Strike fighters vs heavy bombers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Strike fighters vs heavy bombers

      So I've recently joined a rising tides game round (and taking in consideration that I always use SF as my key air to land dominance unit) I've thought about using heavy bombers instead of strike fighters because of their longer range and the larger damage they deal to infantry

      What're your suggestions guys?
    • _dany20_ wrote:

      So I've recently joined a rising tides game round (and taking in consideration that I always use SF as my key air to land dominance unit) I've thought about using heavy bombers instead of strike fighters because of their longer range and the larger damage they deal to infantry

      What're your suggestions guys?
      No, don't do it. Unless you are in a cooperative coalition where you are the designated "bomber" guy, you will quickly grow disenchanted in the bombers anemic damage vs hard targets and their impossibly slow flight. I am currently in this exact situation now. Besides, bombers don't adequately replace strikes. Strikes kill units, Bombers demolish city buildings.
      *** Warning: This poster may or may not be, still on double secret probation ***

      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • I guess naval strikes can do quite a lot of stuff but doesn't do any of them particularly well. They are very versatile at being shit almost everywhere.

      Air to ground. I guess it does something? Good for taking out small stacks of infantry. Doesn't really do anything except die vs artillery + aa stacks.
      From your comment about heavy bombers being bad vs AA Im guessing you use strikes vs AA? They are called anti AIR for a reason :D Maybe strikes can take out some MAA but you should probably use helis for SAMS and stop suiciding your strikes.

      Air to air. Their damage vs fixed wings and helis are quite neglegable since you have to risk getting hit every time you use strikes to "intercept". They don't "double as air defense fighters". Go get ASF please.

      Air to sea. Maybe you can do some damage at max level with your 9 attack. Your range is low for the open ocean so might have to invest in a carrier. Carrier sucks why are you getting them. Tbh get NPA if you are trying to go air to sea since you're getting hit by aa 1-3 times anyways. NPA can also scout which is pretty valuable since your strikes r hitting blind.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by yzjqx ().

    • yzjqx wrote:

      I guess naval strikes can do quite a lot of stuff but doesn't do any of them particularly well. They are very versatile at being shit almost everywhere.

      -Are you sure we are looking at the same units? Naval strikes do more damage than their regular equivalents, in addition to their anti-ship abilities. They outperform the regular strikes in every way. The only thing regular strikes have over them is that they get the European doctrine buff and the naval ones don’t



      Air to ground. I guess it does something? Good for taking out small stacks of infantry. Doesn't really do anything except die vs artillery + aa stacks.
      From your comment about heavy bombers being bad vs AA Im guessing you use strikes vs AA? They are called anti AIR for a reason :D Maybe strikes can take out some MAA but you should probably use helis for SAMS and stop suiciding your strikes.

      -Anti air doesn’t mean immune to air attack. SAMs that are not part of a decently sized stack or have ASF support are food for strike fighters. If your airfield has a good hospital you can do considerable damage to stacks with SAMs without losing any SF. Heavy bombers can’t do anything about a SAM, while SF can often eliminate it

      Air to air. Their damage vs fixed wings and helis are quite neglegable since you have to risk getting hit every time you use strikes to "intercept". They don't "double as air defense fighters". Go get ASF please.


      -I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the air defense. I said that when used in conjunction with SAMs they are good air defense. I’m not saying that ASF is not better. When ASF are not available, the SFs can fly over and make up for the SAM’s vulnerability against helicopters, as well as dealing extra damage to fixed wing entering the bubble



      Air to sea. Maybe you can do some damage at max level with your 9 attack. Your range is low for the open ocean so might have to invest in a carrier. Carrier sucks why are you getting them. Tbh get NPA if you are trying to go air to sea since you're getting hit by aa 1-3 times anyways. NPA can also scout which is pretty valuable since your strikes r hitting blind.

      -I don’t get carriers. NPA are too slow and vulnerable for ship hunting in my experience. Their huge range makes them great for sub hunting though. A frigate or ASF can give NPA hell, but they will have much harder time dealing with NSF. Any ships not guarded by frigates are easy pickings for NSF, which makes them good coastal defense.

      -One thing I think NSF shines at is for strategies with minimal Air Force. Notice something about the units you used. Attack helicopters. NPA, regular SF. This is a lot of research spent to upgrade these units. If you focus on NSF instead, you will have a harder time dealing with these different units, but you just saved yourself days worth of research that can no go into other things like army and navy. They can be quickly called upon to defend against infantry, tanks, ships, bombers, helicopters etc without wasting so many resources
      Yee Haw
    • >-Are you sure we are looking at the same units? Naval strikes do more damage than their regular equivalents, in addition to their anti-ship abilities. They outperform the regular strikes in every way. The only thing regular strikes have over them is that they get the European doctrine buff and the naval ones don’t

      I love when people do bring up that point; do you not realize that you need to upgrade normal SF all the way to max to max out their naval version too? And at that point you'd be a fool not to take advantage of mixing them

      >Anti air doesn’t mean immune to air attack. SAMs that are not part of a decently sized stack or have ASF support are food for strike fighters. If your airfield has a good hospital you can do considerable damage to stacks with SAMs without losing any SF. Heavy bombers can’t do anything about a SAM, while SF can often eliminate it

      Fixed wing takes a metric fuckton of dmg from directly attacking sams if you time it poorly; like you will get hit 3 times poor. You wont kill anything more than the occasional 1 or 2 lost SAMs with SF :D

      >-I don’t get carriers. NPA are too slow and vulnerable for ship hunting in my experience. Their huge range makes them great for sub hunting though. A frigate or ASF can give NPA hell, but they will have much harder time dealing with NSF. Any ships not guarded by frigates are easy pickings for NSF, which makes them good coastal defense.

      "Frigates or ASF can give NPA hell"
      "Frigates and ASF will have a much harder time dealing with NSF" bro the frigs and asf dont give a fuck about you having NPA or NSF; they'll shred your fixed wing either way. And any ships not guarded by Frigates are an easy picking for NPA too.
      Like bro; that argument is bad as fuck

      >-One thing I think NSF shines at is for strategies with minimal Air Force. Notice something about the units you used. Attack helicopters. NPA, regular SF. This is a lot of research spent to upgrade these units. If you focus on NSF instead, you will have a harder time dealing with these different units, but you just saved yourself days worth of research that can no go into other things like army and navy. They can be quickly called upon to defend against infantry, tanks, ships, bombers, helicopters etc without wasting so many resources

      You have never used NSF and it shows; cuz otherwise you wouldnt make that "Oh you have to research less" argument
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      >-Are you sure we are looking at the same units? Naval strikes do more damage than their regular equivalents, in addition to their anti-ship abilities. They outperform the regular strikes in every way. The only thing regular strikes have over them is that they get the European doctrine buff and the naval ones don’t

      I love when people do bring up that point; do you not realize that you need to upgrade normal SF all the way to max to max out their naval version too? And at that point you'd be a fool not to take advantage of mixing them

      -I know that you have to research one to get another. My point is that it is worth making only Naval strike fighters as they are better in general. I don’t see why you would want to mix them though, unless your are using European doctrine?


      >Anti air doesn’t mean immune to air attack. SAMs that are not part of a decently sized stack or have ASF support are food for strike fighters. If your airfield has a good hospital you can do considerable damage to stacks with SAMs without losing any SF. Heavy bombers can’t do anything about a SAM, while SF can often eliminate it

      Fixed wing takes a metric fuckton of dmg from directly attacking sams if you time it poorly; like you will get hit 3 times poor. You wont kill anything more than the occasional 1 or 2 lost SAMs with SF :D

      My point exactly. SAMs in small numbers are very vulnerable and can easily be picked off by strike fighters in comparison to heavy bombers which will do nothing. Obviously they will get obliterated by 2 SAMs stacked up with tanks and infantry. If the SF could kill anything more than that then what would be the point of making SAMs?


      >-I don’t get carriers. NPA are too slow and vulnerable for ship hunting in my experience. Their huge range makes them great for sub hunting though. A frigate or ASF can give NPA hell, but they will have much harder time dealing with NSF. Any ships not guarded by frigates are easy pickings for NSF, which makes them good coastal defense.

      "Frigates or ASF can give NPA hell"
      "Frigates and ASF will have a much harder time dealing with NSF" bro the frigs and asf dont give a fuck about you having NPA or NSF; they'll shred your fixed wing either way.

      -This is the same case as SAMs. I’m not saying the NSF are going to mow down frigates like they are butter. Well stacked frigates will be nearly invincible to air attack. A lone max level frigate is helpless against a 5 stack of maxed NSF. I’ve had success picking off frigates with regular (!) strike fighters. Using hospitals with your SF will allow you to take many shots at them without losses. Also, SF is a more dangerous target for ASF than NPA for obvious reasons


      And any ships not guarded by Frigates are an easy picking for NSF too.
      Like bro; that argument is bad as fuck

      -Stacks of 5 NSF will mow down navies that don’t have AA support. At max level a cruiser deals only 4 damage to fixed wing, which will result in the NSF taking 8 damage (maybe 12) and the cruiser taking a whopping 45 damage. In two attacks 4.5k components and 1.7k electronics went down the drain. Destroyers don’t even have AA attack, so they will deal only 4 damage. Corvettes and transports get eaten alive.

      Edit: So apparently the Cruiser radar cannot even detect max lvl NSF. Frigates are the only ship capable of detecting them, so any stack without frigates is in for even more of a bad time

      >-One thing I think NSF shines at is for strategies with minimal Air Force. Notice something about the units you used. Attack helicopters. NPA, regular SF. This is a lot of research spent to upgrade these units. If you focus on NSF instead, you will have a harder time dealing with these different units, but you just saved yourself days worth of research that can no go into other things like army and navy. They can be quickly called upon to defend against infantry, tanks, ships, bombers, helicopters etc without wasting so many resources

      You have never used NSF and it shows; cuz otherwise you wouldnt make that "Oh you have to research less" argument

      -If we are going by Rare materials and supplies:

      Strike fighter line cost 13,500 rare plus 13,125 supplies. Factor in the Naval line cost and that’s
      16,920 rare and 16,545 supplies for maxed NSF

      Let’s compare to maxed SF as well as NPA

      13,500 + 10,500 = 24,000 rare
      13,125 + 6,000 = 19,125
      24,000 rare and 19,125 supplies for maxed SF and maxed NPA

      In terms of the units themselves, NPA is cheaper, but you end up with two different units for different tasks while NSF can fulfill both tasks. This, of course, is focused on each units attack vs ships. The NSF cannot fill the patrol role of the NPA because it lacks the NPA’s impressively sized sonar.
      Yee Haw

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Colonel Waffles ().

    • I don't think you understand our argument. We aren't saying bombers are better than SF or NSF. We are saying they both suck absolute ass.

      Mix stacking is good for preserving your air units and spreading out damage so you don't loose them that easily.

      Usually you face far more than just 2 sams unless you are dropkicking noobs in pub games. Any fixed wing unit has a hard time vs SAMS whether it is bomber or strike fighter.

      SF and NPA are both vulnerable to frigates. They are both vulnerable to ASF. Just because you have a little bit of fixed wing damage does not mean people won't go after your SF or NSF with ASF lmao. NPA is better than SF not because hurr durr they have less fixed wing damage, but rather they can actually find you targets to hit.

      ---


      - NSF has ground damage but can't do shit vs the meta of MRLS SAMS ASF (radar is implied)
      - NSF has air damage but can't do anything if the opponent is sentient and knows either keep their helis close to sams or close to asf
      - NSF has naval damage but gets completely walled by frigates (frigates are almost always present in a good navy) as well as providing minimal amounts of scouting capability with their AMAZING 50-75 radar range (at least NPA can be a scout if it can't hit stuff)

      Tell me. What does NSF really accomplish besides pick off small infantry stacks?
    • yzjqx wrote:

      I don't think you understand our argument. We aren't saying bombers are better than SF or NSF. We are saying they both suck absolute ass.

      Mix stacking is good for preserving your air units and spreading out damage so you don't loose them that easily.

      Usually you face far more than just 2 sams unless you are dropkicking noobs in pub games. Any fixed wing unit has a hard time vs SAMS whether it is bomber or strike fighter.

      -I agree with this. The only air unit that can easily wipe SAM is attack heli. The SF will always have a hard time with SAMs, but that does not mean they will always be the worst option

      SF and NPA are both vulnerable to frigates. They are both vulnerable to ASF. Just because you have a little bit of fixed wing damage does not mean people won't go after your SF or NSF with ASF lmao. NPA is better than SF not because hurr durr they have less fixed wing damage, but rather they can actually find you targets to hit.

      -No doubt that ASF will find and kill these planes. I never implied that the enemy won’t try to go after these planes. I’m just saying that it is a major advantage over the NPA. When it comes to NPA, it can be ASF, SF it doesn’t matter that NPA is good as dead. But if a stack of SF has 30 defense vs fighters then it becomes more complicated. If they have a stack of 5 ASF it doesn’t matter what it is but if they get caught without ASF nearby they have an issue on their hands.

      As for the sonar, I personally use AWACS so this is not a problem for me. The AWACS will find everything the NSF can hit anyway since subs are out of the question. When paired, the AWACS (at max level) can see ships for 300 vs the 200 of NPA, and the NSF, while having less dmg vs ships than NPA, has the speed and defense to not be flying target practice. This is what is great about the game: the strategy is so in-depth it is hard to determine which strategy is better because of the small details telling them apart

      ---


      - NSF has ground damage but can't do shit vs the meta of MRLS SAMS ASF (radar is implied)

      Ture


      - NSF has air damage but can't do anything if the opponent is sentient and knows either keep their helis close to sams or close to asf

      Like I said, the SFs are not a replacement to ASF, but a useful asset if ASF is not available.


      - NSF has naval damage but gets completely walled by frigates (frigates are almost always present in a good navy) as well as providing minimal amounts of scouting capability with their AMAZING 50-75 radar range (at least NPA can be a scout if it can't hit stuff)

      NSF isn’t a replacement to navy. Countries that are busy researching other things may not have big naval stacks, and they will be vulnerable to stacks of NSF. A army-based country will likely have a smaller navy that would get crapped on by these stacks.

      Tell me. What does NSF really accomplish besides pick off small infantry stacks?

      If you are army focused, stacks of NSF may provide enough anti-ship power to keep your shores safe until you can find an alternative

      If you are navy focused, NSF can be a major asset to your cruisers by supporting them in naval battles once the frigates have been softened

      If you are Air Force focused, you likely have significant control of where your enemy can airlift to, which will force them to land via boat. NSF can shred transports much faster than a pursing ship or regular SFs.


      Overall, NSFs may not be as effective as attack helicopters or NPA at specific tasks, but they are a valuable and affordable unit that can respond to a variety of threats

      Yee Haw
    • I tried a stealth bomber rush in an annihilation game whoch has uncapped research.
      What i can say is simply all bombers are good for is taking out airfields, sure you can bomb cities but your forever repairing them.

      Comes down to a few things, firstly moral issue, build times, repair times, flight times, warhead production but mostly conventional bombers are just so easy to counter.

      Having a 5 stack is nice, but i wouldn't build more then that, they are good for a surprise strike.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by crazystoner ().

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      yzjqx wrote:

      I don't think you understand our argument. We aren't saying bombers are better than SF or NSF. We are saying they both suck absolute ass.

      Mix stacking is good for preserving your air units and spreading out damage so you don't loose them that easily.

      Usually you face far more than just 2 sams unless you are dropkicking noobs in pub games. Any fixed wing unit has a hard time vs SAMS whether it is bomber or strike fighter.

      -I agree with this. The only air unit that can easily wipe SAM is attack heli. The SF will always have a hard time with SAMs, but that does not mean they will always be the worst option

      SF and NPA are both vulnerable to frigates. They are both vulnerable to ASF. Just because you have a little bit of fixed wing damage does not mean people won't go after your SF or NSF with ASF lmao. NPA is better than SF not because hurr durr they have less fixed wing damage, but rather they can actually find you targets to hit.

      -No doubt that ASF will find and kill these planes. I never implied that the enemy won’t try to go after these planes. I’m just saying that it is a major advantage over the NPA. When it comes to NPA, it can be ASF, SF it doesn’t matter that NPA is good as dead. But if a stack of SF has 30 defense vs fighters then it becomes more complicated. If they have a stack of 5 ASF it doesn’t matter what it is but if they get caught without ASF nearby they have an issue on their hands.

      As for the sonar, I personally use AWACS so this is not a problem for me. The AWACS will find everything the NSF can hit anyway since subs are out of the question. When paired, the AWACS (at max level) can see ships for 300 vs the 200 of NPA, and the NSF, while having less dmg vs ships than NPA, has the speed and defense to not be flying target practice. This is what is great about the game: the strategy is so in-depth it is hard to determine which strategy is better because of the small details telling them apart

      ---


      - NSF has ground damage but can't do shit vs the meta of MRLS SAMS ASF (radar is implied)

      Ture


      - NSF has air damage but can't do anything if the opponent is sentient and knows either keep their helis close to sams or close to asf

      Like I said, the SFs are not a replacement to ASF, but a useful asset if ASF is not available.


      - NSF has naval damage but gets completely walled by frigates (frigates are almost always present in a good navy) as well as providing minimal amounts of scouting capability with their AMAZING 50-75 radar range (at least NPA can be a scout if it can't hit stuff)

      NSF isn’t a replacement to navy. Countries that are busy researching other things may not have big naval stacks, and they will be vulnerable to stacks of NSF. A army-based country will likely have a smaller navy that would get crapped on by these stacks.

      Tell me. What does NSF really accomplish besides pick off small infantry stacks?

      If you are army focused, stacks of NSF may provide enough anti-ship power to keep your shores safe until you can find an alternative

      If you are navy focused, NSF can be a major asset to your cruisers by supporting them in naval battles once the frigates have been softened

      If you are Air Force focused, you likely have significant control of where your enemy can airlift to, which will force them to land via boat. NSF can shred transports much faster than a pursing ship or regular SFs.


      Overall, NSFs may not be as effective as attack helicopters or NPA at specific tasks, but they are a valuable and affordable unit that can respond to a variety of threats

      To respond to ur last part:

      Yes they can do that but wouldn't it just be easier to save on the research and have an ally go for an air build? I would much rather get a max level asf than max out my SF if i was going ground, navy, or air.
    • “To respond to ur last part:

      Yes they can do that but wouldn't it just be easier to save on the research and have an ally go for an air build? I would much rather get a max level asf than max out my SF if i was going ground, navy, or air.“

      This is true. If you have allies that are researching specific things then you can prioritize more specific things.
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      “To respond to ur last part:

      Yes they can do that but wouldn't it just be easier to save on the research and have an ally go for an air build? I would much rather get a max level asf than max out my SF if i was going ground, navy, or air.“

      This is true. If you have allies that are researching specific things then you can prioritize more specific things.
      Only problem I see with this is that both countries need some mix of skills. You can prioritize air for example, but you'll still need some ground game, even if your teammate has ground game. Or vice versa. Obviously, right? Except that it becomes a challenge in of its self to prioritize a form of gameplay (ground, air, sea) while researching just enough of another technology that you can sort of keep up with more well-rounded countries.

      I've done this strat with my buddy. He will go for air, ill go for ground, but sometimes it doesn't work all that well if your opponents are actually paying attention. Together, your countries are strong. But in the case that they prioritize a single country and do a rush down, suddenly, you are outmatched in multiple areas. All they need to do is wait for your ally to go to war and boom, you are left open for an attack because you rely on your teammate's tech.

      And of course your teammate has his recourses split. So something to look out for.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by StopThereCowboy ().

    • Sounds like you could benefit from a revised build and more communication. Going ground does not mean you only get ground units, it means you focus on the artillery + aa aspect of combat and have secondary research like into ASF, corvettes, or something. Going naval does not mean you only get naval, you just get the cruisers/officer/frigate and possibly a scouting unit for the ocean, but you want to still build infantry to help capture land.

      If your opponents are able to prioritize a single country and is able to rush it down, it means that you guys are not working together optimally. Why are they waiting for your ally to go to war solo? Heck, why is your ally going to war solo in the first place. Shouldn't you guys be picking wars together or defending against a coalition together? If you are going to run specialized builds then the entire squad needs to work together because that's the entire point: focus on specific research so that the overall team has the tech advantage. Ofc you rely on your teammate's tech, that's the whole point and they rely on your's as well. Work together and don't pick solo wars.
    • yzjqx wrote:

      Sounds like you could benefit from a revised build and more communication. Going ground does not mean you only get ground units, it means you focus on the artillery + aa aspect of combat and have secondary research like into ASF, corvettes, or something. Going naval does not mean you only get naval, you just get the cruisers/officer/frigate and possibly a scouting unit for the ocean, but you want to still build infantry to help capture land.

      If your opponents are able to prioritize a single country and is able to rush it down, it means that you guys are not working together optimally. Why are they waiting for your ally to go to war solo? Heck, why is your ally going to war solo in the first place. Shouldn't you guys be picking wars together or defending against a coalition together? If you are going to run specialized builds then the entire squad needs to work together because that's the entire point: focus on specific research so that the overall team has the tech advantage. Ofc you rely on your teammate's tech, that's the whole point and they rely on your's as well. Work together and don't pick solo wars.
      I didn't say anyone picked a solo war. If you can point that out, I'll concede the point. War starts when two countries fight; my ally got involved in a war he didn't start.
      You obviously want to focus on multiple aspects. Not just "ground units=moterized infantry." But you will be putting more research into a specific area. That's how it works. If a country challenges you and has better tech in two or more areas because they are better well-rounded, it's going to be rough. Especially when an ally is at war and he doesn't complete you. That is why I said above that this isn't full proof.
      All a collation needs to do is get your allies' attention focused somewhere else. It isn't that hard.
    • i’m gonna bring this up again. this game doesn’t only up to unit u use.
      SF and NSF are rounded units, it shines on every aspect but you will need it in mass quantity.
      the hard counter unit may seems redundant but if you know how, gather intel and pre build counter unit,
      if your whole army only relying on one unit. when that unit get countered. you are doomed.
      no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED