Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Strategic Command WWII World at War Tech Support
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

As a lot of people are against restricting the double chit research on strategic bombers, perhaps there are a few other options. As the first jet powered strategic bomber flew March 1947 perhaps at the moment with double chit research an Allied player can have Level 5 (Jet) strategic bombers by late 1943. As at this point it is impossible to have even level 4 fighters at that point. This then creates a huge imbalance to play where strategic bombers can have far to much impact on the game with the axis virtually useless in stopping them.
As a suggestion maybe the answer is to restrict strategic bombers to level 4 only.
Another suggestion is with German fighter research. As Germany was the only country to operate jet fighters in the war, I have found in the game that with researching as fast as possible in fighters and spying that you can only get jet fighters by late 45 this doesn't seem right. Can the chance of a research breakthrough in fighter technology for Germany say from 1943 be increased enough so that they should have level 5 by mid to late 44? If not the research parameters changed with an increase to Germany from 43?
What are others thoughts as I cannot be the only one who sees the current system unrealistic and alters the game too much.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5781
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by BillRunacre »

Interesting thoughts, and capping Heavy Bomber research at level 4 is an easy change for us to make.

Another one would be if we gave Germany a chit in Advanced Fighters in 1939. Whether this affects balance too much might be another matter though?

It'll be good to know what everyone thinks.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
ElvisJJonesRambo
Posts: 2062
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:48 pm
Location: Kingdom of God

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by ElvisJJonesRambo »

Worth a test run. France becomes liquid fire on any good weather.

Yet, another better idea, make AA actually do some damage. (translated, up their ability). Would be nice to at least pepper a planes & get some POW's

-Legend
You don't have to suffer from EJRDS
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

I like the capping of strat bombers to 4 also.
The US didn't have B-47s till like....1947. 😁

I think giving German Ftrs an extra boost may be unbalancing though.

Just my opine.
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana

SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

I also think giving Germany an extra chit early in fighters will create an imbalance. Maybe another option is to allow Germany to have a 25% start rate instead of 0 on fighter research if this is possible?.
Marcinos1985
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:17 am

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by Marcinos1985 »

Please don't touch GER. Some very recent results between very good players show they really don't need help.
Capping heavy bombers at lvl 4 is alright, maybe allow level 5 post 1945 year?
Imho the most important issues balance-wise at the moment are:
1. Preventing japanese units from deployment in artificial way. Not only imbalanced, but also unfun way to play
2. Amphibs are indeed too strong. Care is advised hough, making them too weak will make Allied invasions very problematic.
Regarding 2nd point, maybe get rid of double chit for amphib tech? In my experience, only level 3 or above amphibs become strong enough. With this cahnge, they would come later in game, more in line with history. This could be harmful for Japanese game in the Pacific, although I believe they take too mych too easily, but that's just me.

There are more cheeses that are not that popular anymore, maybe because they got house ruled-out, like Japanese strateging bomber in Siberia. This should be adressed too, though i perfectly understand devs are focused on Civil War. Good luck with launch, highly anticipated.
LoneRunner
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:30 pm

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by LoneRunner »

Marcinos1985 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:13 am
2. Amphibs are indeed too strong. Care is advised hough, making them too weak will make Allied invasions very problematic.
Regarding 2nd point, maybe get rid of double chit for amphib tech? In my experience, only level 3 or above amphibs become strong enough. With this cahnge, they would come later in game, more in line with history. This could be harmful for Japanese game in the Pacific, although I believe they take too mych too easily, but that's just me.
Agree, taking away the double chit on amphib tech would hurt the Japanese. I would like to see more action in the Pacific not less. I think the problem with amphibs is that they take no casualties on amphib attacks and infantry has zero defense on amphib attacks. Also, upgraded amphibs become difficult to attack because many attacks result in no effect.

I'd vote against limiting strategic bombers to tech 4. In the actual war strategic bombing became extremely effective from mid 44 onward. Level 5 shows an image of a jet bomber on the counter but it's not really a jet bomber and doesn't have the capabilities of a jet bomber. Level 5 is just a more effective bomber than level 4. Maybe remove the image of the jet.

Besides, Germany combats strategic bombers with anti-air not fighters. And anti-air can be double chitted. The problem is that anti-air upgrades for cities and resources are way too weak against strategic bombers. All anti-air upgrades do now is reduce bomber effectiveness. Anti-air should be inflicting casualties.
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

After your thoughts I still disagree. The problem is when you put fighters up against level 5 bombers. The fighters take more losses as when the US can be at level 5 the German fighters are only level 3(43). The whole issue really is that strategic bombers advance way too quickly if a player goes all out from the start. This alone even if Germany is in a very strong position can turn the whole game around. Facts are strategic bombing wasn't that successful and it took huge raids on one city to really make an impact. As alot of games played tend to finish by 43 then strategic bombers are not such an issue to create an imbalance. I am playing a game where I am Allies and although I have advanced strategic bombers asap, I have done it only single chit. I only had level 4 in 45 and should be level 5 by 47. Currently late 46. I feel the bombers at this level are creating enough impact and at least axis level 5 fighters can damage them.
As far as anti aircraft goes, perhaps need to up their attack value on strategic bombers and perhaps look at strategic bomber defence against air defence as well? I do not feel it should be changed overall as it will affect ground attack or fighter losses too much.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5781
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by BillRunacre »

HarrySmith wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:39 am As far as anti aircraft goes, perhaps need to up their attack value on strategic bombers and perhaps look at strategic bomber defence against air defence as well? I do not feel it should be changed overall as it will affect ground attack or fighter losses too much.
I wonder if this might be the answer we've all been looking for: to allow the ability of AA units against Strategic Bombers to increase a bit more?

It is possible, e.g. currently each level of AA research increases an AA units' Strat Bomber attack and defence by 1.

Increasing that to 1.5, and possibly having them start at 1.5, would mean that at level 3 they would have 2 more points against a Strat Bomber than currently.

Or is that too much?

Any change here will need some testing, and while I can do some, if anyone wants to modify a campaign and test it out I would be very interested to hear the outcome.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

With the anti air the other aspect is with cities, ports you can go to level 5, will they also go up to the 1.5 per level and if so will it be create too much? I still feel their is the fighter vs strat bomber issue and as I say if strat bombers are level 5 and fighters level 3 their is an imbalance currently with that. Maybe a thought is to start fighters with an additional 1 against strat bombers?
To me though the easiest way to address this entire issue is to restrict Strat bombers to 1 chit at a time research and perhaps tweak air defence slightly.
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

In my current match with Gaming With The Colonel (Allies), I just experienced LvL5 Strat Bombers coming out of the UK in Nov 1943.
I have LvL 4 Ftrs...and Lvl 3 AA. The AA can't touch them.

I'm going to try everything I got in my suite to counter this menace...but it don't look promising as all my mines are layed waste.
I do know his Americans are lacking in other tech..its obvious. If I can clip those strat bombers somehow, its going to be costly to him both in MMP's and NM.

Well Harry...you warned us. 🤠
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana

SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5781
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by BillRunacre »

I have done some testing whereby Fighters start with 1 better attack value against Strat Bombers, and also where AA units gain 1.5 against Strat Bombers per Anti-Air Defense research tech, which doesn't help them at level 1 but once they're upgraded to level 2 it does.

The results were more painful for the Strat Bombers, not overwhelmingly so, but enough I think to help balance out this area a lot more.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

Thanks Bill for researching, that may be the answer to the problem. Give fighter and air defence better attack values against strategic bombers. Definitely worth considering.
Good to see I am not the only person where the strategic bombers are taking a huge impact, thanks OCB for your feedback 🙂
User avatar
Bavre
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by Bavre »

+1
Both for reasons of gameplay and realism. Stratbombers alone were actually really vulnerable to even obsolete fighters if the fighter pilots were well trained. Just check the loss rates of the RAF bomber command: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command
LoneRunner
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:30 pm

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by LoneRunner »

In addition to improving fighter attack performance against strategic bombers, I think anti-air upgrades on resources should have an attack value. Right now, anti-air on resources only reduces the effectiveness of bombing. Strategic bombers don't incur any losses from resource anti-air.

Historically, anti-air defenses surrounding cities and mines caused a lot of bomber casualties.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5781
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by BillRunacre »

LoneRunner wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:42 pm In addition to improving fighter attack performance against strategic bombers, I think anti-air upgrades on resources should have an attack value. Right now, anti-air on resources only reduces the effectiveness of bombing. Strategic bombers don't incur any losses from resource anti-air.

Historically, anti-air defenses surrounding cities and mines caused a lot of bomber casualties.
I've just run a test and upgraded resources do inflict losses on Strat Bombers.

For instance, a level 1 Strategic Bomber has predicted losses of 1:2 against a resource with level 2 AA, but 4:2 against one at level 5.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Bavre
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:02 pm

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by Bavre »

I'm currently playing my first match vs an opponent that seems to be doing an all in on stratbombers and yes I agree, those things are overpowered to an absolutely silly degree. They are just plain immune to fighter damage. I had a state of the art fighter, elite, overstrength, 12 supply, lvl 10 full xp HQ for 120+% readiness. It savaged the escort but did not even scratch the bomber!
And the bombers effect if used to full effect: it's mid 43, I killed Russia and own like 90% of it plus I have industry tech 4 and I'm making 700 something a turn :shock: due to massive uncounterable bombing (well my lvl3 110-120% readiness AAs do an odd point of damage every few bombing runs, but I doubt the US economy even notices that)

My suggestion would be to make fighters just a bit more effective specifically vs strat bombers, so that they can do a consistent 1-2 damage vs escorted high lvl strat bombers. That avoids the problem of causing imbalances elsewhere, like giving germany higher fighter tech would do. This and the AA changes already mentioned should do it imho.
User avatar
Elessar2
Posts: 1333
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:35 am

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by Elessar2 »

Agreed Bavre. I'm currently tweaking my testbed scenario, and Fighter Attack vs. Medium bombers is 2. Vs. Strats it's only 1, and that helps (in part) to explain these reports. The Americans went in thinking that their big buffs could fight their way to the target themselves-they were quickly proved wrong.
HarrySmith
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:31 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by HarrySmith »

Hi Bill,
Good to hear to did a test with Strategic bombers on resources or cities with anit air upgrade. You mentioned though it was level 1 Strat bombers. Have you tried it with level 5 Strat bombers against same air defence upgrades?
I feel the answer is to give fighters, air defence improved performance against strategic bombers or to restrict Strat bombers to one research chit.
User avatar
Elessar2
Posts: 1333
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:35 am

Re: Strategic Bombers vs fighters

Post by Elessar2 »

Slight clarification: Tacs & Meds get a 0.5 point bonus to Fighter defense, while Strats only get zero, and I believe these are the only relevant figures for them when being intercepted. [Their Fighter Attack is only used when a F unit is bombed on the opponent's turn]
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”