I have the base game of Order of Battle and the expansion where you get to replay being Japanese in China. I have completed the Pacific WW2 campaigns for the US and Japan, but I'm not done yet with the one in China. From this I have learned that I don't get how to play this game well. I can beat most levels on the second highest difficulty setting, usually, but I feel I must be missing something. My land armies would work just about as well if I only used infantry, artillery, and recon units, I think.
For example, I don't know what to do with the tanks. Being the mobile gun carrying beasts of war that scream WW2 like nothing else I buy lots of them, they should come in useful now and again, but they never do. When I send my tanks forwards to attack the enemy, it is always the case that there is some anti tank gun hidden behind enemy units. If I ignore that and use my tank to attack anyway, then it gets damaged very quickly and may even die, losing all those warcoins. So I'll use tanks to drive around and kill single units I thought, but the recon units are way better at this, they can move twice and go faster. Also their supply lines don't get cut all the time. So how are you supposed to use tanks? They seem like faintly faster but oddly fragile infantry, not indestructible warmachines of victory.
Another thing I have real difficulty with are enemy aircraft. In theory it seems like anti air guns should be a cheap way to do lots of damage to enemy airplanes, yet I can never get my AA guns in the right spot to shoot at enemy planes. Either I let my AA gun just stand around near the artillery, but then the enemy planes don't go there. Or I can move my AA gun about, but then they morph into the little truck and are vulnerable to the airplanes they are supposed to fight. Whenever an AI airplanes makes a mistake and does get hit by my AA guns, it just runs away, I can never kill them without also using fighters. The thing I intensely dislike about fighters is that they take up slots that could be filled with bombing planes, they are also expensive to buy and maintain, and they take lots of damage when fighting enemy fighters. There must be some trick to it that I don't know.
To sum it up, I have not yet figured out the use of the following units: tanks; submarines; anti air guns; Engineers; horses; strategic bombers; the smaller artillery with the short range(they never get to shoot); my own anti tank guns. Where can I learn what I'm missing? I mean they can't have included half of the units just to look pretty. I can explain more about why I find all these units confusing.
Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Did you play on 2nd level or 4th?Knirsch wrote:I have the base game of Order of Battle and the expansion where you get to replay being Japanese in China. I have completed the Pacific WW2 campaigns for the US and Japan, but I'm not done yet with the one in China. From this I have learned that I don't get how to play this game well. I can beat most levels on the second highest difficulty setting, usually, but I feel I must be missing something. My land armies would work just about as well if I only used infantry, artillery, and recon units, I think.
For example, I don't know what to do with the tanks. Being the mobile gun carrying beasts of war that scream WW2 like nothing else I buy lots of them, they should come in useful now and again, but they never do. When I send my tanks forwards to attack the enemy, it is always the case that there is some anti tank gun hidden behind enemy units. If I ignore that and use my tank to attack anyway, then it gets damaged very quickly and may even die, losing all those warcoins. So I'll use tanks to drive around and kill single units I thought, but the recon units are way better at this, they can move twice and go faster. Also their supply lines don't get cut all the time. So how are you supposed to use tanks? They seem like faintly faster but oddly fragile infantry, not indestructible warmachines of victory.
Another thing I have real difficulty with are enemy aircraft. In theory it seems like anti air guns should be a cheap way to do lots of damage to enemy airplanes, yet I can never get my AA guns in the right spot to shoot at enemy planes. Either I let my AA gun just stand around near the artillery, but then the enemy planes don't go there. Or I can move my AA gun about, but then they morph into the little truck and are vulnerable to the airplanes they are supposed to fight. Whenever an AI airplanes makes a mistake and does get hit by my AA guns, it just runs away, I can never kill them without also using fighters. The thing I intensely dislike about fighters is that they take up slots that could be filled with bombing planes, they are also expensive to buy and maintain, and they take lots of damage when fighting enemy fighters. There must be some trick to it that I don't know.
To sum it up, I have not yet figured out the use of the following units: tanks; submarines; anti air guns; Engineers; horses; strategic bombers; the smaller artillery with the short range(they never get to shoot); my own anti tank guns. Where can I learn what I'm missing? I mean they can't have included half of the units just to look pretty. I can explain more about why I find all these units confusing.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
The one called vice-admiral IV, so 4 I guess. It's some time ago that I played the US campaign, so maybe that was lower at the start. Does that change what the units do? It seemed only to change the HP of enemy units.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
You deal with the game just fine.Knirsch wrote:The one called vice-admiral IV, so 4 I guess. It's some time ago that I played the US campaign, so maybe that was lower at the start. Does that change what the units do? It seemed only to change the HP of enemy units.
The units which you write about behave in this way, and there are any tricks to make it otherwise.
You just have to think, improve your tactics and look for solutions but if you play at this level of difficulty you can do it.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Knirsch,
Sounds like you're doing just fine with the game if you are playing on the higher levels. As Kondi754 has noted you've hit on some of the "weaknesses" of the various units. This will be a bit of a long post so please accept my apologies.
With regards to anti-air assets nothing beats fighters / interceptors for anti-air. Land (or ship based) AA is VERY limited in what they can really do. Consider that late in the war the US Navy increased the amount of 20mm and 40mm AA guns on all ships to deal with kamikazes. Prior to this they has a very hard time downing an aircraft. Aircraft are fast moving and AA fire is typically from a longer range, which adds up to more misses than hits.
Yes, fighters / interceptors do take damage while fighting other aircraft, but that is the nature of war. They will certainly have much better results than any other AA asset. I do, on occasion take ground based AA, but it is typically only a single unit which I "park" near my supply or a particularly important airfield. Since these ground based AA units aren't as effective they are more of a "last ditch effort" to take out that last point of strength of an attacking unit which has been weakened by my fighters.
Scenarios with heavy enemy air presence with low air support on your side will be problematic, at it was in real life.
Armor in WW2 was considered a "exploitation" or support unit. It would support the infantry attack and then once the infantry made a hole through the enemy line the armor would race through and raise havoc in the enemy's rear. That was the theory of course. Armor played a smaller role in the Pacific than Europe for two fairly important reasons. The first was the terrain difference. Armor does much better on the open ground of Europe than on the jungle covered Pacific islands, where its mobility was severely hampered. The second reason was weight / size. Much of the fighting in the Pacific was done during the island hoping where transportation assets were limited, especially in the early part of the war. Thus light tanks were favored over the heavier Shermans.
These lighter tanks were more susceptible to anti-tank fire. The key here is to "keep your eyes open". Recon is your best friend. Use it to spot the AT assets before committing your tanks, then suppress them with artillery or aircraft. Airborne recon is excellent for this role, especially if you use a dive bomber or fighter. Additionally you'll want to check the terrain you'll be fighting on before you select what units to deploy from your reserves. If you'll be fighting over mostly jungle or very rugged terrain you are better off leaving the armor behind or only taking very minimal units.
You mentioned using your tanks to "clean up isolated villages". Not a bad use for them actually. Yes, recon elements can do the same task, but remember light tanks were actually designed as recon! It's kind of a toss up for me really. I use both in my forces. The light tanks provide some limited recon (mainly because they aren't classed as recon in game) and some infantry support in an assault (once AT assets have been suppressed).
Anti-tank guns, unless they are self-propelled are more suited for a defensive role. Without transport they will have a hard time keeping up with the infantry / armor. Similar issue for artillery without transport. I'll add transports to my artillery just so it can keep up. On the defense AT guns located in cover can support dug in infantry against tank assault. Basically copy what the enemy does to you!
Engineers are very versatile units and having some is essential (at least in my opinion). They have the ability to clear minefields, which on the offensive can open new avenues of attack. They can lay mines on the defensive, which should be used in choke points to slow the enemy advance (I used them to great effect on Bataan!). Putting up bridges (or destroying them) are also good uses. I'll put up bridges across rivers to speed up reinforcements or destroy one to slow the enemy. They may not be as good as regular infantry in a fight, but they can do well enough and their additional roles are very helpful.
While I am a submariner I don't use them in game too often. They are pretty weak, both offensively and defensively in my opinion. Where I have used them was to shadow an enemy fleet, being careful to stay away from destroyers(!). Then once my air weakened the target carrier or battleship the sub will close in and hopefully finish them off. It does take quite a bit of effort to set this up, but when it works it's great. Otherwise I use them in a limited recon fashion. Since they can't be spotted by anything other than destroyers I will use them to shadow enemy shipping.
What has helped me understand the units was to read about the real life examples. How did the real life armies employ them? What were their weaknesses? Strengths? I've spent many (MANY) years studying WW2 (and military history in general). The developers have done a pretty good job implementing the units (yes - there is room for improvement) so understanding the real thing does help. Yes, I have seen some "odd" things with some of the units, but for the most part it isn't too bad.
An example is the US Army dropped the 37mm AT guns very early in the Mediterranean in favor of the 57mm AT gun, but continued to use them much longer in the Pacific. The difference? The armor they were up against. The German panzers had heavier armor, which the weaker 37MM couldn't penetrate, meanwhile the Japanese used light tanks which were susceptible to the 37mm. So, if I'm expecting heavy tanks and I'm on the defensive I'll pick up the heavier guns. If I'm on the offensive I typically skip the AT, choosing instead to use air assets to counter any armor threat.
But, nothing beats experience. Keep trying. Don't keep trying the same thing, but switch things up. See what works and what doesn't. Since this is a game you do have the luxury of not really having to worry about how many men die while you experiment.
I hope this helps.
Sounds like you're doing just fine with the game if you are playing on the higher levels. As Kondi754 has noted you've hit on some of the "weaknesses" of the various units. This will be a bit of a long post so please accept my apologies.
With regards to anti-air assets nothing beats fighters / interceptors for anti-air. Land (or ship based) AA is VERY limited in what they can really do. Consider that late in the war the US Navy increased the amount of 20mm and 40mm AA guns on all ships to deal with kamikazes. Prior to this they has a very hard time downing an aircraft. Aircraft are fast moving and AA fire is typically from a longer range, which adds up to more misses than hits.
Yes, fighters / interceptors do take damage while fighting other aircraft, but that is the nature of war. They will certainly have much better results than any other AA asset. I do, on occasion take ground based AA, but it is typically only a single unit which I "park" near my supply or a particularly important airfield. Since these ground based AA units aren't as effective they are more of a "last ditch effort" to take out that last point of strength of an attacking unit which has been weakened by my fighters.
Scenarios with heavy enemy air presence with low air support on your side will be problematic, at it was in real life.
Armor in WW2 was considered a "exploitation" or support unit. It would support the infantry attack and then once the infantry made a hole through the enemy line the armor would race through and raise havoc in the enemy's rear. That was the theory of course. Armor played a smaller role in the Pacific than Europe for two fairly important reasons. The first was the terrain difference. Armor does much better on the open ground of Europe than on the jungle covered Pacific islands, where its mobility was severely hampered. The second reason was weight / size. Much of the fighting in the Pacific was done during the island hoping where transportation assets were limited, especially in the early part of the war. Thus light tanks were favored over the heavier Shermans.
These lighter tanks were more susceptible to anti-tank fire. The key here is to "keep your eyes open". Recon is your best friend. Use it to spot the AT assets before committing your tanks, then suppress them with artillery or aircraft. Airborne recon is excellent for this role, especially if you use a dive bomber or fighter. Additionally you'll want to check the terrain you'll be fighting on before you select what units to deploy from your reserves. If you'll be fighting over mostly jungle or very rugged terrain you are better off leaving the armor behind or only taking very minimal units.
You mentioned using your tanks to "clean up isolated villages". Not a bad use for them actually. Yes, recon elements can do the same task, but remember light tanks were actually designed as recon! It's kind of a toss up for me really. I use both in my forces. The light tanks provide some limited recon (mainly because they aren't classed as recon in game) and some infantry support in an assault (once AT assets have been suppressed).
Anti-tank guns, unless they are self-propelled are more suited for a defensive role. Without transport they will have a hard time keeping up with the infantry / armor. Similar issue for artillery without transport. I'll add transports to my artillery just so it can keep up. On the defense AT guns located in cover can support dug in infantry against tank assault. Basically copy what the enemy does to you!
Engineers are very versatile units and having some is essential (at least in my opinion). They have the ability to clear minefields, which on the offensive can open new avenues of attack. They can lay mines on the defensive, which should be used in choke points to slow the enemy advance (I used them to great effect on Bataan!). Putting up bridges (or destroying them) are also good uses. I'll put up bridges across rivers to speed up reinforcements or destroy one to slow the enemy. They may not be as good as regular infantry in a fight, but they can do well enough and their additional roles are very helpful.
While I am a submariner I don't use them in game too often. They are pretty weak, both offensively and defensively in my opinion. Where I have used them was to shadow an enemy fleet, being careful to stay away from destroyers(!). Then once my air weakened the target carrier or battleship the sub will close in and hopefully finish them off. It does take quite a bit of effort to set this up, but when it works it's great. Otherwise I use them in a limited recon fashion. Since they can't be spotted by anything other than destroyers I will use them to shadow enemy shipping.
What has helped me understand the units was to read about the real life examples. How did the real life armies employ them? What were their weaknesses? Strengths? I've spent many (MANY) years studying WW2 (and military history in general). The developers have done a pretty good job implementing the units (yes - there is room for improvement) so understanding the real thing does help. Yes, I have seen some "odd" things with some of the units, but for the most part it isn't too bad.
An example is the US Army dropped the 37mm AT guns very early in the Mediterranean in favor of the 57mm AT gun, but continued to use them much longer in the Pacific. The difference? The armor they were up against. The German panzers had heavier armor, which the weaker 37MM couldn't penetrate, meanwhile the Japanese used light tanks which were susceptible to the 37mm. So, if I'm expecting heavy tanks and I'm on the defensive I'll pick up the heavier guns. If I'm on the offensive I typically skip the AT, choosing instead to use air assets to counter any armor threat.
But, nothing beats experience. Keep trying. Don't keep trying the same thing, but switch things up. See what works and what doesn't. Since this is a game you do have the luxury of not really having to worry about how many men die while you experiment.
I hope this helps.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Thanks Ladylex,
Your post covers a lot. To be honest I like the missions with lots of boats best. I think I played the big sea battles so often that I still remember where most of the ships were hidden. Those big battleships with all the upgrades were like my babies, by the end of the campaigns. Too bad that big naval battles didn't play a big role in the Finnish or German wars. Maybe they'll find some to add, like an invasion of GB some day. I do seem to recall there were boats in the Norwegian level of Panzercorps, so maybe they are in Blitzkrieg.
Do you know what the point of Strategic bombers is? To me it seems that they are mostly pointless and that tactical bombers are always the better option.
Also I want to know more tricks and tactics. In some update they made the AI more likely to try to cut my units off from supplies. I am pretty sure that tendency could be exploited. I mean things like making units that have lots of sandbags move a tile to two so that they lose much of their protection, or getting the AI to advance into a position that is a trap. I mean if I constantly fall for it, then it must be possible to make my enemies fall for the same tricks too.
Another thing that I don't think I do often enough is to cut off supplies. I very rarely succeed at this, while it is a pretty big game mechanic.
Your post covers a lot. To be honest I like the missions with lots of boats best. I think I played the big sea battles so often that I still remember where most of the ships were hidden. Those big battleships with all the upgrades were like my babies, by the end of the campaigns. Too bad that big naval battles didn't play a big role in the Finnish or German wars. Maybe they'll find some to add, like an invasion of GB some day. I do seem to recall there were boats in the Norwegian level of Panzercorps, so maybe they are in Blitzkrieg.
Do you know what the point of Strategic bombers is? To me it seems that they are mostly pointless and that tactical bombers are always the better option.
Also I want to know more tricks and tactics. In some update they made the AI more likely to try to cut my units off from supplies. I am pretty sure that tendency could be exploited. I mean things like making units that have lots of sandbags move a tile to two so that they lose much of their protection, or getting the AI to advance into a position that is a trap. I mean if I constantly fall for it, then it must be possible to make my enemies fall for the same tricks too.
Another thing that I don't think I do often enough is to cut off supplies. I very rarely succeed at this, while it is a pretty big game mechanic.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Hi Knirsch.
I recommend looking at these threads:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=71266
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=72232
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=71818
I recommend looking at these threads:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=71266
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=72232
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 64&t=71818
Author and maintainer of Unit Navigator Tool for Order Of Battle (http://mfendek.byethost16.com/)
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Hi Knirsch,
A couple of additional things. Cutting off supplies plays a much more prominent role (appropriaterly so) in the Winter War campaign. Strategic bombers are very good at reducing organisation, which is a key mechanic in the game (and they reduce the supply of a supply point) - but yes, they are limited in their use. Engineers likewise are weaker than regular infantry, BUT they are good at reducing entrenchment! This comes handy. It's worth attacking with them before you use other infantry, despite them taking higher losses.
A couple of additional things. Cutting off supplies plays a much more prominent role (appropriaterly so) in the Winter War campaign. Strategic bombers are very good at reducing organisation, which is a key mechanic in the game (and they reduce the supply of a supply point) - but yes, they are limited in their use. Engineers likewise are weaker than regular infantry, BUT they are good at reducing entrenchment! This comes handy. It's worth attacking with them before you use other infantry, despite them taking higher losses.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
As mhladnik points out strategic bombers are good at hitting supply points, which is what they did with some success in real life. Though there is still considerable disagreement as to how well they actually did. There were two notable times when these bombers were used in a tactical role, D-Day and Operation Cobra. In both cases whether or not they accomplished their stated mission is debatable.
I personally don't take them, but will use them when given to me by a scenario. Hitting supply points to reduce the enemy supply is fairly slow work, but not a bad way to help whittle them down. Hitting units (a more tactical use) helps to reduce their efficiency. If you're got a particularly tough nut to crack hit them with the bombers for a couple of turns, then artillery, finally assaulting with engineers and infantry backed-up by heavy infantry (their mortars aren't particularly strong, but to add to the effect).
Pulling the enemy out of their defensive positions to walk into an ambush is tough. Real tough! The only successful ambush I was actually able to pull off was in the Bataan scenario. My engineers planted mines along the left side of the mountain range leaving the road open. Just on the other side of both wooded / jungle areas I had AT guns and infantry. As the enemy moved along the road I was able to hit them from the rear and sides! I managed to destroy a couple of infantry units and caused a couple of armored units to pull back with heavy damage before I pulled back to the next defensive line. An ambush I attempted to set up over on the right failed as the enemy just went around me.
Ambushes require patience. Just sitting there waiting for the enemy to come to you. You can "sweeten" the deal a little by offering up some "bait" to draw them in, but I've never tried that in this game so I'm not sure it would work. In another one I played several years ago it did. The AI was a bit flawed in it would attack a weakened unit even if doing so would cause it to open its flanks to superior forces which it could actually see.
I'm on the fence at the moment concerning the naval scenarios. While I also enjoy naval combat (I am a former sailor after all!) I'm not sure I like how it's implemented here. In the Coral Sea neither sides surface ships ever saw the enemy. All damage was inflected by aircraft. Yet, for me the Coral Sea scenario devolved into a large surface fleet action. I find I have to take even more surface ships just to survive the destroy / cruiser mob of the enemy, even when the real threat was suppose to be their bombers / torpedo planes.
Most of the battleships were too slow to keep up with the carrier task forces, which was part of their strength. Move fast, hit hard, move again. Being slowed down by the battleships would place them at a disadvantage. But, nothing beats those 16" guns for shore bombardment! I'll some times add one to my scenarios even when I know it's movement will be very restricted. Nothing quite like having some REALLY BIG artillery!
I personally don't take them, but will use them when given to me by a scenario. Hitting supply points to reduce the enemy supply is fairly slow work, but not a bad way to help whittle them down. Hitting units (a more tactical use) helps to reduce their efficiency. If you're got a particularly tough nut to crack hit them with the bombers for a couple of turns, then artillery, finally assaulting with engineers and infantry backed-up by heavy infantry (their mortars aren't particularly strong, but to add to the effect).
Pulling the enemy out of their defensive positions to walk into an ambush is tough. Real tough! The only successful ambush I was actually able to pull off was in the Bataan scenario. My engineers planted mines along the left side of the mountain range leaving the road open. Just on the other side of both wooded / jungle areas I had AT guns and infantry. As the enemy moved along the road I was able to hit them from the rear and sides! I managed to destroy a couple of infantry units and caused a couple of armored units to pull back with heavy damage before I pulled back to the next defensive line. An ambush I attempted to set up over on the right failed as the enemy just went around me.
Ambushes require patience. Just sitting there waiting for the enemy to come to you. You can "sweeten" the deal a little by offering up some "bait" to draw them in, but I've never tried that in this game so I'm not sure it would work. In another one I played several years ago it did. The AI was a bit flawed in it would attack a weakened unit even if doing so would cause it to open its flanks to superior forces which it could actually see.
I'm on the fence at the moment concerning the naval scenarios. While I also enjoy naval combat (I am a former sailor after all!) I'm not sure I like how it's implemented here. In the Coral Sea neither sides surface ships ever saw the enemy. All damage was inflected by aircraft. Yet, for me the Coral Sea scenario devolved into a large surface fleet action. I find I have to take even more surface ships just to survive the destroy / cruiser mob of the enemy, even when the real threat was suppose to be their bombers / torpedo planes.
Most of the battleships were too slow to keep up with the carrier task forces, which was part of their strength. Move fast, hit hard, move again. Being slowed down by the battleships would place them at a disadvantage. But, nothing beats those 16" guns for shore bombardment! I'll some times add one to my scenarios even when I know it's movement will be very restricted. Nothing quite like having some REALLY BIG artillery!
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
The use of strategic bombers or even medium bombers for tactical tasks was debatable mainly because of their low accuracy. I think dive bombers (Germany), or fighter-bomber aircrafts (USA, Great Britain) were ideal for tactical support (point-attacks especially) during the II WW.LadyLex wrote:As mhladnik points out strategic bombers are good at hitting supply points, which is what they did with some success in real life. Though there is still considerable disagreement as to how well they actually did. There were two notable times when these bombers were used in a tactical role, D-Day and Operation Cobra. In both cases whether or not they accomplished their stated mission is debatable.
(...)
It should be noted that OoB reflects this realities better. The PzC opted for medium bombers as tactical support - especially Mitchell, Marauder, Invader have the best statistics to destroy ground targets, which is not true. Thunderbolt, Mustang and Typhoon (all with bombs or missiles) were definitely better.
I expect it will be adopted in upcoming Allied campaigns DLCs.
Last edited by kondi754 on Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
I do agree that the high flying strategic bombers were not useful in a tactical role, their claims to be able to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel" aside. Their bombing accuracy was totally unsuited to the role, however they were used occasionally none the less; at times causing as much harm to friendly forces as the enemy.kondi754 wrote: The use of strategic bombers or even medium bombers for tactical tasks was debatable mainly because of their low accuracy. I think dive bombers (Germany), or fighter-bomber aircraft (USA, Great Britain) were ideal for tactical support (point-attacks especially) during the II WW.
It should be noted that OoB reflects this realities better. The PzC opted for medium bombers as tactical support - especially Mitchell, Marauder, Invader have the best statistics to destroy ground targets, which is not true. Thunderbolt, Mustang and Typhoon (all with bombs or missiles) were definitely better.
I expect it will be adopted in upcoming Allied campaigns DLCs.
The medium bombers (Mitchells, Marauder's, etc.), could be adapted to close air support. Granted, the ones operating in the ETO were not operated in this role, choosing to continue in a more traditional bomber role. However, in the PTO there were several versions of these aircraft, notably the B-25C1 / D1 which was used effectively in low level close air support. These pilots pioneered "skip bombing" and the use of parachute bombing (the bombs were equipped with small parachutes to slow their decent when dropped from bombers flying at tree-top level) of runways and other targets in the Pacific and their aircraft were increasingly modified to include more forward facing fixed machine guns, with some even getting cannons to be used in strafing runs. They carried more armor protection for the crew and a lot more ammo than a traditional fighter or fighter / bomber, thus allowing them to attack a target more often before needing to rearm. Their longer range also allowed them to support operations before airfields were close enough to allow the shorter legged fighter / fighter-bombers to arrive. Now, this certainly wasn't the "norm" for these aircraft even in the PTO and including a variant to represent them in game would be better than assuming all medium bombers operated this way.
However, nothing beat the dive bombers and fighter / bombers for bombing accuracy. I'll take a few of these (provided I have an airfield / carrier to support them) every time. They perform aerial recon, close ground support and interdiction of both air and ground forces the enemy throws my way.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Medium bombers were used for tactical purposes also in Europe. It was, however, destruction of bridges, important railway and roads junctions and airfields as well. They also bombed enemy units traveling towards the front and their areas of concentration but I thought about the direct support on the battlefield: attacks on tanks, infantry, artillery or even AT and AA positions. These tasks were performed by fighter-bombers and dive bombers.LadyLex wrote:I do agree that the high flying strategic bombers were not useful in a tactical role, their claims to be able to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel" aside. Their bombing accuracy was totally unsuited to the role, however they were used occasionally none the less; at times causing as much harm to friendly forces as the enemy.kondi754 wrote: The use of strategic bombers or even medium bombers for tactical tasks was debatable mainly because of their low accuracy. I think dive bombers (Germany), or fighter-bomber aircraft (USA, Great Britain) were ideal for tactical support (point-attacks especially) during the II WW.
It should be noted that OoB reflects this realities better. The PzC opted for medium bombers as tactical support - especially Mitchell, Marauder, Invader have the best statistics to destroy ground targets, which is not true. Thunderbolt, Mustang and Typhoon (all with bombs or missiles) were definitely better.
I expect it will be adopted in upcoming Allied campaigns DLCs.
The medium bombers (Mitchells, Marauder's, etc.), could be adapted to close air support. Granted, the ones operating in the ETO were not operated in this role, choosing to continue in a more traditional bomber role. However, in the PTO there were several versions of these aircraft, notably the B-25C1 / D1 which was used effectively in low level close air support. These pilots pioneered "skip bombing" and the use of parachute bombing (the bombs were equipped with small parachutes to slow their decent when dropped from bombers flying at tree-top level) of runways and other targets in the Pacific and their aircraft were increasingly modified to include more forward facing fixed machine guns, with some even getting cannons to be used in strafing runs. They carried more armor protection for the crew and a lot more ammo than a traditional fighter or fighter / bomber, thus allowing them to attack a target more often before needing to rearm. Their longer range also allowed them to support operations before airfields were close enough to allow the shorter legged fighter / fighter-bombers to arrive. Now, this certainly wasn't the "norm" for these aircraft even in the PTO and including a variant to represent them in game would be better than assuming all medium bombers operated this way.
However, nothing beat the dive bombers and fighter / bombers for bombing accuracy. I'll take a few of these (provided I have an airfield / carrier to support them) every time. They perform aerial recon, close ground support and interdiction of both air and ground forces the enemy throws my way.
Thanks for the interesting information about the use of medium bombers on the PTO.
Re: Where can I learn how to play this game well?
Just bought some DLCs and restarted playing.
It's quite terrifying how much I have forgotten, and it's hard to un-learn some Panzer General/Corps mechanics thinking.
But I remember my best use of submarines. You must have a very good idea where the enemy will come along and use them to damage or destroy key targets and then dust off to avoid getting destroyed. They cost only few deployment points and I liked operating them as a pair of two subs.
Battleships and Carriers are the ideal targets. There are actually few or none troop transports in the campaign that I remember.
It's quite terrifying how much I have forgotten, and it's hard to un-learn some Panzer General/Corps mechanics thinking.
But I remember my best use of submarines. You must have a very good idea where the enemy will come along and use them to damage or destroy key targets and then dust off to avoid getting destroyed. They cost only few deployment points and I liked operating them as a pair of two subs.
Battleships and Carriers are the ideal targets. There are actually few or none troop transports in the campaign that I remember.