17
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 5:20:23 PM   
MemoryLeak


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline
It is just one more aspect of this game that is not realistic. The U-boat war is another area.

If the game just allowed more MMPs so that you can be more immersive in the game and conduct
a strategic bombing campaign and a U-Boat campaign. But that is totally impossible, at least to any
effective degree, because all of your MMPs are required for ground units in the Russian meatgrinder.

I suggested air zones where you can station bombers to conduct strategic bombing but cannot
move them to the front. You would be allowed more MMPs just for that purpose. Kind of like house rules.

Something to improve the U-Boat war is also needed because neither type of warfare is cost effective in this game.

I don't understand why every computer war game ever designed always gets 90 percent of everything correct
but always falls short the last 10 percent. Every game. Not one is perfect. Too bad someone with the correct
skills couldn't combine the best points of the major games and produce a really immersive war game experience.

I bought that one called War in the Pacific many years ago when it first came out but there were a lot of problems
plus it took five years to play it. But it came close to being the perfect wargame if you were just judging it
by realism.

_____________________________

If you want to make GOD laugh, tell him your future plans

USS Long Beach CGN-9
RM2 1969-1973

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 18
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 5:49:22 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
Here's what there is to "understand". No wargame will ever be "perfect" for everyone! Designers are imperfect humans, first strike. "Correct Skills" is a function of the person applying those skills and since everyone has an opinion and are therefor prejudice there will never be that "one" catch all wargame. Strikes two and three......you're out!

What I have found is you can hang in there with a set of designers that possess a skill set that can adjust from the input of a community and get close, but it takes awhile and it takes definitive, precise instructions and dialogue from that community to move the game along.

SC = 15 years in the making.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to MemoryLeak)
Post #: 19
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/21/2017 6:47:38 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7362
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I think the way the game portrays strategic bombing is fine. It can pay off in the long run and after a very hefty investment. This is as it should be. It just doesn't make much sense in the harder settings because as is usually the case in these things when you play a game in an extreme way nuance suffers. These settings are for people who want to push the model to the limit, which I did. Most folks aren't going to do this.

And even in real life the question of opportunity cost has never really been resolved. It's very much a matter of debate if this was the correct strategy from the allied standpoint, or if they would've been better off dialing that down in favor of efforts elsewhere. That's reflected in the game and to that extent the game is on the money. At the grand strategic level it's by no means a slam dunk decision and never was, it was a big gamble that relied on the Soviets lasting long enough for it to pay dividends.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 20
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/22/2017 9:11:53 AM   
The Land

 

Posts: 453
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MemoryLeak

If the game just allowed more MMPs so that you can be more immersive in the game and conduct
a strategic bombing campaign and a U-Boat campaign. But that is totally impossible, at least to any
effective degree, because all of your MMPs are required for ground units in the Russian meatgrinder.


So Germany doesn't have the resources for strat bombing AND U-boats AND the eastern front all together?

Yet you're claiming the game in unrealistic? ;)

(in reply to MemoryLeak)
Post #: 21
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/22/2017 6:03:17 PM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Here's what there is to "understand". No wargame will ever be "perfect" for everyone! Designers are imperfect humans, first strike. "Correct Skills" is a function of the person applying those skills and since everyone has an opinion and are therefor prejudice there will never be that "one" catch all wargame. Strikes two and three......you're out!

What I have found is you can hang in there with a set of designers that possess a skill set that can adjust from the input of a community and get close, but it takes awhile and it takes definitive, precise instructions and dialogue from that community to move the game along.

SC = 15 years in the making.



Problem is trying to simulate land, air and sea combat. I have seen games (uncommon valor) be good at the latter two and others be good at land but not all three.

If I had it to do I would abstract the sub war - input MPPs to attack convoys and allies input MPPs to defend differences in allocations and tek = losses. Same effect for strategic bombing. Eliminates micromanagement at least.

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 22
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/22/2017 6:29:26 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
Just a small problem with that. Eventually we will be getting to the Pacific as we have before and we will need those mechanics to accurately portray that theater.

So, if the naval war is lacking, as I somewhat agree with, then it is up to us to collectively put our heads together and figure a way to make it work, conceptually.

We come up with ideas and Hubert & Bill direct us into what is actually applicable to the game and what is not.

Presently, I'm OK with strategic bombing, the naval aspects needs our input.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 23
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile? - 1/23/2017 1:05:34 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8979
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land


quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

well, if the axis player does not resist they end up losing 20-30 mpp



Per turn just getting one fighter unit beat to hell will cost more than that.


Of course, if you have fighters in the defence, then the player doing the bombing is also taking expensive casualties.

Maybe AA is a more efficient method of defending against strategic bombers than fighters are?



A combination of upgraded AA, upgraded Fighters (stationed outside of counter-attack distance by Allied aircraft) and both attached to a reasonable HQ should help. The AA also may be able to gain experience, which could help also.

and thus I say mpp tug, you may lose more than axis, but you are draining away mpp they cannot afford to lose imo.. heck what do I know.. until multi this is all conjecture

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Is strategic bombing worthwhile? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.199