Strategic Bombers - Do you build them? Are they worth it?

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:02 pm

This is one that I struggle with as the allies. The UK starts off with one strategic bomber. In my last game the USA built an additional one. I tried to use them in their strategic role but I really didn't see any payoff for what it costs to build them. I wound up using them more tactically (bombing troops and subs) than strategically. My experience leads me to the conclusion that it's more cost effective to build tactical bombers over strategic. I know historically that the benefits of strategic bombing is questionable (forgetting about the moral question of bombing civilian populations!). Also, the tactical effectiveness of strategic bombers (i.e., carpet bombing) was more of a hindrance than a help in WWII. It didn't destroy many troops and created big bomb craters which the allies had to maneuver around, delaying them and giving the German defenses time to regroup.

I'd like to know if people use strategic bombers effectively and is so how they use them.

JyriErik · Post by **JyriErik** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:18 pm

I have to second your views. I've tried strategic bombers, but have never found them cost effective. In the time it takes for them to bomb an economic target into oblivion it's easier to just capture it, which has the added benefits of: 1)getting the PP for your side, and 2)killing a lot of the enemy's troops in the capture, thus reducing their economic standing even more. At one time I thought of using them as a sort of reconnaissance plane, but tactical bombers have the same spotting ranges, but better attack capabilities, so I tend not to build any strategic bombers.

syagrius · Post by **syagrius** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:26 pm

As the Axis you dont have the ressources to build them. However having a couple as the UK is good to hit Paris and other cities until having enough strenght to land on the continent.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:57 pm

syagrius wrote:As the Axis you dont have the ressources to build them. However having a couple as the UK is good to hit Paris and other cities until having enough strenght to land on the continent.

Syagrius, I disagree. Strategic bombing is damned marginal in terms of cost effectiveness when you are bombing the enemy's own cities. Paris is an occupied city, and only running at half production to start with = waste of time and PP.

syagrius · Post by **syagrius** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:34 pm

Oops, is that so? I didnt think about that, thanks for the heads-up possum. I think in my last game as the Allies (been awhile) my bomber had the range to bomb in the Ruhr, so I guess I bombed there instead of Paris.

Happycat · Post by **Happycat** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:23 pm

Strategic bombers are very useful imo.

Germany should build at least one, for spying deep into Russia (or the UK, when 1944 approaches). It has additional utility as a long range tactical bomber.

For the Allies, they are indispensable. Early in the war, they can provide reconnaissance (isn't it nice to know when German troops leave France, and the threat of Sea Lion fades?). On top of this, they can hurt u-boats. Try stationing one in Northern Ireland and one in Labrador.

Once the USA enters the war, they should have a couple of strategic bombers already built and ready to go. And then build two more, at least. Bombing the industrial hexes in the Ruhr and other accessible parts of Germany really hurts the German economy, once you reduce those centres to zero production and keep them there.

It is a mistake to consider their worth in terms of cost effectiveness. Although they might cost more than the amount of pp's they can ever kill, so what? The Allies (USA in particular) can afford it. With strategic bombers, the key is the word "strategic". The loss of five or six pp's per turn to the Germany economy, turn after turn after turn, is a terrible loss. It can add up to the equivalent of three or four panzers, or a couple of air units. Those are units you won't have to face in Russia or Normandy.

Another strategic consideration is that removing some of these pp's from the German economy inhibits their ability to conduct research. If the Axis is running a bit low on pp's, and has a choice between replacing a badly needed infantry corps NOW, or gaining a tech level six turns or so from now, which one is the player likely to choose?

At higher tech levels, US and UK bombers can range deeply into Germany, and without escort (the increased dogfight value at higher techs simulates long range escort).

syagrius · Post by **syagrius** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:01 pm

Good assessment. However when playing with an advantage (medium or large) to the Axis quite dilute the results of the bombing.

Happycat · Post by **Happycat** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:55 pm

syagrius wrote:Good assessment. However when playing with an advantage (medium or large) to the Axis quite dilute the results of the bombing.

Quite right; the bombing aspect of the game really comes into its own when playing "even up" (or Allied advantage). Strategic bombing is best when part of a PBEM/TCPip game.

Phatguy · Post by **Phatguy** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:06 am

i use Strat bombers constantly as the Allies. it's true that they are not as good overall as Tac but they do hurt German economy. i run about 5 total as the western allies by 1944. 5 experienced Strat Bombers are nice to have. I tend to put 2 or three down in the med to bomb ploesti. that by itself make the Russian task much easier. At least for me.