Tactical or Strategic Bombers?

[Venge]

Have yet to work out which ones to go with, or whether just get a mix. What do you guys do?

[Zhivago]

Strategic bombers are used to suppress enemy units (kind of like an artillery suppression effect, but it also saps ammunition from the enemy unit. Tactical bombers have more of a hard/soft attack punch. Play around and experiment. Most people will have at least a couple or three tactical bombers (Ju-87s and BF-110's) in their core, and maybe one or two strategic bombers. It really depends on the scenarios you are playing. Some strategic bombers have a devastating attack on naval units. They especially excel in this area. Hope this helps.

[Tarrak]

Both bomber types got it advantages and disadvantages and got their place in your core:

Tactical bombers cause quite high damage to enemy units but do not cause long term suppression. They come in two different flavors. The Ju87 Stuka family got quite high ground attack values but is very vulnerable to enemy fighters and Anti Aircraft. The other are the so called Jagdbomber like Me110 and it's successors. They got a lot lower ground attack values but are got a lot better air defense and can be used to attack another aircrafts. You want to use it only vs enemy bomber tho or versus very weakened fighters else it takes quite high damage. They still remain vulnerable to AA but not as badly as the Stukas. Unless you have total air superiority you always want to escort your tactical bombers with a fighter especially late in the war or you may find it destroyed faster then you like it.

Strategic aka level bomber usually do not cause much damage to ground units but they do cause long term suppression. Think of them like a flying artillery. Additionally their reduce the amount of ammunition and fuel enemy units has. An experienced and overstrengthed level bomber can reduce enemy unit down to 1 ammo very fast making it easy prey. This is especially useful against the soviet KV and IS tanks which can be a pain. They do as well reduce enemy prestige when attacking a victory hex but i personally find this less useful at least in single player games. Level bombers are usually quite tough and do not take much damage from fighters and AA. This changes a bit in the late war with the arrival of the more powerful fighters but the AI still quite often tends to not go near the level bombers. Most of the level bombers got high naval attack values and so are invaluable asset vs enemy ships. A 14 strength level bomber, which is quite easy to reach as they seems to gain experience very fast, can quite often destroy enemy 10 strength capital ship in one attack.

[soldier]

Go with both and you use them together, Of course you will have to chose when your core force is small or unit slots are limited but i try to have mix when i can. 1 tactical or dive bomber, 1 quality level bomber and one fighter bomber can be a versatile group able to adapt to most situations.
Sometimes I like to throw all my air assets together at a single position for maximum effect and turn the fighters loose on secondary ground targets that are adjacent to the bomber strikes. Then follow up with your mobile artillery and tanks. If your opponent is not expecting it he will have a lot to think about in that area next turn. You can also try both types of bomber on the same target in the same turn if you fly one over the turn before. This can be useful against super tough opponents like Elephants or IS 2 tanks. Fly in the level bomber early against a brute that is stationary or boxed in (or even where you think he will be moved to next turn). Then suppress him next turn, fly out an send in your tac boys to do some damage. Then pray for some lucky rolls rolls and hope then brute is n't angry when you attack with your ground forces. Sometimes its the best you can do

[robman]

I have found German level bombers to be less useful than tac bombers, except against naval targets. Since they must be escorted by fighters, adding one means adding a fighter or subtracting a tac bomber. Back in the Allied General days, US and British heavy bombers were wonderfully effective against AA, but the German light bombers were not (and are not). For Panzer Corps, I keep one or more level bombers in my core for scenarios with naval targets, but otherwise they stay in the hangar.

[Tarrak]

I have found German level bombers to be less useful than tac bombers, except against naval targets. Since they must be escorted by fighters, adding one means adding a fighter or subtracting a tac bomber.

You are confusing the bomber types or you are simply wrong. The level aka strategic bombers got usually quite good air defense and early and mid-war they can fly pretty safe without any escort. Ju87 on the other hand, a tactical bomber, need permanent escort. I agree that the Jagdbomber types do not really need one but they are not so effective in the bombing role.

Edit: Bah, i confused them bomber types as well in my initial post

[Herald611]

I use mostly tactical bombers - Stukas and FW-190s. The only time strat bombers are really useful is for destroying ships.

[fliegenderstaub]

Ar first I must say that I haven't played DLC 43 (only a few of it), 44 and 45 yet (I played 39 to 42 with different setups, which mainly considers bombers and artillery). There might be a different game experience referring to german bombers. I usually play on "Oberst" (colonel) difficulty setting.

Wen I started playing Panzer Corps I considered strategic bombers boring. Stukas delivered lots of damage but were soon to be in trouble without escort. That helplessness in air combat was my main argument against them. So I preferred the Me 110 and - of course later on - the Me 410, which can be used as fighters as well (there has already been a discussion about what tactical bomber to use in the forum). Worked fine for me, so why bother with strategic bombers?

A while ago I read a post in this forum from someone, who used strategic bombers only. Sounded interesting to me, so I have tried it and to be quite honest, it is an interesting game experience. Now it is about pinning the enemy and letting the ground forces do the job. Strategic bombers are sort of a flying artillery. In addition they reduce the target's ammo, which should not be underestimated. Take for example the KV 2, which only has 4 shots. One or two attacks and it is reduced to one. Three units adjacent and it is unable to re-ammo (often the AI uses it's last remaining shot for something stupid).

This "wearing down" of enemy units makes up most of the game. In combination with artillery strongpoints like cities are much easier to take (in my opinion), because you have the chance of "multiple pinning the enemy. First by plane, then after the first ground attack by artillery, followed b ythe second ground attack. The ground units only take minimal damage, if at all. So I choose artillery units mainly by their rate of fire, because a higher rate increases the pin chance. I sacrifice range and hard attack to pin chance and an increased soft attack by choosing "Nebelwerfer" instead of regular artillery (of course I use mobile artillery, too, but this is not the artillery thread ). Works fine with me, especially scenarios like Vyazma seemed a lot easier to me. Minsk 41 was fun, because you get three or four Do 217 for recon purposes, but rearming them on a friendly airfield strengthened my level bomber even more (I now had seven or eight instead of four!).

Using strategic bombers has some disadvantages, too. Upgrading bombers uses a lot of prestige, if you do it regularly. I usualy start with a He 111. Next is the Ju 88, the the Do 217 and finally the He 177, which each time costs the same like buying a brand new unit. Upgrading the Ju 87 and the Me 110 is much cheaper, because you only pay the difference between the old and the new model, which includes the Me 410 in case of upgrading the old Me 110). The other disadvantage are the heroes. They are awarded by kills, and strategic bombers accumulate them rather slow. So, within the 42 campaign, my level three strategic bombers don't have any heroes yet.

Outlook: I have played the Stalingrad scenarios twice. Pure adrenalin, you know, what I mean. Will I send my bombers to sink the reinforcements on the Volga (sinking ships with strategic bombers is very efficient) or will I use them for ground support? As far as I know the He 177 is the end of the ladder, so there won't be any new level bomber models after 43. I will see, if the game experience changes.

A last word about air defense. My experience is, that strategic bombers are as vulnerable to soviet anti air as tac bombers are. Fortunately enemy units with an air defense value of [1], such as the T 26 and soviet engineers for example, don't counterattack. Soviet fighters attack my - unescorted - level bombers from time to time, but they mostly inflict less damage than they take themselves (well, maybe that will change later in the war).

Meanwhile I like playing the game with strategic bombers very much (at least up to the beginning of 42). If I don't forget it, I will write down my experiences from 43 on here one day. Maybe a discussion, what artillery to use might be nice as well...

[MartyWard]

Personally I always have Strats available in my core, usually no more than 2. I don't always use them but they have a lot of value that tends to get overlooked. The loss of ammo/fuel can slow an advance or stop a unit from doing much of anything. They are also the best for attacking naval units. At 4-5 stars they can also do a lot of damage to soft units. I find tac's lose some ground attack value over time as the armour units get tougher but as F/B's they do have the advantage of being able to attack enemy air units. I usually keep 4 of them in my core.

[Chris10]

The strategic concept and real value of Strats is often overlooked and even neglected cause they deal little to no direct damage...but.... Strats are far more resistent to enemy AA than Tacs/Fighters and more resistant to enemy fighters than Tacs and backed by fighters its costly to bring them down + they always eat up enemy fuel/ammo even when their strength points go down..any unit pinned down by a Strat is as good as useless and on each attack you get the chance of high supression which then gives the chance of a direct hit by a nearby ground unit with a fair chance of taking no loss while additionally eating up 1 ammo with each attack...that can render heavy enemy armor inmobilized/out of ammo in 1-2 turns sometimes
If properly used Strats are highly effective against heavy enemy armor and heavy fortified entrenched regions preparing them for assault...
on the other hand Strats can be used to simply delay enemy advance without using any ground unit to fisically engage heavy armor by simply harrassing their fuel which leads to multiple turns need to spend on resupply instead of advancing and fighting and this renders especially the heavy tanks pretty ineffective in relation to their cost

Of course the role of Strats can change during the game as enemy fighters become tougher and the need of escort arise...The Strat Bomber role may differ between SP and MP too

[brettz123]

Just some thoughts on the tactical vs strategic debate. I find tactical to be a far superior weapon for the vast majority of scenarios assuming you have enough artillery. As everything else in building your CORE it depends on what else you have to finish the job (also determined by what year you are in!).

Tactical bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
+ cause direct damage
+ gain heroes exponentially faster
+ some varieties don't need to be escorted
- limited range early in the game
- mostly obsolete starting in 1943

Strategic Bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
+ Great against naval units
+ Gain experience REALLY fast
+ suppress
+ remove ammunition
- very small ability to cause casaulties
- always need to be escorted

I always prefer tactical bombers because I usually run with 7 towed artillery and 5 self-propelled on Field Marshall so I don't find the extra suppression afforded by the strategic bomber to be very useful. There certainly are scenarios and situations in which they are useful and I always keep 2 in my CORE to use at these times. One of the beauties of Panzer Corp is that any situation can be tackled in different ways by a variety of CORE compositions.

For instance one of the suggested uses of Strategic bombers is to reduce the ammo of a KV-2 down to 0 and make it easier to kill WHILE REDUCING CASUALTIES (a very good goal by the way). With my CORE what I do is knock 4 or so strength points off with a tactical bomber (usually an overstrength Ju-87 but sometimes a Bf-110). Then I hit it with artillery to suppress and attack with a unit to push it back. At this point, depending on what type of terrain it has been pushed into, I have some options such as hit it with another tactical (always a good idea!), attack with infantry if it is in rouhg terrain, and artillery again. Either way works.

[deducter]

One thing to note is that strategic bombers have a "magic threshold" at 14 strength. This allows them to bombard a unit and knock off its ammo to 1 if its base ammo is 10 or less (which is the case for most units). This is particularly useful against late war heavy tanks like the IS-1, IS-2, ISU-122, etc.

Strategic bombers also don't suffer return fire from tanks with limited AA (such as the IS-1, IS-2).

[MartyWard]

One thing to note is that strategic bombers have a "magic threshold" at 14 strength. This allows them to bombard a unit and knock off its ammo to 1 if its base ammo is 10 or less (which is the case for most units). This is particularly useful against late war heavy tanks like the IS-1, IS-2, ISU-122, etc.

Strategic bombers also don't suffer return fire from tanks with limited AA (such as the IS-1, IS-2).

I have knocked AAA guns down to 0 ammo with 5 star strats, which comes in rather handy at times.

[Tarrak]

Strategic Bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
- always need to be escorted

I agree with the rest of the summary you wrote but this strikes me as totally wrong. The strategic bombers have high air defense and quite high passive air attack. The AI usually never goes with it's fighters after them as they are quite tough. It changes slightly in late 1944 and 1945 with the arrival of insanely powerful fighters but even then the AI does not inflict much damage.

[MartyWard]

Strategic Bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
- always need to be escorted

I agree with the rest of the summary you wrote but this strikes me as totally wrong. The strategic bombers have high air defense and quite high passive air attack. The AI usually never goes with it's fighters after them as they are quite tough. It changes slightly in late 1944 and 1945 with the arrival of insanely powerful fighters but even then the AI does not inflict much damage.

I have had the AI go after an unescorted Strat and put a hurting on it. Usually you can get air supremacy and pretty much fly them at will but if unexpected reinforcements arrive you can get caught off guard. They do seem pretty rugged though. I have never lost one but have had them down to their last SP.

[soldier]

Strategic Bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
- always need to be escorted

Yea i don't agree with this either. Ideally you wan't to protect all your bombers but i find that the stuka tactical bombers are the planes that always need escorting. Leave one of them alone in the DLC's and the AI will always have a go. As for my super star Heinkel level bomber, I let him fly free through nearly all of the 1942 DLC. The soviet aircraft didn't seem capable of bringing him down and left him alone. I was a little more careful after Escape from Stalingrad but up until then he (and to a certain extent his predecessors) had a free reign. Could never do that with the stuka's

[brettz123]

Strategic Bombers have the following pluses and minuses:
- always need to be escorted

Yea i don't agree with this either. Ideally you wan't to protect all your bombers but i find that the stuka tactical bombers are the planes that always need escorting. Leave one of them alone in the DLC's and the AI will always have a go. As for my super star Heinkel level bomber, I let him fly free through nearly all of the 1942 DLC. The soviet aircraft didn't seem capable of bringing him down and left him alone. I was a little more careful after Escape from Stalingrad but up until then he (and to a certain extent his predecessors) had a free reign. Could never do that with the stuka's

That isn't my experience. Well Stukas always need to be careful and after 43 are almost unusable but by that time run a strat around undefended and you will be in some serious trouble . I find the strat becomes more useful later in the war (say circa 44 and 45) but still not my favorite piece.

[Zhivago]

Ar first I must say that I haven't played DLC 43 (only a few of it), 44 and 45 yet (I played 39 to 42 with different setups, which mainly considers bombers and artillery). There might be a different game experience referring to german bombers. I usually play on "Oberst" (colonel) difficulty setting.

Wen I started playing Panzer Corps I considered strategic bombers boring. Stukas delivered lots of damage but were soon to be in trouble without escort. That helplessness in air combat was my main argument against them. So I preferred the Me 110 and - of course later on - the Me 410, which can be used as fighters as well (there has already been a discussion about what tactical bomber to use in the forum). Worked fine for me, so why bother with strategic bombers?

A while ago I read a post in this forum from someone, who used strategic bombers only. Sounded interesting to me, so I have tried it and to be quite honest, it is an interesting game experience. Now it is about pinning the enemy and letting the ground forces do the job. Strategic bombers are sort of a flying artillery. In addition they reduce the target's ammo, which should not be underestimated. Take for example the KV 2, which only has 4 shots. One or two attacks and it is reduced to one. Three units adjacent and it is unable to re-ammo (often the AI uses it's last remaining shot for something stupid).

This "wearing down" of enemy units makes up most of the game. In combination with artillery strongpoints like cities are much easier to take (in my opinion), because you have the chance of "multiple pinning the enemy. First by plane, then after the first ground attack by artillery, followed b ythe second ground attack. The ground units only take minimal damage, if at all. So I choose artillery units mainly by their rate of fire, because a higher rate increases the pin chance. I sacrifice range and hard attack to pin chance and an increased soft attack by choosing "Nebelwerfer" instead of regular artillery (of course I use mobile artillery, too, but this is not the artillery thread ). Works fine with me, especially scenarios like Vyazma seemed a lot easier to me. Minsk 41 was fun, because you get three or four Do 217 for recon purposes, but rearming them on a friendly airfield strengthened my level bomber even more (I now had seven or eight instead of four!).

Using strategic bombers has some disadvantages, too. Upgrading bombers uses a lot of prestige, if you do it regularly. I usualy start with a He 111. Next is the Ju 88, the the Do 217 and finally the He 177, which each time costs the same like buying a brand new unit. Upgrading the Ju 87 and the Me 110 is much cheaper, because you only pay the difference between the old and the new model, which includes the Me 410 in case of upgrading the old Me 110). The other disadvantage are the heroes. They are awarded by kills, and strategic bombers accumulate them rather slow. So, within the 42 campaign, my level three strategic bombers don't have any heroes yet.

Outlook: I have played the Stalingrad scenarios twice. Pure adrenalin, you know, what I mean. Will I send my bombers to sink the reinforcements on the Volga (sinking ships with strategic bombers is very efficient) or will I use them for ground support? As far as I know the He 177 is the end of the ladder, so there won't be any new level bomber models after 43. I will see, if the game experience changes.

A last word about air defense. My experience is, that strategic bombers are as vulnerable to soviet anti air as tac bombers are. Fortunately enemy units with an air defense value of [1], such as the T 26 and soviet engineers for example, don't counterattack. Soviet fighters attack my - unescorted - level bombers from time to time, but they mostly inflict less damage than they take themselves (well, maybe that will change later in the war).

Meanwhile I like playing the game with strategic bombers very much (at least up to the beginning of 42). If I don't forget it, I will write down my experiences from 43 on here one day. Maybe a discussion, what artillery to use might be nice as well...

As soon as the ME 410 tac bombers are available in 1943, I upgrade all of my tactical bombers--including Stukas to the ME-410. I hate having to escort Stukas around in the 43 through 45 DLCs, and the ME 410's are great for helping to finish off wounded Soviet fighters.

[Venge]

Again, awesome info guys, thanks!
Lots to ponder but I am starting to get the feeling I will run with some of both (strat and tac) and see if I end up favouring one or the other. Might just end up with both full time
And Fliegenderstaub, feel free to open up discussions about artillery in this thread if you so desire. Seems both arty and bombers play a similar role so why not discuss them in the same thread

[huertgenwald]

As soon as the ME 410 tac bombers are available in 1943, I upgrade all of my tactical bombers--including Stukas ...

But the Stuka is so much better, especially the "Gustav" version Ju 87G !

See:

Or (initial voiceover in german):