Carpet Bombing

[budweiser]

I'm playing a game now where I have about 30 bombers. Its C3C 1.22 standard map, 60% water pangea. I've been fooling around fighting wars with just these bombers. My lands happen to have a small easily fortified frontier, but I am still in bomber range of several opponents.

I have used air power to isolate enemy capitals and then cut off all resources and luxuries. Next, I turn them loose on food terrain bombing all railroads and then all roaded ground until the land looks like one big crater. It takes a long time, but is it worth it?

My theory is that by cutting the food, and then the commerce, that the enemy will be forced to reduce the size of its armies on its own with out me having to fight them on land. Lethal bombardment is a nice extra bonus, but hitting mech inf is a bit hard.

I think a force of 25 to 30 bombers will pay for itself and do the work of a traditional land army consiting of number twice that high. In any event, I think if you are the kind of player that totes around a stack or two of 25 arty then you should look into bombers.

[Tomoyo]

Yeah, but with your way you don't get much when you conquer them. Artillery only hurts units in cities...

[budweiser]

What I get, if and when I conquer them are easily managed size 1 cities complete with wonders and resources and luxuries in the city radius. And they are no longer connected to the mother country (I read somewhere on here that that matters).

Originally Posted by Tomoyo

Artillery only hurts units in cities...

??? Artillery can damage terrain and units outside of cities too, only it's range is 2. Bombers have more range, that is why they are better.

[Whomp]

But arty can't get shot out of the air. IIRC flak is the first build choice at that point for the AI.
I must say that seeing their planes crumbling when a city is taken over is quite a treat.

[Tomoyo]

??? Artillery can damage terrain and units outside of cities too, only it's range is 2. Bombers have more range, that is why they are better.

Do not get me misunderstood here. I use bombers too, just not to attack terrain. Artillery can move and fire in one turn, my main reason for preferring them. I should have worded my sentence, "In attacking cities, artillery can only hit units."

[Bluemofia]

I tend to avoid carpet bombing, because of the destruction of the terrain. I tend to concentrate my fire on cities with bombers, or artillery, but only if I know I can take the city and not lose my artillery.

[Dell19]

It seems to be that as the AI fights each other they will pillage and basically do carpet bombing even when they don't have planes or any significant artillary. It was quite weird to find the Mayan capital in a late game surrounded by one piece of road and that was it whilst I was the only nation who had gotten past flight. Haven't bothered to play that game again since I had modern armour etc.

[Sparta]

Originally Posted by budweiser

Bombers have more range, that is why they are better.

That's actually somewhat debateable, if you consider that arty on rails have infinite range whereas bombers in the same scenario could have to rebase multiple times just to keep up with an advance (especially true on large/huge maps). Late in the game on huge maps you can actually get more use out of arty than bombers, IMO, if you've got a rapidly expanding frontline (which you almost should given the tools at your disposal by then). I still use bombers, but sparingly - like Tomoyo was pointing out, they ruin the infrastructure of the cities you're attempting to conquer (IIRC, artillery will -only- hit units; bombers might destroy the market/library/courthouse/etc.).

Defensively, I see what you're saying, but if you're going offensive, try bombarding with a decent supply of artillery following freshly made rails created by a small worker army - you'd be surprised how many cities your cavalry will be able to take in one turn.

[budweiser]

Originally Posted by Tomoyo

Do not get me misunderstood here. I use bombers too, just not to attack terrain.

This is really the essence of my whole point. I think bombers should be used liberally against terrain.

Originally Posted by Tomoyo

Artillery can move and fire in one turn, my main reason for preferring them.

Note that bombers on a carrier can move and fire in one turn.

Someone said they were worried about getting shot down. At that point it becomes a numbers game of attrition and if you have 30 bombers and they get one, its no big deal. Chances are the other 29 will destroy the target including any aa or fighters in the city.

But if you hit the terrain first and then move to the city, like I said. I believe you will encounter fewer defenders; includding AAA.

I have only really tried this one time on a regent game. I am trying to imagine how it would be on a higher difficulty. Most games are over before then. One thing I think is sound is that you should trade in most of your arty stacks in favor of bombers once they become available. I think 30 bomber > 30 arty.

[Whomp]

Unfair comparison with arty at 80 sh and bombers at 100 sh (and an airport if you want vet planes)
It's not much different than the Sword v Horse comparison. They both have impact in combined arms.
In a recent DG game I had the French (the runaway) coming through on railed gaps with MA. They could not be reached by my bombers (which were further forward) however the arty on rails redlined them and were finished by elite cavs and tanks which created another army.

[budweiser]

Whomp- In you example above, the arty was used correctly for defense. I'm not really talking about bombers defending the realm a la the "flying fortress".

I'm trying to be fiscally resonsible here. If I am running a republic and I have to pay 2 gold for every unit over my allotment, then I am saying the money is better spent on a force of bombers.

Whats the big deal about ruining those lands anyway? Its not like they would actually be all that productive in your hands. They dont really produce shields and commerce, just food.

[Tomoyo]

The produce gold - specialist farms.

[Dell19]

Bombers are deadly against naval units... They can be the edge in PBEMs when navies may count.

[Whomp]

But food is the critical item in corrupt cities. If you have them as scientists (or taxman civil engineer) that's 3 beakers per person. If the cow or wheat is bombarded? No food hence less science.

I prefer to use arty as my offensive weapon and did in that game as well. But some were left behind for the MA that was running through gaps between our countries. (my mistake was not enough war settlers filling in the gaps fast enough). But my tanks, arty and inf. were still able to use those same gaps to the front.

[SJ Frank]

Originally Posted by budweiser

Whats the big deal about ruining those lands anyway? Its not like they would actually be all that productive in your hands. They dont really produce shields and commerce, just food.

Or if you're Communist.

I have done the carpet bombing thing in the past. It was a fun way of sending the AI back to the stone ages while still keeping them alive, just the kind of thing to do if you're heading towards a space win and somebody sneaks attacks you.

I don't see much strategic value of carpet bombing in a competitive game though. If you're close enough and powerful enough to bomb his core cities, then you should be taking over those cities instead.

[Grohan]

I like to use carpet bombing when I have won the game.
This screenshot shows how much damage 2 nukes and massive amount of bombers can do in few turns:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/bombers3.jpg

[gunkulator]

Originally Posted by Sparta

That's actually somewhat debateable, if you consider that arty on rails have infinite range whereas bombers in the same scenario could have to rebase multiple times just to keep up with an advance (especially true on large/huge maps). Late in the game on huge maps you can actually get more use out of arty than bombers, IMO, if you've got a rapidly expanding frontline (which you almost should given the tools at your disposal by then).

On any map other than pangaea, arties are a pain to load, move and then unload to/from transports. They are actually slower than bombers in such a case.

If you raze instead of keep, like you might in a close game, I actually prefer bombers since they can soften a city over multiple turns. Knock metros down to cities. Cities to towns. Take out walls, barracks, civil defense. As the cities shrink, watch the AI defenders abandon it.

Defensively, I see what you're saying, but if you're going offensive, try bombarding with a decent supply of artillery following freshly made rails created by a small worker army - you'd be surprised how many cities your cavalry will be able to take in one turn.

Only if you use the so-called "combat settler" trick - a tactic so cheesy, IMHO, that it recalls the sleeziness of the Civ2 Spy, i.e. a 30 shield unit that could bring down even the biggest, most powerful metro. The game went to a lot of trouble to avoid the one-turn-conquest-on-the AI's-rails trick that made Civ2 a cakewalk: culture borders, no rail bonus unless in ROP, slow artillery, no blitz for most fast movers. To have it so easily defeated was clearly an unintended oversight.

[al_thor]

Bombers are the only unit that I will build as a Regular. They seem to get promoted rather quickly, especially if you manage them properly (get the unit down to 1 hp before hitting them with the Regular Bomber). My Bombers are often Elite.

I target terrain quite often, especially strategic resources. I rarely will bomb cities - terrain and units are my targets. I just love sinking those pesky naval units that are bombarding my coastlines (hit 'em with Arty first, if possible, or bombard with my own ships).

With Carriers, I always have 2 or 3 Carriers in a group, and have AT LEAST 4 Jet Fighters flying Air Superiority from one or more of the Carriers. Obviously, the Carriers are also covered covered with Battleships, Destroyers, Cruisers. A Carrier Group like this can be devastating, while also providing Air Support for your troops against Bombers.

[Rambuchan]

With the lethal bombarment option you can go very far with the Bomber force Bud is on about. Carpet bombing the terrain is not such a bad thing, especially if it's to do their resources but the bombers could gain you territory also by taking out the defensive troops in their cities.

In a game I'm playing now, I've landed on a far off continent, planted a foothold city and stacked it with bombers. I've also built an airfield to get my mech inf over there quick. (Though the AI has replaceable parts I'm the only one with Computers and Mechanised Infantry, so these new cities never get attacked.) With this stack of about 20 bombers I've taken out the defensive troops in their nearest city. The bombers simply redline and then kill all their infantry inside and I send just one or two mech infs to walk into the open city. Increasing the number of bombers and softening up their cities deeper in I've managed to knock out 4 or 5 cities of size 20+ without actually having to make many land unit-to-land unit attacks. I choose to bomb them till their city is undefended or with only 1 or 2 redlined units. Then you simply knock on the door and the whole thing goes tumbling down (I demolish theses cities and plant my own).

This to me is a hugely efficient way of making war and a sound way of employing bombers. So carpet bombing seems a bit wasteful if you can take cities with this same bomber force.

Using them in the above way:

- Saves building a massive land army (just one or two mech infs per new city) - Saves needing to build lots of artillery (and in this scenario artillery will not serve the purpose in the same way as they won't kill the units but do help in conjunction with bombers).

Having two or three stacks of about 15-20 bombers means you can keep hitting the next target city into their landmass by relocating to the city you've just planted a bit deeper in. Again artillery can't do this for you.

(This is a Monarch level game and I don't know whether you can get away with this on higher levels).

[haphazard]

There are (at least) two different types of wars you fight against the AI, One is to gain their territory, the other is to cripple them.

If I plan to take the territory, I seldom pillage anything. I view it as pillaging my own lands, which they soon will be. Leaving the road net in place speeds my conquest and helps my defense. Also if I plan to raise a city to increase the slave worker pool, it is better to have fat, well fed cities to pillage.
The exception to this rule are strategic resources. The tradeoff of having to reconnect a few strategic resources that have been pillaged is worth it when the AI is forced to counter attack with archers and defend with spearmen or riflemen.

Now if I do not want the territory and mainly want to weaken them without taking the land, (Either because I am a malicious S.O.B., or I am watching the domination limit) Then I find sending in the Rambo (explorer) units to be much better.
I will start infiltrating a few of my best defenders onto mountains in their territory as safety points. Under these defenders, will be stacks of explorers which will begin to pillage in ever increasing rings around the defensive stack.
Explorers are cheaper than the airports, bombers, and carrier infrastructure; are far more mobile, can reach even the deepest parts of the enemy empire, and are guaranteed of a successful pillage.

In one campaign against a huge Russian empire, I sent in Cavalry, running from Mountain to Mountain, followed by teams of explorers. Soon the entire russian empire was as barren and undeveloped as in 4000BC. After the last appearance of a Russian cossack, I was free to walk out in the open since none of their units could catch me before I made it to a safe defensive position.