Call of Tactical Bombers

AA guns do count. and they are pretty effective counter against bombers, just use more of them.

Manpower could be an issue first 4-5 days. Build more barracks.

This game is actually surprisingly balanced, and it is exactly what makes it so Great.

Spend more time in the game, learn game mechanics from better and more experienced players, read forums, and tactical bombers will not be such an issue for you

TACs are much better than other units, but people like them so much I doubt if Bytro would want to nerf them too harshly. They do have a big disadvantage for some players and that is you have to actively play a lot more to use them, so you should get some bonus for your efforts.

MihailMD wrote:

AA guns do count as a mechanical unit, not infantry. and they are pretty effective counter against bombers, just use more of them.

Manpower should be an issue after first 4-5 days. Build more barracks.

This game is actually surprisingly balanced, and it is exactly what makes it so Great.

Spend more time in the game, learn game mechanics from better and more experienced players, read forums, and tactical bombers will not be such an issue for you

I'm aware that they are in the armor tab of production but their stat card has the infantry icon. So if you're right then the stat card is wrong.

I wrote this in the aftermath of losing my 40 stack army (5 of which were AA guns) which were all destroyed by ~25 tactical bombers while only taking down 3-5 tacs. I mistakenly assumed combined arms was a good thing so I threw in commandos, tanks, infantry and anti-tank but they all died to a huge tactical bomber fleet. Fine, I guess it's a l2p issue, I guess I needed way, way more AA guns and interceptors.

But it seems like the land war revolves around tacs, either you build massive fleets of tacs or you build massive fleets of fighters and AA guns. Combined arms is pointless as every other unit is just food for tacs. Tac or be tacked.

Also too, seeing WW2 aircraft single-handedly destroy armies completely breaks my immersion.

First of all, in past few days tactical bombers were bugged and received no damage from units they attack. I don't know if that is solved. Other thing, if you don't have interceptors or have only few AA, you are in big disadvantage.

And for @MihailMD: Normal AA has infatry type armor, not mechanical.

Hi Reg,

Nice to see you 'crossed over' as well.

You are right to a substantial degree, tacs are way OP, especially in the hands of a skilled and active player. The counters (AA and figs) are there though. Remember, tacs are one of the most expensive units to build in the game, so that has to account for some of the superiority they have. A Tac heavy player will usually disengage if they see a stack with 5 AA's in it. Then again, someone who sends 25 at once never heard of state based damage efficiency - a thing you did right by using combined arms.

Im therefore surprised at the combat results - was there any difference between upgrade levels? What type of terrain were your units in? Was Gold a possibility?

Hey miech good to see you again.

Well there was definitely some gold involved since I saw the guy build up a fort to level 2 instantly in the province I was attacking right before I went to bed. But I didn't see any big stacks around the fort so I pressed the attack. Then I woke up and found ~25 tacs (may or may not be from gold) attacking the remnants of my 40 stack army (only 10 left with no AA remaining). Based on the newspaper report, it didn't seem like the fort could have been very strongly garrisoned, only about 5 units which all died. But it's possible the newspaper record may be incomplete or I overlooked something.

This was in Luxembourg province so not mountainous terrain where I know AA suffers a penalty. Also lvl 2 AA vs level 2 tactical bombers.

I might have dismissed it as a fluke but this is not the first time my army got roflstomped by tacs. I just made the possibly mistaken assumption that because of stat based damage efficiency that I wouldn't need all that much AA guns to counter tac spam. At the moment it seems to me that the assumption is wrong and that you must either spam tacs yourself or spam AA guns and fighters to counter tacs. Like maybe absolute minimum 10 AA guns. Preferably with heavy fighter support. I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.

I dunno about the bug Paramunac. The newspaper did say a few tacs went down so I did do some damage. But only a handful. I expected 5 AA guns to be decent enough. I guess I learned the the hard way.

Tac bombers are not over powered...

People who just have ill knowldegde of how to deal with them, go blaming the units..

rather than playing the game, and or figuring out how to deal with them..

Its a hard game, to those who cant think..

use your head...

hit their airbases with rockets.

spam AA units..

Try bomb their main areas of production..

figure it out and play out side of the box ffs..

Im sick of reading these threads, cos some player cant bloddy well defeat a player..

Every unit in this game has some checks and Balances on the other

I think you are being very unfair here ocean. I know Reg from Supremacy and he was a damned solid player over there. He points out in great detail what happened, and uses it as an argument, also pointing out he researched various options how to deal with the issue.

If tacs 'arent' overpowered, why does everyone and their grandmother use them as their core unit? (everyone that has half a brain that is) Because perhaps they áre the strongest unit, by far? There isnt a single unit out there that has so much impact and is so hard to counter. Even figs have limited options, as the tac player can just send his forces to another target not guarded - rinse and repeat.

Personally, I would like to see tacs nerfed as well, just slightly though. Not by decreasing stats (those are fine), but an increase (may be a big increase) in unit cost and upkeep and/or lower the threshold of SBDE. Or make the natural counters cheaper (figs/AA).

Personally I like to see people make a decisive choice what their prime unit is, but that its not predictable (aka LT spam with Tacs ftw 80% of the time).

miech wrote:

I think you are being very unfair here ocean. I know Reg from Supremacy and he was a damned solid player over there. He points out in great detail what happened, and uses it as an argument, also pointing out he researched various options how to deal with the issue.

If tacs 'arent' overpowered, why does everyone and their grandmother use them as their core unit? (everyone that has half a brain that is) Because perhaps they áre the strongest unit, by far? There isnt a single unit out there that has so much impact and is so hard to counter. Even figs have limited options, as the tac player can just send his forces to another target not guarded - rinse and repeat.

Personally, I would like to see tacs nerfed as well, just slightly though. Not by decreasing stats (those are fine), but an increase (may be a big increase) in unit cost and upkeep and/or lower the threshold of SBDE. Or make the natural counters cheaper (figs/AA).

Personally I like to see people make a decisive choice what their prime unit is, but that its not predictable (aka LT spam with Tacs ftw 80% of the time).

miech wrote:

I think you are being very unfair here ocean. I know Reg from Supremacy and he was a damned solid player over there. He points out in great detail what happened, and uses it as an argument, also pointing out he researched various options how to deal with the issue.

If tacs 'arent' overpowered, why does everyone and their grandmother use them as their core unit? (everyone that has half a brain that is) Because perhaps they áre the strongest unit, by far? There isnt a single unit out there that has so much impact and is so hard to counter. Even figs have limited options, as the tac player can just send his forces to another target not guarded - rinse and repeat.

Personally, I would like to see tacs nerfed as well, just slightly though. Not by decreasing stats (those are fine), but an increase (may be a big increase) in unit cost and upkeep and/or lower the threshold of SBDE. Or make the natural counters cheaper (figs/AA).

Personally I like to see people make a decisive choice what their prime unit is, but that its not predictable (aka LT spam with Tacs ftw 80% of the time).

sorry, If I meant any offense..

dont mean it like that at all..

just what I love about the game, is how you need to be innovative to do well!

All units cant be the same.. some needs to have strengths and some need weakness. thats what keeps the game interesting.

Tac bombers, are one of the best units in the game.. Yes..

and right fully so.. Bombers in general are lethal..

but they have weakness..

maybe I will support a lower in their AA Stat, defending, but thats it..

I think it could do with a small decrease. if at all..

LT spam with Tacs, are used a lot.. Yes..

but they can be defeated..

and its that challenge, and the need that you come up with fresh tactics, that I love..

i think all units need slighty better aa def . Now tacs can just sweep throw units having 0 loses . ofc they can be countered , few aa guns and some fighters can be a pain in the ass for tacs players , but still tacs are op at the moment

There's a reason for having AA units in the game.

If they coud add SPAA in day 12 , just like TD , that coud be awsome. Inf aa acts like a static aa defence if u try to move them , probly the war is gonna be over before they reach the target

I don't seem to have a problem with using them..

Funske wrote:

i think all units need slighty better aa def . Now tacs can just sweep throw units having 0 loses . ofc they can be countered , few aa guns and some fighters can be a pain in the ass for tacs players , but still tacs are op at the moment

you serious?

That is a really bad idea.. Tac bombers have lots of weaknesses..

There are already a lot of AA units,

If you want, message me, and I can give you some advice for dealing with Tac bombers..

but the solution is not raising units AA value

If you think tec-bombers are over powered, then try even amount of AA against bombers and you will see the players with the bombers with-draw his planes from the battle. Bombers while great weapons are expensive to build and maintain. How do players complain because they had only 5 AA against 25 bombers and think they will do well. Would you post the same compliant if you had just 5 tanks against 25 tanks ?

There are some facts : everyone who played several games , and has some brain , will spam tacs, thats a fact . Do u think everione is spaming tacs , cuz they look fancy ? nop. i want more diversity in this game , not just lt and tacs

I'm one of the bomberman here in CoW, i can't even think to plan an offensive without having a good number of TAC on my side.

I heavely use TAC also for defense, expecially in 100 player map, where they are the only force that can cover large territories.

I have to admit that this kill until certain point the diversity of strategy, but this will apply also in real life, every nation will spend a lot of their military budget for airforce and missiles, and you can't be a "superpower" without a very effective airforce.

See what happened in Iraq invasion, where most of the iraqi army was destroyed by missiles and airforce, with minimal losses for allies.

It's true however that in WW2 the technology was not mature to permit this kind of unbalanced situation, both on damage and survivability of the aircraft.

In CoW you can have the SP-AA that is very effective, because bomber lack damage against hard target compared with the soft one, maybe this tech can come in play early as someone suggested, or a slightly boost in interceptor damage so the bomberman like me need to give more effort on gaining air superiority first and the kill troops on the ground second.

PetrusFons wrote:

I'm one of the bomberman here in CoW, i can't even think to plan an offensive without having a good number of TAC on my side.

I heavely use TAC also for defense, expecially in 100 player map, where they are the only force that can cover large territories.

I have to admit that this kill until certain point the diversity of strategy, but this will apply also in real life, every nation will spend a lot of their military budget for airforce and missiles, and you can't be a "superpower" without a very effective airforce.

See what happened in Iraq invasion, where most of the iraqi army was destroyed by missiles and airforce, with minimal losses for allies.

It's true however that in WW2 the technology was not mature to permit this kind of unbalanced situation, both on damage and survivability of the aircraft.

In CoW you can have the SP-AA that is very effective, because bomber lack damage against hard target compared with the soft one, maybe this tech can come in play early as someone suggested, or a slightly boost in interceptor damage so the bomberman like me need to give more effort on gaining air superiority first and the kill troops on the ground second.

I have run into similar situations that make no mathematical sense, both in my favor and to my detriment. I posted a thread about this a little while ago with the example of the insanity. I love using Tac Bombers and with their kill ratios and versatility, think that the cost to value is a bargain compared to other units. They currently have so many uses that I will not list them (plus I bet I am speaking to the choir). Anti-air guns are usually of little deterrence. The best counter requires your complete attention: Using rockets or tac bombers to counter attack when the offending tac bombers are refueling. This requires patience, planning ahead, and a knowledge of plane travel and fueling times. Also, placing 10-15 military sabotage spys at their home airbase before day change has occasionally helped me by rendering them temporarily out of commission or allowing me to rush in to attack them.

I could live with making ground units actually do their stated value defending vs air for each air attack. (ie 5 defending AA units at lev 2 would actually kill one of the attacking tac bombers per air attack run.) Another balancing change I could live with is increasing the daily oil consumption.

All in all i am in favor of anything making the battle mechanics more visible and having less random factors. In trippleA ( A free AXIS and allies based program that lets users customize maps and battle mechanics), the "low luck" method of rolling the dice (divide total attack strength by 6 and only roll 1 dice for the left over attack strength to determine hits) is wildly more popular than rolling a dice for each unit even though its computer rolled with no delay.