What are German Strategic Bombers good for?

Celeborn · Post by **Celeborn** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:00 am

I am frustrated by how much oil they burn relative to the benefit in terms of strategic bombing. I'd like to know if others feel similarly...

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:27 am

I like the German strategic bombers. It's not fun for the British to have London, Birmingham and Liverpool bombed by 2 German strategic bombers prior to Barbarossa. After Barbarossa you can use the bombers against Moscow, Leningrad and maybe even Stalingrad to keep the Russian production down.

I use the strategic bombers for tactical airstrikes of softer targets like garrisons early in Barbarossa to make sure the unit drops down to orange and sometimes red efficiency. That means I can use my land units to finish off the unit without taking any losses.

Later in the war when initiative changes you can send the strategic bombers to Norway to interdict the Russian convoy.

They use a bit of oil, but for the first years the consumption is not a big issue. You can always stop upgrading the bombers late in the war to avoid the latest techs, needing more oil. I'm usually good at conserving German oil so I can afford having 2 strategic bombers working against the Allies. Getting Moscow and Leningrad down to 0 production means quite a bit in 1941-1942. It's 15 less production per turn for the Russians. When they need all PP's they can to repair losses and build new units this loss will actually mean quite a bit. In 1942 Russia needs every PP they can to replace the huge losses they will suffer. If they can't maintain the double defense line they have to retreat.

So I find the German strategic bombers to be very valuable. An extra benefit is the long range. I sometimes use them to finish off very weak Russian units who try to withdraw from the front line to repair. It's frustrating losing the 1 step mech or armor unit to a strategic bomber airstrike when you believed the unit was safe because it had retreated.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:39 am

I don't think oil is an issue any more. The changes made mean reasonable planning gives you no real oil issues.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:35 am

richardsd wrote:I don't think oil is an issue any more. The changes made mean reasonable planning gives you no real oil issues.

I disagree. In my current game as the axis I'm having to be quite careful about managing my oil use. TACs and ARM are powerful units for the Germans late in the war but they really burn up the oil..... A good Allied player will deliberately try to provoke the axis into burning oil and it can be difficult as the axis to disengage late in the war when allied FTRs keep targetting German planes forcing them to burn oil as they fight off the attack.

With respect to STRs, I usually just stick with the at start one the Germans get and use it as Stauffenburg has outlined. I can never seem to afford a second one. TACs, FTRs, MECHs, ARMs and SUBs usually end up getting priority.....

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:14 am

I am surpised you are having oil issues, the rules mean I haven't had any problem and that includes Sealion which really burns it up.

I assume you are on the latest version with 'part use' and the slightly reduced rates?

Or have you really maxed ARM? How many ARM and TAC do you have?

Hammer4000 · Post by **Hammer4000** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:32 am

I know its been like this for awhile, and i'm sure i can find the answer around here somewhere, probably in the manual, but why can i only attack a aircraft once? or even a ground unit, in a way i dont see this as realistic . Of all the things i like about GS this kinda turns me off.(Kinda) The one thing i do like about it, is the fact that its costly to repair aircraft too, so in the long run, these dogfights are kinda realistic & costly.

Another thing i wanted to ask is the casualty screen, i like the new version with the actual total steps lost, but i enjoyed the original loss numbers myself.

Oh yea i guess for a small bug, when i am playing a game, i set the entrenchment dots OFF, leave the XP ones on. However i have noticed, that when i save my game, and then return to it at a later time, that the dots reappear for entrenchment. Then i have to go to options. Click the entrenchment button ON. Then click it off again for them to disappear.

JimR · Post by **JimR** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:23 pm

The German strategic bomber unit is a handy all-round tool. It/they can suppress British production; can keep the RN in check in the Mediterranean (helping out the Italians, who usually need help); can do deep reconnaissance at sea or in the Eastern Steppes; and can suppress Russian production. It's rare that I have more than one German strategic bomber unit at a time, though, so it will end up performing some types of missions but not others depending on the flow of the game.

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:12 pm

JimR wrote:The German strategic bomber unit is a handy all-round tool. It/they can suppress British production; can keep the RN in check in the Mediterranean (helping out the Italians, who usually need help); can do deep reconnaissance at sea or in the Eastern Steppes; and can suppress Russian production. It's rare that I have more than one German strategic bomber unit at a time, though, so it will end up performing some types of missions but not others depending on the flow of the game.

Exactly my opinion.

BuddyGrant · Post by **BuddyGrant** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:44 pm

richardsd wrote:I don't think oil is an issue any more. The changes made mean reasonable planning gives you no real oil issues.

I know there is reduced fuel use based on unit strength and there is increased fuel usage for tech advances and SS/Guards units. Shouldn't that mean a greater chance of fuel shortages? Are there any fuel usage changes besides these?

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:20 pm

Indeed compared to 1.07 STRs are much more usable for axis now. In 1.07 I rarely used even the starting one because of the oil situation and certainly didn't build more. Now getting an additional STR to bomb Soviet and/or UK production centers seems a good way to go.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Hammer4000 wrote:I know its been like this for awhile, and i'm sure i can find the answer around here somewhere, probably in the manual, but why can i only attack a aircraft once? or even a ground unit, in a way i dont see this as realistic . Of all the things i like about GS this kinda turns me off.(Kinda) The one thing i do like about it, is the fact that its costly to repair aircraft too, so in the long run, these dogfights are kinda realistic & costly.

Another thing i wanted to ask is the casualty screen, i like the new version with the actual total steps lost, but i enjoyed the original loss numbers myself.

Oh yea i guess for a small bug, when i am playing a game, i set the entrenchment dots OFF, leave the XP ones on. However i have noticed, that when i save my game, and then return to it at a later time, that the dots reappear for entrenchment. Then i have to go to options. Click the entrenchment button ON. Then click it off again for them to disappear.

Are you playing with entrenchments on in one game and off in another game? The game reads the content of settings.txt and stores the value in gamestate. I have now altered the code so it always reads the value from the settings.txt in case you altered the state after you started the game. So if you change the value in options then it will affect all games. I made the same update for show XP dots as well.

The main reason you can only attack an airbase once is that if you can attack it twice then air units are too likely to be eliminated. Combat losses are high in air fights and sometimes the fighter will intercept an enemy attack and then it can be attacked at the airbase. So it will suffer 2 combat rounds. If you're unlucky to lose e. g. 4 steps in the interception turn the other player can maybe destroy the unit completely with 2 airbase attacks in addition.

This was added rather early in the BJR mod as a way to prevent too heavy losses on air units. The alternative would be to increase the survivability of air units so they take less losses. Then we could have accepted 2 airbase attacks.

Airbases aren't as safe as you believe because e. g. CV's can move close to enemy airbases to harass the air units there. So with 2 airbase attacks then it would be very hard for the Axis to place any fighters or bombers in Italy for example.

So this rule was a critical one for game balance. It can be altered in general.txt if you prefer that. I don't see what's the problem because the air battles seem to be pretty balanced now. The air units take heavy losses in battles, but the units are rarely destroyed unless you take a big risk. You can most often fly the unit to the rear and repair it there.

We altered the casualty screen because step losses said a lot more than soldiers, tanks or air units destroyed. Ronnie had to translate all the big numbers into step losses to compare the games. So it was better to have step losses directly so we could compare different games more easily. It's easy to post in the manual or on the forum the number of soldiers, tanks, air units, naval units etc. each step represents. Then you can do the math yourself if you want to see those numbers.

Hammer4000 · Post by **Hammer4000** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:46 pm

Airbases aren't as safe as you believe because e. g. CV's can move close to enemy airbases to harass the air units there. So with 2 airbase attacks then it would be very hard for the Axis to place any fighters or bombers in Italy for example.

Well i have to say your right about that, and i like that part. With the fact thats it can quite costly to repair these aircraft, that it starts to cause problems in the strategic scale. I'm just about in my 2nd year in Russia(asAxis) and its a quite a hard choice to make.Fix my fighters in the west cutting down PP. Or fix units in the East, this i like about that. And by me moving my air units away from England for repair causes the allies to repair and enforce his, so its a constant battle, over what to fix and build.

Are you playing with entrenchments on in one game and off in another game?

Not that i am aware of, i checked to be sure and nope. All i have to do is start a game click the entrenchment option off.Save it,quite the game

Restart the game and load it up and the dots are back, if i go the option it still says that entrenchment button is off. I have to click it on, go back to map, then go back and click iot off, for the option to take effect again.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:17 am

richardsd wrote:I am surpised you are having oil issues, the rules mean I haven't had any problem and that includes Sealion which really burns it up.

I assume you are on the latest version with 'part use' and the slightly reduced rates?

Or have you really maxed ARM? How many ARM and TAC do you have?

Yes, I'm on the latest version.

In Nov 1944, I have 4 ARM left (was 7 but I lost 3 in 1944 fighting off Overlord and a russian offensive near Magnitogorsk, and havent replaced them). I have 4 MECHs.
In the air, I have 6 TACs but 2 were stationed in Italy and havent had to do much. Just the starting STR. I also have 16 German FTRs, of which only 4 are always active and the rest are activated only for local counter-offensives.... The Italians only have the starting two planes which have basically not be used since 1940.... The other axis planes have basically been grounded since 1942....

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:07 am

schwerpunkt wrote:I also have 16 German FTRs, of which only 4 are always active and the rest are activated only for local counter-offensives....

Good grief! I'm impressed! I've never been able to afford to build that many German fighters. No wonder you are the master of defense. With that kind of fighter force the allies stand little change of breaking your defenses.