Stealth Fighter or Bomber?

[Chump]

Just curious which one you think is better...

:santa:

 

[ferenginar]

The stealth fighter is best by miles because of the multiple attacks, you can fly it out to an enemy city and attack again and again until no defenders are left, then switch to a land unit, take the city, switch back to the stealth fighter and then land it in your new city. As AI cities are often heavily loaded with old units this is agreat way of removing them.

The best way to work this is to send in a spy first to see what is there, use howies to take out any modern defenders then use the stealth fighter on the rest.

They look better too.

ferenginar

 

[floppa21]

I like stealth bombers so I can DECIMATE cities... Knock them down a pop point at a time, but sometimes it can take a while... As long as there are no city walls and the AI keeps building defending units it works.

But Ferenginar is right with the Fighters... More attacks whereas the bomber is one attack in two turns. Even if you use the carrier's movement to pick up a bomber, it's next turn which is a takeoff flight from the carrier is actually the second half of it's movement. I found that out by losing a bomber.

 

[King of England]

I guess Stealth Fighters are better for taking out unfortified units out in the open, like barbarians.

Stealth Bombers, however, can give hell to any enemy, and with enough of them, devastation!!!! Mwahahahaha!!!

 

[oryx]

Bombers are only useful if you can afford to build huge fleets of them. So, from a cost effectiveness viewpoint, stealth fighters are better. They take less time to build and you don't have to take the happiness penalty.

 

[Sorivar]

I often stack a stealth bomber with a BB or Aegis and invasion convoy. Only the fighters may attack as all other items can't penetrate the Bombers zone of control. The fighters don't do well against the BB

 

[Comrade Juhon]

In some of my games I have stealth when everyone else only have pikemen, so I load up three carriers with stealth fighters, one transport with tanks, go around and kill evereything in a few turns.

 

[Goatman]

Bombers are much better in terms of attack, and have a longer range, but on the other hand they can not make as many attacks. Even so, I still prefer them to the fighters.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Both have thier uses and place in a strategy, but fighters have the advantage of not causing unhappiness. As such, they are the key to democratic airpower

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

I agree that the stealth fighter is better(you can even beat up defending fighters and you aren't hung out to dry for 'em) but the stealth bomber looks cooler and is necesarry for real heavy poundings. I also like to just get a huge tech lead and then set up a city on an enemy continent with a few stealth bombers and have fun. Or else, you can just demand stuff from them and watch the look on their phalanx's face when the nukes come crashing down

 

[yellowsponge]

In modern warfare stealth should fighters are the workhorse, but don't use them foolishly in city attacks, that is what a couple howies and stlth bombers are for. City attacks should only be carried out by hvy attack unless the situation dictates otherwise.

 

[monkeyman116]

You can't make me choose between them! Maybe they should both use the same amount of shields to build though...

 

[duke o' york]

Well the other arguments just sail out of the window when the issue of no unhappiness in a democracy enters the equation. I always have several stealths in each city, and a massive army in the Shakespeare's theatre city, with more on aircraft carriers around the globe.

 

[Rowan]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Both have thier uses and place in a strategy, but fighters have the advantage of not causing unhappiness. As such, they are the key to democratic airpower

Would certainly agree with the above![dance] [dance]

 

[Ren]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Well the other arguments just sail out of the window when the issue of no unhappiness in a democracy enters the equation. I always have several stealths in each city, and a massive army in the Shakespeare's theatre city, with more on aircraft carriers around the globe.

Damn, I hope you're on Fundy, or you'd be broke from Maintanence!

 

[Holdway]

Stealth fighters are much better,
1. multiple attacks
2. cost less
3. no unhappyness
4. can attack bombers

The only advantage bombers have is the attack, but howitzers are better in my opinion. Also fighters can take out any city defenders as long as they aren't on river and don't have SAM.

The only time bombers come into their own is when you have a long distance do travel to get to your enemy cities with poor infastructure. (so it takes time for a howitzer to reach the enemy city) and they have well defended cities eg SAM and/or they are on rivers

 

[duke o' york]

You're thinking of Civ 3! Maintenance in Civ 2 is on the basis of shields produced by the home city, not cash from the economy. With hydro plants in all my cities thanks to the Hoover Dam, I can field several troops from each city. They would just be on Capitalization anyway.

 

[Darius]

They both suck, get yourself some howitzers...

 

[unknown_spirit]

Ferenginar is spot on. I like Stealth Bombers, but the Fighters can attack up to 13 enemies, depending on how close they are. I love making them kill loads of enemy units until they are either shot down or run out of fuel. Hey, I can always build more, right? Kamikaze Stealth Fighters RULE!! Nyah!

 

[funxus]

Why choose one, when you can use all o them? I usually try to balance my army with different units since most units are handy sometimes. I also try to build aircraft in cities close to the enemy and howies in cities further away and then transport them on rail. So I'd like to vote for both of them as useful...