Slitherine

I think I heard something falling.

2,000 lb worth of bombs from a Ju88?!

I agree I always take strategic bombers over tactical bombers in the current content, but that's mainly because of the nature of the content (static enemy positions that are typically heavily entrenched).

But that's just current content.

That sounds like good news. I'm playing a Moscow scenario in MP and it seems my stukas on 8 can't even hit conscripts out on the steppe in good weather. I won't even try to bomb engineers because they shoot back. I think strat bombers are better at the moment but the decent ones do cost a lot more.

El_Condoro wrote:Another reason to load artillery in transport would be if you don't want it to give defensive fire (and you're sure it either has or doesn't need air cover!). You thereby keep your artillery shells for offensive purposes rather than getting chewed up by armour that you can't hurt anyway. Unfortunately, this approach can't be used for SP ART, which is a pity since they normally have less ammo than towed ART.

Yet another reason to load up in transports is when you want to bait the AI

(Meaning that the loss or half-loss of some outdated unit could well be worth it, if it means the AI Infantry is leaving its highly entrenched and well-supported position of its own accord, perhaps saving you (more than) one full turn on your advance!)

The more I use Strat's the more I like them but I don't go whole hog on them . By the end of the campaign I'll have 2 or 3 Strats and 4 or 5 Tacs. I like the later Tac's ability to finish off a crippled fighter or hit a bomber.

MartyWard wrote:I like the later Tac's ability to finish off a crippled fighter or hit a bomber.

You use Me-110 and Fw-190?
I stay with Ju-87, cheaper and more effective.

You use Me-110 and Fw-190?
I stay with Ju-87, cheaper and more effective.

I think that's where re-playability comes in.

Yes, you can crank up the difficulty to the max level and beat the game again and again until you are bored using your first pick of best units.

But try it some time with some Me-110's or Fw-190's for TB's.

Thanks to all your posts, I plan of using some SB's for a change.

macattack wrote:But try it some time with some Me-110's or Fw-190's for TB's.

Did.
Its more expensive than having Stukas and dedicated fighters. The added versality doesnt compensate the less efficacy.

Did.
Its more expensive than having Stukas and dedicated fighters. The added versality doesnt compensate the less efficacy.

Oh, I'm not claiming that added versatility is better than dedicated fighters and Stuka's. I know that dedicated fighters and Stuka's are the best way to beat the game, I'm just saying that there are other ways to do it which make replaying the game interesting.

I just enjoy the variety and small differences the second time through with other types of units. Yes, it may take longer, and it may not be as decisive, but it's still a fun effort.

impar wrote:

MartyWard wrote:I like the later Tac's ability to finish off a crippled fighter or hit a bomber.

You use Me-110 and Fw-190?
I stay with Ju-87, cheaper and more effective.

I find that in late war Stuka's don't do a lot of damage and need to be protected by fighters since their air defense sucks. I always switch to FW's by the end.

MartyWard wrote:
I find that in late war Stuka's don't do a lot of damage and need to be protected by fighters since their air defense sucks. I always switch to FW's by the end.

But the FW's do even less damage (14 HA vs 9 HA), and cost three times as much, also the Ju87 series requires minimal upgrading costs while switching from the Bf 110's to the Fw 190's can be quite pricey.
But it's true, they can assist in taking down enemy planes, but by the late-war period, I at least tend to have 5-6 experienced Fighters which guarantees me Air-Superiority within the first few turns in almost all cases, so having Fighter-Bombers is somewhat redundant.

And anyway I prefer Mass Strategy Bombers over Tacs anyway (More Durable, More Useful vs entrenched targets).

Fimconte wrote:But the FW's do even less damage (14 HA vs 9 HA), and cost three times as much, also the Ju87 series requires minimal upgrading costs while switching from the Bf 110's to the Fw 190's can be quite pricey.
But it's true, they can assist in taking down enemy planes, but by the late-war period, I at least tend to have 5-6 experienced Fighters which guarantees me Air-Superiority within the first few turns in almost all cases, so having Fighter-Bombers is somewhat redundant.

And anyway I prefer Mass Strategy Bombers over Tacs anyway (More Durable, More Useful vs entrenched targets).

I know the FW does even less than the Stuka but the added benefit of being able to take out a crippled fighter or do a lot of damaged to a bomber, along with the occasional finishing off of a ground unit, make the FW and 110/410 a little more valuable at the very end. Usually by Overlord or Bagration I've upgraded all my Stukas to an FB because the armour defense is just to tough to do much damage and artillery does a fine job on the infantry

I like the Strats too, I just keep finding more reasons to like them each time I play.

I know the FW does even less than the Stuka but the added benefit of being able to take out a crippled fighter or do a lot of damaged to a bomber, along with the occasional finishing off of a ground unit, make the FW and 110/410 a little more valuable at the very end. Usually by Overlord or Bagration I've upgraded all my Stukas to an FB because the armour defense is just to tough to do much damage and artillery does a fine job on the infantry

Worst case, just carry one FW F/B. I don't know if it happens to you guys, but on every one of my turns there is usually one enemy unit that defies my "pure fighter"/"pure stuka" build. It comes in handy.

And anyway I prefer Mass Strategy Bombers over Tacs anyway (More Durable, More Useful vs entrenched targets).

I have never played a PG game with more than one SB (if any at all) and here you guys talk about entire fleets of them. You probably end up with practically no need for artillery then, right? I cannot wait to try this out.

macattack wrote:I have never played a PG game with more than one SB (if any at all) and here you guys talk about entire fleets of them. You probably end up with practically no need for artillery then, right? I cannot wait to try this out.

They are the best unit against ships so in invasion scenarios they really come in handy. That's why I have a few around but I don't always deploy them.

macattack wrote:
I have never played a PG game with more than one SB (if any at all) and here you guys talk about entire fleets of them. You probably end up with practically no need for artillery then, right? I cannot wait to try this out.

In end-war scenarios (Invasion of the US) I usually have 4-6 Strategic Bombers and 8-10 Artillery.

Suppressed targets don't shoot back, so you take very little casualties which keeps you blitzkrieging on.