Tanks vs Bombers

Motorized Transportation is the cheaper tech, so I usualy do it first. Both techs are usually self-researched, since any game I'm still in it that late, I'm self-researching. Bombers have their uses, but Tanks are more versatile as offensive units. Used in conjunction with rails, artillery and combat settlers, a stack of 20 tanks can take out a medium sized country before a stack of 20 Bombers even can make a dent. Tanks are more cost-effective too, because of the ability to get military great leaders from their victories. Whether you like armies or not, a military great leader is potentially alot of shields which can be used to finish small wonders or high shield buildings. In a recent game, I used a great leader for a factory in my capital, then a coal plant. The capital then built a great wonder in 15 turns, rather than the 30 turns it would have taken. To me, the answer to the question of "If you could only have Tanks or Bombers, which would you want?" For me, Tanks would always win.
 
I can do the same thing with bombers, which have far better range than artillery, and which can kill units, which means i don't need to suffer at the hands of the RNG. i can just as easily use calvary to take over those towns once all the defenders are dead. don't lose a single unit.
 
i think the better question is "bombers or artillery". many of us who are recommending tanks first do so with the understanding that we use artillery instead of bombers, hence we would only build a limited number of bombers to take care of special needs (bombing resources, killing ships, etc).

on the other hand, by the time tanks come along cavalry are getting seriously dated, particularly if the player is behind in technology. taking out mech infantry with cavalry is a nightmare even with bombardment. even infantry exact a lot of losses on cavalry. hence the need for tanks.
 
Lets do the math on what Fishijie does. A bomber can sometimes remove 2 hp, but usually just 1 and also there are times that the bombing mission fails. Enemy city has 2 veteran Infantry, 2 regular Infantry and a regular MDI. 17 hp needing rid of before everyone is dead. If 20 bombers all have successful attacks(unlikely) they might clear this city of units(bombers don't always hit units anyway, they destroy buildings and kill citizes too, about 33% per option plus the chance of failure). Assuming horrendous losses, 10 unsupported tanks could take the same city if they were pre-positioned. With artillery redlining all defenders, 5 tanks could do it with posibly no losses. Bombers just are too hit or miss for my liking. I'm sure the hardcore can't be convinced either way, but I am.
 
Lets do the math on what Fishijie does. A bomber can sometimes remove 2 hp, but usually just 1 and also there are times that the bombing mission fails.

every time I use bombers I'd say I remove an average of 2.8 hp every bombing run... I've also found times where I can kill veteran units in one run (unlikely though)

also, my runs usually fail before they get rid of 1 hp.....

but that is at levels chieftain-regent (the levels I usually play at)
 
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.

Exactly my approach!

kk
 
every time I use bombers I'd say I remove an average of 2.8 hp every bombing run... I've also found times where I can kill veteran units in one run (unlikely though)

Actually, that's really, really unlikely because it is impossible. Bombers - even stealth bombers - have a ROF of 3, so they can cause at most 3 damage on a single run. I find the average is less than 2 rather than 2.8, given that they sometimes miss entirely. The average against a unit in a town is even less, since the bomber doesn't always target the unit.

Unless you have modded your game somehow.
 
Actually, that's really, really unlikely because it is impossible. Bombers - even stealth bombers - have a ROF of 3, so they can cause at most 3 damage on a single run. I find the average is less than 2 rather than 2.8, given that they sometimes miss entirely. The average against a unit is a town is even less, since the bomber doesn't always target the unit.

Unless you have modded your game somehow.

wow.... I feel... ******** now.... I want to just go crawl in a cave to hide


but I SERIOUSLY thought I remember a time when at least one bomber got rid of 4 hp...... and I'm not going that crazy..... yet


wow.... but I feel.......... :blush:

I'm just gunna' go.....away now
 
wow.... I feel... ******** now.... I want to just go crawl in a cave to hide


but I SERIOUSLY thought I remember a time when at least one bomber got rid of 4 hp...... and I'm not going that crazy..... yet


wow.... but I feel.......... :blush:

I'm just gunna' go.....away now

Maybe it was an injured vet?? That's possible.
 
Lets do the math on what Fishijie does. A bomber can sometimes remove 2 hp, but usually just 1 and also there are times that the bombing mission fails. Enemy city has 2 veteran Infantry, 2 regular Infantry and a regular MDI. 17 hp needing rid of before everyone is dead. If 20 bombers all have successful attacks(unlikely) they might clear this city of units(bombers don't always hit units anyway, they destroy buildings and kill citizes too, about 33% per option plus the chance of failure). Assuming horrendous losses, 10 unsupported tanks could take the same city if they were pre-positioned. With artillery redlining all defenders, 5 tanks could do it with posibly no losses. Bombers just are too hit or miss for my liking. I'm sure the hardcore can't be convinced either way, but I am.

Well, I don't think this is quite fair, either. Bombers do have a ROF of 3, not 2, and as I said, I think the average hit value is somewhere between 1 and 2. Let's assume 50%, or an average damage per attack of 1.5. There will sometimes be "waste" (a bomber gets 3 hits, but the attacked unit is redlined), so assume the 17 hp of needed damage is effectively 21. That means you could do the job with 14 of those bombers, and the other six could do something else. Of course, you haven't actually taken a town this way, just opened it up for a unit - but it could be a lowly warrior, if one starts close enough. More likely, a cavalry or tank unit does the actual capture. There is some chance for losses, if the AI has acquired flight.

In your tank battle against units on grass, according to a combat calculator, you could expect to lose two units, and severely damage one and lightly damage one more. If the defenders are on a hill, you would expect to lose a third unit, and have two other damaged to some degree. So you'll probably have 4-6 tanks that remain available for use elsewhere.

Now figure the combined arms approach: 12 artillery, 4 bombers, and 6 tanks (which is actually slightly cheaper to build than 20 of the others, especially since you probably got the artillery through upgrades). Artillery only has a ROF of 2, so with 12 you'll probably get 10 or so damage - say two redlines, and the rest damage results. Now use two bombers to take out the two units with the highest remaining hp. Now you need at most 3 tanks to finish the job. (Probably only one of the tanks even takes damage, but it is very doubtful that you lose any.) Now you still have 3 tanks and two bombers to use elsewhere, and you still have all the units you started with to use the next turn, except perhaps one of the bombers, if the AI has flight.

I'm going with that last method, myself.
 
Most players use the Combined Arms method, thats for sure. I usually do. I build more Tanks than Bombers, but I do build them. I just find them frustratingly ineffective on city attacks, bombing mission failed, a citizen killed, building destroyed, too much can happen besides hurting or killing the defenders. Artillery targets units first, at least in Conquests(just as chancy as Bombers in PTW or Vanilla). I'm not against Bombers, I just like Tanks better.
 
well, the reason i prefer bombers over artillery is that its simply less hassle. with artillery you have to devote at least a couple of units to protect them, that could otherwise be used to take over more cities. if you split up the artillery stacks that means more protection is required. with bombers you can tuck them safely in a city far from the action. you also have more flexibility due to their better range. you can strike multiple cities at once, or you can focus entirely on just one, depending on the situation. a bunch of bombers can completely carpet bomb an area and just ruin the enemy cities. at that point, taking them over isnt even that important, since they have been so horribly weakened.

and yes, i use tanks and bombers. i'm just saying i like to get bombers first.
 
i usually start building tanks & have a greater number of them than bombers. I'll use bombers sparingly to soften up their defense but you still need someone to go & capture the city (presuming you want it), so it just makes sense to send tanks (imo).
i am also not a huge fan of destroying all the roads in/around an enemy city w/ bombers....especially when it will be me who has to coordinate the repairs later.
 
For me, tanks. When I want a victory by conquest, or domination, I usually send in the tanks. I mean, bombers have a shorter attack range than siege units. So I reccomend you research motorized tranportation first, and then flight. But I still think bombers are useful, if you have cities close to enemy ones, of course!
 
Back
Top Bottom