Okay, so, I'm trying to figure this out. Obviously, in real life, you have interceptors - to shoot down other planes, tactical bomers - to bomb ground units, and strategic bombers - to bomb factories or just kill lots of people. In Civ, however, you get fighters and bombers. Fighters win vs. bombers and can intercept and land on carriers. Bombers cannot defend, cannot land on carriers, and die vs. fighters. They do get a longer range...but this isn't long enough to get to another continent, and therefore you need carriers and fighters for this task. So far the only thing I can tell that bombers do better than fighters is the artillery role - reducing a city's defences. They do it faster. But in terms of strategic bombing - destroying terrain improvements, fighters seem to do this just as well and aren't as vulnerable to being intercepted. Therefore, I'm wondering if there is really any point to building bombers. Am I missing something?
Bombers - what's the point??
- Thread starter noto
- Start date
Way_Traveler
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 149
1) It's best practice to defend your bombers with fighters. For every two bombers, try to have at least one fighter on intercept. SAM infantry are also helpful, tech allowing.
2) As noted, collateral damage and destroying cultural defense. By the time you have bombers, you're relatively close to mech. infantry and tanks. By having bombers in strategic locations, you can avoid slowing them down by having cannon or artillery tag along. You have the bombers destroy the defenses as your stack approaches, then have them attack units when your stack is in position. This will make life much, much easier.
Hope this helps!
2) As noted, collateral damage and destroying cultural defense. By the time you have bombers, you're relatively close to mech. infantry and tanks. By having bombers in strategic locations, you can avoid slowing them down by having cannon or artillery tag along. You have the bombers destroy the defenses as your stack approaches, then have them attack units when your stack is in position. This will make life much, much easier.
Hope this helps!
ICNP
The Third Superpower
It is a big pain trying to get bombers in when fighters are on intercept.
MrCynical
Deity
They're far more effective at softening up cities prior to attacking them, thanks to collateral damage. They're good for supporting stacks of fast units in the modern age rather than waiting for slow artillery.
Fighters aren't too bad against small stacks, but against the large stacks that are common in the late game they'll take forever to do significant damage due to their lack of collateral. They can attack terrain improvements just as well as bombers, but I find that an utter waste of time in the modern age.
Fighters aren't too bad against small stacks, but against the large stacks that are common in the late game they'll take forever to do significant damage due to their lack of collateral. They can attack terrain improvements just as well as bombers, but I find that an utter waste of time in the modern age.
thanks people. I completely forgot about that use - attacking stacks. I usually only use an air force for strategic bombing purposes - destroying the enemy's economy. Now...most of the time I use an air force it is because I'm warring against a civ on another continent. What's the best way to get bombers over there?
MrCynical
Deity
noto said:
You just need to take a city to rebase a few bombers over. A city on a small island within bombing range of the main continent is ideal. If you can get a vassal or colony near them you can also use their cities as airbases.
obsolete
Deity
Your right, bombers are crap.
Stealth bombers on the other hand......
Stealth bombers on the other hand......
Bombers used to be very good in Warlords and vanilla, but BtS weakened them a lot. Human players used to have a huge stack of bombers that simply overwhelmed the AI defences, each fighter and SAM only had one intercept and once the bombers got through the AI stack was reduced to half strength. That made it easy for the tanks to roll into the city.
Now in BtS you can only stack 4 aircraft (fighters or bombers) per city or fort and another 4 for an airport. That stacking limit makes it a lot harder to get enough bombers in range to attack the same target and overwhelm the defences. Also in BtS fighters can intercept several bombers before they are too damaged to continue.
Now in BtS you can only stack 4 aircraft (fighters or bombers) per city or fort and another 4 for an airport. That stacking limit makes it a lot harder to get enough bombers in range to attack the same target and overwhelm the defences. Also in BtS fighters can intercept several bombers before they are too damaged to continue.
obsolete
Deity
I did end up making 16 Stealth Bombers in this game, and then placing stacks of 4 in different cities. The range is decent enough that the 4 limit per city wasn't a problem.
Again, I have to say, Stealth Bombers own... Level 5 or not.
Again, I have to say, Stealth Bombers own... Level 5 or not.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
Bombers are nice if you're a bit ahead in tech...very nice. Otherwise, yes, stealth bombers are great.
Now you need to get open borders with all your enemy's neighbours and bomb from various spots.
A real pain.
How I proceed in BtS :
1) a few carriers are filled with fighters (yes, fighters, not necessarily jet fighters)
2) I fill neighbouring cities with bombers (and protect the bombers with land troops!), thanks to either open border agreement or by owning those cities.
3) the fighters attack first, to take the hits. I keep one or 2 on interception vs airships (!).
4) the bombers bomb. Some are damaged, most hit.
5) I take the city with land troops (obviously!).
6) I rebase the bombers that aren't damaged, and let the others heal.
7) rince and repeat. (don't forget to build reinforcements for air units too!)
A real pain.
How I proceed in BtS :
1) a few carriers are filled with fighters (yes, fighters, not necessarily jet fighters)
2) I fill neighbouring cities with bombers (and protect the bombers with land troops!), thanks to either open border agreement or by owning those cities.
3) the fighters attack first, to take the hits. I keep one or 2 on interception vs airships (!).
4) the bombers bomb. Some are damaged, most hit.
5) I take the city with land troops (obviously!).
6) I rebase the bombers that aren't damaged, and let the others heal.
7) rince and repeat. (don't forget to build reinforcements for air units too!)
I use strategies close to what Cabert said. In general tho if you are having trouble with enemy fighters shooting down your bombers, attack with your own fighters first. I usually do not use my bombers until after my fighters have killed or wounded defending fighters that are on intercept. Of course you will take some casualties as well, but a fighter is less hammers than a bomber to replace.
Infantry#14
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,601
You guys didnt know bombers can also shoot down enemy interceptors? I usually weaken enemy fighter with my fighters and send bombers for bombing or kill off enemy interceptors.
Minmaster
Prince
if i have a fighter on intercept mission within range of the enemy city i am bombing with bombers, will my fighter engage the enemy fighter that tries to intercept my bomber? i think i've seen something like this, but i am not sure.
what would be nice is to be given an option to couple your bomber with a fighter when doing your bombing runs. like having fighter escort the bombers as they did in real life. as it stands, it's too much of an hassle to use bombers because of how easily they are defeated by enemy fighters. it's much easier to spy revolt the city defense to 0% and sacrifice an artillery unit or two for collateral damage than to risk 4 bombers against 1 or 2 intercepting fighters. i'll be lucky to hit with even 1 and come out with losing a bomber and rest badly damaged.
what would be nice is to be given an option to couple your bomber with a fighter when doing your bombing runs. like having fighter escort the bombers as they did in real life. as it stands, it's too much of an hassle to use bombers because of how easily they are defeated by enemy fighters. it's much easier to spy revolt the city defense to 0% and sacrifice an artillery unit or two for collateral damage than to risk 4 bombers against 1 or 2 intercepting fighters. i'll be lucky to hit with even 1 and come out with losing a bomber and rest badly damaged.
