Tanks vs Bombers

[Delphi456]

I'm getting close the the fork in the road where I need to choose whether I'm going to research bombers or tanks. Normally I do tanks first but have been thinking that bombers would be better because it will allow me to knock out AI resources - possibly ruining trading reps. My plan would be to redline with arty (guarded by infantry), then do the final kill with bombers. The AI city placement would allow me to attack 5 towns before needing to rebase. The AI isn't anywhere close to researching flight.

Anybody else research bombers before tanks?

 

[Taras Bulba]

bombers all the way.... I usually get bombers as soon as I can, because a HUGE stack of bombers can destroy a Civ. I've had many-a-times when my army is really small (usually a stack of about 10-15 cavalry, no defensive units, no artillery, and my army is out of date (against a strong defense of riflemen+) and I destroy the AI with my MASSIVE stack of bombers I make.

by the time I get them, I can usually make them in 2-4 turns in most of my cities, and I usually make about 30-50 before attack, and I usually settle for about 100 before I stop making them.... I wouldn't stop if stealth bombers weren't better though

Bombers can defeat an enemy army before they even get to attack, which is why I love them

 

[vmxa]

True, but using 50 bombers is very tedious.

 

[Loki130]

depends-if you focus on defense or the enemy has a large bomber force, I'd go with flight. If you plan on an offensive war against a nation with infantry, go with the tanks, though I suggest you study flight immediatly afterwards.

 

[rysingsun]

bombers need to be rebased

bombers destroy cities, leaving nothing worthwhile to capture

bombers don't get leaders

bombers get shot down

go for tanks

 

[Taras Bulba]

bombers need to be rebased

you can bomb from very far away, and then rebase the next turn in the SAME time it takes for a tank to get there, if not less, not to mention it does damage and can kill that unit without even getting into a fight with it

bombers destroy cities, leaving nothing worthwhile to capture

it does have its downfall, but bombers can kill people in the city, making it MUCH easier to capture, even if you didn't kill all the units yet (which I always do)

bombers don't get leaders

armies are overrated.... you can't upgrade the units in them, so they can become obsolete fast.... not to mention, that MGL cannot hurry production of wonders anymore (in conquests)

bombers get shot down

its why you get them first, they don't get shot down

go for tanks

all a matter of opinion

 

[vmxa]

It is not possible to over rate armies. They just are not of a great value in std maps on low levels like emperor. See how useful they are on AW games or on levels above emperor.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Armies are only obsolete if you build bad ones. Obsolete armies can be refurbished by adding a modern unit, adding a Tank to a Knight army or a Modern Armor to a Cavalry army keeps the movement the same and lets that army handle redlined units. Tanks over bombers any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Armies are only obsolete if you build bad ones. Obsolete armies can be refurbished by adding a modern unit, adding a Tank to a Knight army or a Modern Armor to a Cavalry army keeps the movement the same and lets that army handle redlined units. Tanks over bombers any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

any army that has a unit that I cannot build anymore is an obsolete army in my eyes.... frankly.... its just a waste of space in that army

A Modern armor is alot more useful to me outside a calvary army than inside.... I'd rather just fill it with another Calvary, so that I don't have to waste a unit with Blitz when I can make a unit w/o blitz get it

I think I'm the only one who really likes bombers..... I can't wait for the day you see the light.... then I'll let you have it.... you'll all feel silly for liking Tanks

 

[TheOverseer714]

If you attack a city that has SAMs, your Bombers are so many wasted shields. It isn't that I dislike Bombers, or that I don't use them, I just find Tanks to be more flexible and useful. I like Bombers to help kill off big enemy stacks by redlining them with Artillery and using Bombers for the kill, saving my Tanks for attacking enemy cities. Bombers are good, Tanks are better. Someday you'll like Tanks better, and then you will tank me for the advice....pun intended.

 

[Taras Bulba]

If you attack a city that has SAMs, your Bombers are so many wasted shields. It isn't that I dislike Bombers, or that I don't use them, I just find Tanks to be more flexible and useful. I like Bombers to help kill off big enemy stacks by redlining them with Artillery and using Bombers for the kill, saving my Tanks for attacking enemy cities. Bombers are good, Tanks are better. Someday you'll like Tanks better, and then you will tank me for the advice....pun intended.

well... once the AI gets Mobile SAMs, you need to get Stealth Bombers.... they pack a bigger punch then any unit in the game, besides maybe Modern Armor.... thats only because they are the best unit in the game

EDIT:
PS-that joke was so corny it grew on a stalk!

 

[Sweetchuck]

I'll repeat what someone said earler.

Bombers if you're defending, tanks if you're on the offense.

Yeah, bombers can be used in offense - but tanks outweigh cavalry on offense by a country mile.

Personally, I research flight first to get my islands and off-continent cities hooked up - then I go tanks.

 

[fishjie]

bombers are great.

it is tedious, but it really just destroys a powerful city. killing its citizens is a GOOD thing, because you don't want it flipping later on.

 

[Spoonwood]

If the AI lies close to you in tech, you can just let them research Flight trade for you and then trade for it. Unless, of course you have a war with that AI going on.

 

[Delphi456]

The best tactic I've read for bringing a civ to its knees is to pillage the capital. If in range, 8 bombers can do that in one turn. What can 8 tanks do in one turn?

 

[Loki130]

Many a time I've saved a column of units (including tanks) or some outlying cities with bombers.
To take an anecdotal approach, I once had a colony near Japan when I suddenly went to war with them. I was already at war with several major naval nations and it was a ways off, so bringing tanks in wasn't possible. But using 3 bombers I pushed back the offensive and bombed all Japan's resources.

 

[fishjie]

the goodness of bombers is not readily apparent at lower difficulty levels. on harder difficulty levels when computer has tons of units, the bombers just wipe them all out - guranteed. whereas with tanks they dont do much damage at all.

 

[Snarkhunter]

The best tactic I've read for bringing a civ to its knees is to pillage the capital. If in range, 8 bombers can do that in one turn. What can 8 tanks do in one turn?

Pillage the capital, of course

O, and they could also take/defend 8 cities. Bombers can't take 1 & they can't defend anything.

Assuming the game lasts that long, I always go for tanks first. But I generally get bombers so quickly thereafter that it hardly makes any difference. What I don't do is build massive fleets of bombers; 20 or so would be a lot for me. By the time I could build 50, 100, the game would in all likelihood be over & most of the bombers would never get used, or would be used only for a turn or 2.

kk

 

[Taras Bulba]

the goodness of bombers is not readily apparent at lower difficulty levels. on harder difficulty levels when computer has tons of units, the bombers just wipe them all out - guranteed. whereas with tanks they dont do much damage at all.

I wouldn't say so.... I'm a strong advocate of bombers, and I've never played past Emperor (not sure if I've ever PLAYED on emperor)

the good thing about lower levels is the fact that the AI hardly ever builds any air units and its been a while since I've seen them build anti-air units.... so my bombers are free from counter-fire

 

[anaxagoras]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter that much which you research first, since you'll usually research the other one immediately afterward. I'd probably go with tanks first, but I usually won't release the tanks until I get a couple of bombers built. Then the tanks and artillery move in, the artillery redlines defenders, bombers kill some, and the tanks take care of whatever is left over and occupy the town. I usually find it is more efficient to build tanks, and I can get by with fewer bombers, which is why I'd go for tanks first, usually. But tanks v. bombers is a false dichotomy.

Combined arms is still the most effective approach.