Air Defence

[del62]

Assssuming you have a modern age war what are the best air defence tactics, SAM Missile Batterries, SAM Units or Fighters?

I hade a game on emporor level where I won a diplomatic victory but for fun went to war against the Japanese on completion, I lost a lot of my bombers in my cities to bomber attacls, i was not expecting this.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Railroads, lots of Radar Artillery, and Modern Armor. The AI puts its bombers in the frontline cities, so once you stomp past them you don't have to worry about their air force.

For unit defense, a stack of 4-6 (up to four count, the extra are insurance) Mobile SAMs are your bet. If you actually anticipate an aerial war in which your cities come under attack, stack the odds in your favor: SAM Battery, 4 Mobile SAMs, and Jet Fighters flying Air Superiority missions.

If you're using Air units to attack into a territory defended by other aircraft, use Stealth Fighters to clear out enemy defending Fighters/Jet Fighters before using regular Bombers or Stealth Bombers.

But seriously, best to avoid the situation altogether by using conventional RA to reduce the defenders and MA to grab the city and destroy the enemy AF that way.

 

[del62]

Thanks

I made the mistake of not preparing properly for war

Are cruise missiles any use though

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Sometimes - the only frequent use I've made of them is to destroy enemy ships that are hanging around my land, though. Lethal Bombardment is nice, but they're too short-ranged to be useful on the front lines. So, I send a few Artillery/RA back to soften up the Destroyers/Cruisers/BB, then drop a missile on them to sink. Generally speaking, though, there are better things to spend your shields on.

 

[Own]

Flak and Mobile SAMs are the best tools. Using jet fighters is less effective. Anti-air units are pretty good at shooting down planes, but mainly they can discourage bombers from going after you in the first place. At high levels after Flight, armies are no longer the invincible units that they were before. They will get riddled with bombers and then attacked. Anti-air defense is a great investment; fighters are not. Just park 2-4 under each army and they'll shoot down a good portion of the bombers coming after you.

Cruise missiles are useless. What makes artillery valuable is that they don't die. Cruise missiles lack that trait. One radar artillery can make more than 2 bombardments in its lifetime. In fact, a lot more. Lethal bombardment is useless at that stage when all units are fast and can kill and retreat anyway. Plus, killing with units can get promotions and leaders.

 

[Brucha]

Thanks

I made the mistake of not preparing properly for war

Are cruise missiles any use though

Sometimes - the only frequent use I've made of them is to destroy enemy ships that are hanging around my land, though. Lethal Bombardment is nice, but they're too short-ranged to be useful on the front lines. So, I send a few Artillery/RA back to soften up the Destroyers/Cruisers/BB, then drop a missile on them to sink. Generally speaking, though, there are better things to spend your shields on.

I personally feel that bombers are highly underrated as units )especailly when compared to artillery), especially for defending your shores from seaborne invasion. I like to build up a massive bomber force to protect my shores and simply sink any ship that even dares to approach. IMO, cruise missles are useless - they are one shot units. A decent number of bombers can do what a cruise missile can, and are reusable. Stealth bombers are even better in this tactic. In my last story about Russia, I never even bothered trying to protect my shores from invasion with ships. I planed huge bomber forces that could sink any ship that approached. Or course, this tactic demands that your economy can support not only your ground forces, but your large bomber force as well. At the end of my last game, I think I had nearly as many bombers as I had ground units...

 

[ChaosArbiter]

That's why I use normal Artillery to redline the ships, as I have stacks of them anyway; I rarely have more than ten or fifteen missiles at a time, and they're devoted specifically to hitting 1-HP ships (and only the modern varieties - I don't mind if random Frigates are patrolling my coastline, but I detest Battleships/battlecruisers in my waters). Of course, I also play pangaea's almost exclusively so I don't *have* to deal with ships.

 

[Own]

I just redline the ships and hope that they go home to heal. And if they land some guys (usually it's just some nonsense), I have some leader chances. Cruise missiles IMO are a poor investment. If it's a game that's in the barrel anyway, and I'm just trying out modern toys, I'll build them, but if it's a difficult, high level game, I would never consider it. In fact, I don't build bombers on high levels either simply because the AI will shoot down anything even resembling a bomber at Deity or Sid in the modern times.

 

[Brucha]

I guess that is my point - artllery can only r-l units but bombers can kill them. A bomber, pound for pound, is superior to artillery, both in killing capability and range.

 

[Own]

But you're not taking into account that they can be shot down and that they are more expensive. I'd rather have 5 artillery that I know will survive forever than 4 bombers that could all could shot down in the next bombing. Of course, they could be nice for pillaging resources deep in an opponent's territory, but again, especially on a high level, you'd have to get some lucky shots to actually pillage the resources (both not getting intercepted and hitting, twice, assuming they have railroads). You'd most likely be pissing away shields by doing that, especially considering that they can reconnect the road quicker.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

I guess that is my point - artllery can only r-l units but bombers can kill them. A bomber, pound for pound, is superior to artillery, both in killing capability and range.

But, assuming you've been massing artillery (I tend to start churning them out around cannons, but I play on Warlord-Regent), you would have many more shields' worth of artillery than bombers unless you immediately switch all major production areas to Bombers, and thus the raw firepower value is heavily in favor of artillery. Yes, Bombers tend to be more efficient in their usage of firepower, but it's more difficult to get the same amount of firepower (although I've always wanted to do an Industrial Start so they actually get into play comparatively early, as the game usually is in the bag by Flight or so). Also, due to the aforementioned vulnerability to death, artillery tends to be more effective against a city than Bombers are, and tend to do less collateral damage as well.

 

[EvilConqueror]

I like to use a combination of both. Bombers for defense, sinking ships, and offense (when it's relatively safe) and artillery when it's not safe to use bombers.

I just redline the ships and hope that they go home to heal.

The problem I see with that tactic is that you don't make a dent in the AI's navy. The ships heal and come back and the AI keeps churning new ones out. On a map where you eventually have to cross open water, you may end having to deal with a large navy that could have been kept in check with the use of bombers or a combination of the two. As a result, you have to invest in more battleships and cruisers for protection.

Also, I haven't found a more effective way to deal with bombers on an AI carrier than to sink the carrier with my own bombers. The AI will sink or red line any ships you send after it long before you can get anything close. And they always protect carriers with battleships and cruisers so using subs is not very effective.