Are Bombers too powerful at 12 ipc's

US is generally the only power that I purchase Bombers with besides the occasional UK or Japan purchase and if I’m Germany and purchasing bombers then it’s pretty much over for the allies anyway.

I probably wouldn’t object to Bombers being 14 IPC instead of 12 but I’m not sure why it was reduced in the first place (I assume it was because some units were reduced and others raised and new units were added).

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

@lnmajor:

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

I agree……after a few years i think we were making them in the thousands!!!

@lnmajor:

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

fighters 6 ?  No one would ever buy a tank again  :-D

(unless you mean it would become for example a 2-2-4 unit?)

@special:

@lnmajor:

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

fighters 6 ?  No one would ever buy a tank again  :-D

(unless you mean it would become for example a 2-2-4 unit?)

7 then, but air is a powerfull force for sure. you’d still be forced to buy a tank or two to take spaces

I think that fighters and tacs should both cost 10, because one is 3/4 and one is 4/3(and only sometimes!). Bombers, then, would fit better at 12.

I agree that Fighters should stay at 10 and I don’t object to Tac bombers being 12 and Strat bombers being 15.

I think there was a discussion a few weeks ago that 10 IPC for a Fighter might actually be too cheap but I think 10 is acceptable.

EDIT: On second thought I might prefer Strat Bombers at 14 instead of 15.  3 IPC more than a Tactical Bomber might be too much.

@special:

@lnmajor:

Bombers should be 15 ipc. Tacs should be 12ipc. And everyone dont freakout but in my opinion, fighters should be 6 ipc. Tacs should basically replace what the fighter was but better and the fighter should be more in line to what a tank or sub costs and an more expendable unit.

fighters 6 ?  No one would ever buy a tank again  :-D

(unless you mean it would become for example a 2-2-4 unit?)

You got it! fighter becomes a 2-2-4 unit. and you still cant land a tank on a aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific. fighters 2-2-4 against ground unit only. fighters in air combat against tacs and bombers 3-4-4. All air units in combat must square off against each other before they can attack ground forces. how ya like them apples :-D

Wellll… those apples would taste interesting  but complicated  :)

(as in multiple values)

@special:

Wellll… those apples would taste interesting  but complicated  :)

(as in multiple values)

depends if your game is checkers or chess :-D

Yes.

You can review my comments in the Anniversary forum way back, the answer is yes.

Bombers are a great build for Germany too, 1 a turn,  once you have 3 or 4, the allies HAVE to keep their navy together, and at bay, because if they come in close you can always mix in a fighter or two or more.  PLUS when the allies stay back, you can use the bmb’s for your little battles on the eastern front to insure victory.

Then if your game goes well, and the UK goes sub 20 IPC’s a turn, you hammer em with SBR unless they have interceptors present.

Our first Global Game, US hit the long range bombers.  With Air bases, they effectively move 9 SPACES!!  It was a definite game changer in our game.

@docfav7:

Our first Global Game, US hit the long range bombers.  With Air bases, they effectively move 9 SPACES!!  It was a definite game changer in our game.

LRA only increases range by 1, not 2

@calvinhobbesliker:

@docfav7:

Our first Global Game, US hit the long range bombers.  With Air bases, they effectively move 9 SPACES!!  It was a definite game changer in our game.

LRA only increases range by 1, not 2

LRA only 1 not 2? since when?

@lnmajor:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@docfav7:

Our first Global Game, US hit the long range bombers.  With Air bases, they effectively move 9 SPACES!!  It was a definite game changer in our game.

LRA only increases range by 1, not 2

LRA only 1 not 2? since when?

Not sure, but it’s +1 in G40

I guess you need the air base to get the extra move. I think bombers should only be allowed to operate from air bases anyway.

@lnmajor:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@docfav7:

Our first Global Game, US hit the long range bombers.  With Air bases, they effectively move 9 SPACES!!  It was a definite game changer in our game.

LRA only increases range by 1, not 2

LRA only 1 not 2? since when?

Since Airbases were introduced.

HA!  My guys are idiots.  It is only one extra space.  Can’t wait to bust their A$$e$.  I’m glad they know how to read.  I was REFing our the Double Blind game and going back and forth.  I’ll have an After Action report on it AFTER they rewrite it!!

Thanks guys…