Slitherine

I think base game has tactical bombers unrealistically effective against armored units. When you check official statistics about WW2 losses to Air bombardment, you can see striking difference between what was reported by pilots and what was actually found on the battlefield.. overall, it seems tactical bombers were only responsible for 3-4% of reported losses, which for example means that during entire Normandy campaign, Allied airforce take out just around 100 tanks, while losing over 4000 planes over Normandy..

good article about this topic can be found here:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

so overall, i feel like current AD values for armored units are too low, while HA for planes is way too big, which makes tactical air unrealistically effective. of course, this is a game and tactical air should have its purpose, but i think it should be against soft targets instead of hard ones.

JaM2013 wrote:I think base game has tactical bombers unrealistically effective against armored units. When you check official statistics about WW2 losses to Air bombardment, you can see striking difference between what was reported by pilots and what was actually found on the battlefield.. overall, it seems tactical bombers were only responsible for 3-4% of reported losses, which for example means that during entire Normandy campaign, Allied airforce take out just around 100 tanks, while losing over 4000 planes over Normandy..

good article about this topic can be found here:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

so overall, i feel like current AD values for armored units are too low, while HA for planes is way too big, which makes tactical air unrealistically effective. of course, this is a game and tactical air should have its purpose, but i think it should be against soft targets instead of hard ones.

I think I stand for a lot of players that I would be devastated without my 8-10 pounding Rudel, he is devastatingly effective

yeah, i know, fun fact is, lots of historians is questioning his effectivity as well, as he was active in Nazi party, and actively propagated by propaganda.. so his actual numbers were most likely a lot lower than what is being told about him.. similarly as happened with Wittman..

I agree with both of the last two posts.

Tac bombers are over-powered but I'd really miss them if they were less effective.

One way to look at it is that the tac bomber doesn't do much damage directly but it breaks up the formation, causes a lot of nuisance damage (optics, aerials, guns, tracks damaged), disorients the crew (so they drive into a ditch) and so on. But that starts to sound a lot like what a strategic bomber would do, so I'll stop before I dig myself an awkward hole.

To reflect what we know now about ww2,

they should be effective only versus soft targets. Some halftracks and some tanks with less than 20mm or armor, should be converted to soft targets.

Versus hard targets, they should perhaps kill 1 or 2 (MAX) tanks on a sunny day with an attack. And 0 vs heavy tanks.

They should be effective versus soft target vehicles, but not as much versus infantry (which are not mounted)

JagdpanzerIV wrote:To reflect what we know now about ww2,

they should be effective only versus soft targets. Some halftracks and some tanks with less than 20mm or armor, should be converted to soft targets.

Versus hard targets, they should perhaps kill 1 or 2 (MAX) tanks on a sunny day with an attack. And 0 vs heavy tanks.

They should be effective versus soft target vehicles, but not as much versus infantry (which are not mounted)

This would effectively neuter the use of this unit and not be conducive to a Panzer Corps experience, but you are welcome to mod to your delight

goose_2 wrote:

JagdpanzerIV wrote:To reflect what we know now about ww2,

they should be effective only versus soft targets. Some halftracks and some tanks with less than 20mm or armor, should be converted to soft targets.

Versus hard targets, they should perhaps kill 1 or 2 (MAX) tanks on a sunny day with an attack. And 0 vs heavy tanks.

They should be effective versus soft target vehicles, but not as much versus infantry (which are not mounted)

This would effectively neuter the use of this unit and not be conducive to a Panzer Corps experience, but you are welcome to mod to your delight

They would still be quite useful to destroy artillery units, half tracks, scouts, AT-guns, early tanks, ships and infantry in the open.

Of course this is how i mod my PzC equipment file, i am not expecting the developent team to change anything based on what we wrote here!

JagdpanzerIV wrote:

goose_2 wrote:

JagdpanzerIV wrote:To reflect what we know now about ww2,

they should be effective only versus soft targets. Some halftracks and some tanks with less than 20mm or armor, should be converted to soft targets.

Versus hard targets, they should perhaps kill 1 or 2 (MAX) tanks on a sunny day with an attack. And 0 vs heavy tanks.

They should be effective versus soft target vehicles, but not as much versus infantry (which are not mounted)

This would effectively neuter the use of this unit and not be conducive to a Panzer Corps experience, but you are welcome to mod to your delight

They would still be quite useful to destroy artillery units, half tracks, scouts, AT-guns, early tanks, ships and infantry in the open.

Of course this is how i mod my PzC equipment file, i am not expecting the developent team to change anything based on what we wrote here!

Let's see- they cost as much as a medium tank, they aren't cost effective anywhere near AA which is everywhere once armored mobile AA becomes available, they need to be accompanied by an expensive fighter which takes up a valuable deployment spot, they do nothing in rain or snow, they are minimally effective when cloudy, and they are minimally effective in close terrain, which is most terrain types, and only a couple tac bombers (JU-87G, Shturmovik) do more than a couple points of damage to heavy armor. In most scenarios you are far better off deploying an artillery piece rather than a bomber. But yes, by all means go ahead and nerf this already barely useful unit- in your own stats file.

when i play the vanilla campaign, strangely enough in comparison to what you are saying, they are mostly the most useful and devastating units in my roster. One thing we can do with them, that otherwise would be impossible, is soften up enemy troops before we even get there with tanks.

A Stuka with 3 heroes can wipe out a ground unit in 1 attack. Annihilated without possible retaliation. Hardly barely useful. When the vanilla campaign is played on harder settings, general and beyond, it's quite difficult to buy panthers and king tigers, and PzIVs are no match for late allies tanks. What do you think wipe out enemy armor? Dive bombers...

Technically, ability to kill armored units is more about accuracy than actual protection of those vehicles.. plane needed good straight line on target to semi-accurately aim its guns, presence of even lightest air defense units would force pilot to take evasive maneuvers which would make his aim very bad. Now, if the plane is using rockets, you can forget about any accuracy whatsoever, you are counting on pure probability, firing as many rockets as you can, and still these will hit target very rarely... I repeat - during the whole D-Day campaign, Germans lost just something around 100 tanks to tactical Air, while shooting down over 4000 planes in the process...

Yes, Stuka was better at ground attacks due to dive attack, yet again, it needed weapon that could deal damage even if it didnt hit directly - 250kg bomb would be fine, but anything smaller would have to be thrown a lot closer to target, decreasing a chance for kill...


Btw, did anybody tried playing entire campaign without any air assets? no fighters or bombers, and instead using air defenses.. AD in defensive role (AI plane attacking protected target) is very destructive on its own, and if planes are doing minimal damage, then maybe few AD systems would easily compensate lack of own fighters..

I tried Afrika Corps without tactical bombers, at the general setting (harder than colonel) and i could not do it. Allies tanks were just too numerous and powerful. In comparison, i tried again using 4-5 dive bombers and i could do the missions.

JagdpanzerIV wrote:I tried Afrika Corps without tactical bombers, at the general setting (harder than colonel) and i could not do it. Allies tanks were just too numerous and powerful. In comparison, i tried again using 4-5 dive bombers and i could do the missions.

Afrika Corps' most difficult missions take place in the early war where mobile AA is weak, the weather is clear 90% of the time, and there is little close terrain. That's the best case scenario for bombers. You've also mentioned Vanilla campaign, where money is rarely a factor and you can fight with whatever you want. Try playing the GC (East or West) all the way through on General with 5 tac bombers and then with zero and tell me which turns out better for you.

with Africa Corps, did you try using 88mm for air and antitank defense?

proline wrote:

JagdpanzerIV wrote:I tried Afrika Corps without tactical bombers, at the general setting (harder than colonel) and i could not do it. Allies tanks were just too numerous and powerful. In comparison, i tried again using 4-5 dive bombers and i could do the missions.

Afrika Corps' most difficult missions take place in the early war where mobile AA is weak, the weather is clear 90% of the time, and there is little close terrain. That's the best case scenario for bombers. You've also mentioned Vanilla campaign, where money is rarely a factor and you can fight with whatever you want. Try playing the GC (East or West) all the way through on General with 5 tac bombers and then with zero and tell me which turns out better for you.

I did the Grand campaign with tactical bombers a long time ago on colonel setting. Now i wanna try at general setting. So i will answer you once i tried both setup, with and without bombers.

that is kind of besides the topic tho, where Jam2013 mentions air attack was not effective at taking out tanks, which i agree with.

JaM2013 wrote:with Africa Corps, did you try using 88mm for air and antitank defense?

yeah i had 2 88s and 1 or 2 sdkfz 7/2, not sure. Had 4-5 fighters and 4-5 dive bombers. i relied heavily on destroying allies aircrafts with my AA units, so i could have air superiority.

JaM2013 wrote:yeah, i know, fun fact is, lots of historians is questioning his effectivity as well, as he was active in Nazi party, and actively propagated by propaganda.. so his actual numbers were most likely a lot lower than what is being told about him.. similarly as happened with Wittman..

Or much bigger because often no one was around to confirm.
A busted tank in enemy territory can be repaired and sent back into battle in a few hours.

A busted tank in enemy territory can be repaired and sent back into battle in a few hours.

but then why should it be counted as destroyed, if enemy can put it back into combat practically same day...

JaM2013 wrote:

A busted tank in enemy territory can be repaired and sent back into battle in a few hours.

but then why should it be counted as destroyed, if enemy can put it back into combat practically same day...

the pilot doesn't know that.

JagdpanzerIV wrote:that is kind of besides the topic tho, where Jam2013 mentions air attack was not effective at taking out tanks, which i agree with.

They aren't 'effective at taking out tanks' in PzC either. They are effective when there is good weather, no AA around, plenty of fighters to get air superiority, the enemy tanks are in the open, and you have plenty of cash to spend on bombers. Under those conditions, tac bombers were 'effective at taking out tanks' in WW2 as well.

read the link of the first post from Jam2013.

and this one;
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

this will probably change your mind.