Stealth Fighters

[Jokeslayer]

They can't intercept like jet fighters and they don't bomb as well as either bombers or stealth bombers. Why are we supposed to bother building them?

 

[Raliuven]

Most of the AIs in my game don't live to see fighters or bombers. Making them harder to find really doesn't serve much purpose in my opinion. I've never built one on purpose.

I've read if you can team them up with precision strike they can be deadly.

All I can say is that I don't plan to test it any time soon.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

They can't intercept like jet fighters and they don't bomb as well as either bombers or stealth bombers. Why are we supposed to bother building them?

I think the theory is they are an "all in one" package - you can use them as a fighter/defender or as a bomber/attacker unit, whichever you need at any given time.

That being said, I have a serious fetish for modern war era in the game, and I've never built one and can't imagine ever having a use for building one. Its like the American UU - completely useless coming so late in the game when the game is almost always already over by then.

Same goes for the Stealth Bomber, let alone those radar artillery things and AEGIS cruisers! I never bother with any of them since fighting wars when nukes are on the table isn't my kind of thing. And if nukes aren't on the table yet, then one's opponents are technologically backwards in which case, you don't need these advanced weapons anyway!

 

[ChaosArbiter]

They can't intercept like jet fighters and they don't bomb as well as either bombers or stealth bombers. Why are we supposed to bother building them?

I recall reading that some players used them to eat Interceptions from enemy Fighters/Jet Fighters or something like that. Other than that, they're their for the same reason the F-117A Stealth "Fighter" exists - it's a cheaper alternative to the Bomber, and IIRC the Bomber doesn't get Precision Bombing but the Fighter does.

Same goes for the Stealth Bomber, let alone those radar artillery things and AEGIS cruisers! I never bother with any of them since fighting wars when nukes are on the table isn't my kind of thing. And if nukes aren't on the table yet, then one's opponents are technologically backwards in which case, you don't need these advanced weapons anyway!

If you're worried about Nukes, build the SDI Defense. It seriously cuts down the number of hits - IIRC, one game had a player's SDI block 7 nukes in one turn. If I can find it I'll link it here. And just because Nukes aren't on-board doesn't mean the AI's so backwards you don't need advanced weapons - Rocketry (TOWs) and Computers (Mech Inf) are usually the first techs the AI goes for once it hits Modern, and while Modern Armor is the King, attacking large cities with MI in them is still a bloody business if you don't soften them up first, at which point the 3 RoF 16-Bombard Radar Artillery is very helpful.

Edit: Found it. The AIs first launched a nuclear attack in 1752-54 IBT; when the player is attacked by them (1820-1822 IBT), it looks like a total of 14 nukes were launched, with 7 being intercepted and 4 cities hit.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=77319

 

[Bartleby]

Extended recon range?

 

[GamezRule]

I believe them to be a waste of shields.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Extended recon range?

Yes, you can see an extra tile or two, that's the only value I have heard for them, never found the need for it myself.

 

[bigFRANK]

Ive got about a dozen in my current game only just used them over the weekend operationally and have to say I am not impressed.

Advantages I can see;
Longer recon/strike capability than jet fighter.
Send it on a precision strike mission. (Precision strike my ass, you don’t get a choice of targets even).
Use it to shoot down fighters over a target area (send it to strike/bomb and if intercepted it usually wins).

Disadvantages:
Cant be used for air supremacy.
Is much shorter range than a stealth bomber.
Is fairly useless in the strike role.

 

[MysteryX]

I like the extended recon range of Stealth Fighters. If I don't need the recon on a particular turn, I can take a shot having them bomb something rather than letting them idle. But they are not a necessary unit. If I am in a tight war or don't already have a military advantage over my opponents, I would be building something else. And since they can always be re-based to where they are needed, I doubt I could ever possibly make use of more than 4-6 (on a standard map).

 

[MysteryX]

Advantages I can see;

...

Use it to shoot down fighters over a target area (send it to strike/bomb and if intercepted it usually wins).

Re-reading this, Stealth Fighters may have more use than I had considered. If they have a good chance of beating Jet Fighters that try to intercept them, I could send them in an area in advance of my Stealth Bombers. Stealth Fighters could clear out my opponent's Jet Fighters so I am at less risk of losing my Stealth Bombers.

Even though Stealth Bombers do have good odds of surviving interception, they still nevertheless get shot down, and they are expensive units to lose

 

[Bowsling]

Use it to shoot down fighters over a target area (send it to strike/bomb and if intercepted it usually wins).

The issue is that it's stealth, so it has a 5% chance of engaging enemy interceptors. That's the huge irony. Removing the stealth flag (which is supposed to be a good thing) would make the unit ten times more valuable than it is.

 

[bigFRANK]

Assume that the city has a fighter jet or three stationed to protect it you fly your stealth fighter in, if it gets intercepted the chances are the FJ is shot down, if it doesn’t get intercepted then the bombs fall on the city and normally damage the first unit in the stack which tends to be FJ. Admittedly if bombing the SF is unlikely to destroy the FJ on the ground but it gives your stealth bomber a fair chance of shooting down the jet if that gets intercepted.

Oh and I would put the intercept level at much higher than 5% using stealth technology I see plenty of intercepts when using SB & SF’s.

 

[Jokeslayer]

Oh and I would put the intercept level at much higher than 5% using stealth technology I see plenty of intercepts when using SB & SF’s.

If you check the editor that's the number given for the chance to intercept a stealth aircraft.

 

[MysteryX]

I assume each Jet Fighter gets a separate chance to intercept. So one interceptor has a 5% chance of intercepting a stealth unit, but if 2 interceptors are doing air superiority, there is almost a 10% chance that one of them will intercept. SAM Missile Battery will have a chance of intercepting too.

 

[Raliuven]

Hmmm. That actually brings up an interesting question. If you have a stack with ZOC and something moves past it, does every unit in the stack (that is capable) check for a free shot at the target? I've never spent much time thinking about it but I just realized that sometimes AI units run past my stack and there are varying degrees of damage. I though it was like an arty attack - if you get tagged, you could lose 1 or more hp from the unit (but non-lethal results).

 

[bigFRANK]

Single unit with ZOC engages from each stack as far as I can recall. Its common to see a stack of enemy soldiers wander past and all get 1 or 2 hit points kocked off as they bypass the stack. Best I have seen was as a group of infantry went past on a railroad straight past 2 stacks of mine, redlined regulars being delivered to the front line.

 

[PluckyDuck68]

I use them to kill 1 item in a stack..

Lethal Land and Sea Bombardment.

Since I cannot pick a item in the city to destroy, this works too.

 

[bender19]

Like most modern age techs and weaponry it's often not necessary and you seldom play the game that long. However if you were in a modern age war with a decent adversary with a decent system of jet fighters set up for air superiority they would be useful. You don't want to send in bombers as they'll be chewed up by FS. If you use your own FS to clear the skys the losses will be disproportionately high.

The stealth fighter has better air defence than the FS so it'll take less losses clearing the skys. It's only 5% chance of actually getting into an air battle, however the other 19/20 times it will bomb the city. Unfortunately some bombs will hit buildings and civilians however the first units in the stack will be aerial units. Given this you'll likely inflict more losses than you sustain. You could use a stealth bomber to do a similar job however in those 5% of cases the FS does work you'll lose a more expensive unit.

It's also useful for recon.

 

[shl7070]

"Ive got about a dozen in my current game only just used them over the weekend operationally and have to say I am not impressed.

Advantages I can see;
Longer recon/strike capability than jet fighter.
Send it on a precision strike mission. (Precision strike my ass, you don’t get a choice of targets even).
Use it to shoot down fighters over a target area (send it to strike/bomb and if intercepted it usually wins).

Disadvantages:
Cant be used for air supremacy.
Is much shorter range than a stealth bomber.
Is fairly useless in the strike role. "



What about precision strike ?
Is it really working? If it do then stealth fighters could be considered in case space victory toggled off or I have no uranium and require a war to get it.

In civilopedia it's said that precision strike destroys buildings, if it can destroy factories with a good chance then some stealth fighters can be built for that specific task, or to destroy all buildings before the bombers arrive to destroy the units.

I didn't actually try them as getting the spaceship up was more important to me, all patrs prebuilt the last part was constructed the same turn as the required tech was researched. But may be jokeslayer plays with space race off?

 

[Bradpiter]

I like the extended Stealth Fighters. If I don't need the recon on a particular turn, I can take a shot having them bomb and guns etc rather than letting them idle. But they are not a necessary unit.