|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Feb 16, 2021 13:24:03 GMT
 As we can see, these air attack options are available in Conquests as well, at a very high cost. Missiles and nuclear bombs are described to be able to ignore def, but is this really worth the cost (especially at two or five times that of the cost of a strategic bomber strike in Conquest)? Admittedly, if you absolutely need an extremely long ranged assault which is out of reach of even the 1-11 hex range of strategic bombers, the missile strikes are the best. However, what if the targets are all within the 1-11 hex range? I feel that the number of strategic bomber strikes at a total cost equivalent to one missile or nuclear bomb strike do more dmg to any enemy targets than the latter two. Even in Army Group mode, I'm hardly impressed with the relatively low dmg dealt by nuclear bombs for the very few that had dropped. So what are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 16, 2021 14:46:39 GMT
As we can see, these air attack options are available in Conquests as well, at a very high cost. Missiles and nuclear bombs are described to be able to ignore def, but is this really worth the cost (especially at two or five times that of the cost of a strategic bomber strike in Conquest)? Admittedly, if you absolutely need an extremely long ranged assault which is out of reach of even the 1-11 hex range of strategic bombers, the missile strikes are the best. However, what if the targets are all within the 1-11 hex range? I feel that the number of strategic bomber strikes at a total cost equivalent to one missile or nuclear bomb strike do more dmg to any enemy targets than the latter two. Even in Army Group mode, I'm hardly impressed with the relatively low dmg dealt by nuclear bombs for the very few that had dropped. So what are your thoughts? I think Missiles are, because of 1. their range, and 2. defense does quite a bit in this game with a defense of 4 dodging, say, 30% of dmg, which if a missile ignores defense, that's pretty useful. |
|
