[Updated on: Mon, 28 February 2005 03:05]

Report message to a moderator

Mini mombers require two design slots versus just one. However, using two design slots means you can mix and match for better bombing efficiency.

Report message to a moderator

I like the fact that B-52s can survive a minefield-hit.
If you suddenly find yourself in an exploding minefield or something, you have a chance to get out alive.
And if you want to use both normal bombs and LBUs, it doesn't use up 2 slots.

Report message to a moderator

As above....

The main advantage of the advanced design bombers are definitely the inclusion of other slots. Shields on the B52's, and the Mech/Elec/Scan slot(s) on the B17 and B52.

This gives them a flexibility that can grant a better combat range, missile deflection, or even a decent-sized handy hide-away for colonists prepared for dropping onto the ruins of your enemy's recently decimated planet.

On the other hand, if you want to play the numbers game straight, as you have done with resource cost, it may be worth mentioning that the mineral cost per bomb housing is *significantly* lower in the B-17 and B-52 hulls...

Report message to a moderator

Storm wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:04

As above.... On the other hand, if you want to play the numbers game straight, as you have done with resource cost, it may be worth mentioning that the mineral cost per bomb housing is *significantly* lower in the B-17 and B-52 hulls...

For B-17 yes, for B-52 only a bit(min cost of B-52 is around 60-70, mini is , their main mineral advantage is from the less engines needed(B-52 3, B-17 4, mini 8 for same amount of bombs), which gets less important, when either using fuel mizer or prop23 engine.

Which i obviously forgot is mixing bombs and mine field safety.
Mine field safety is also useful with non exploding fields, 50 B-52 can risk a 36LY jump, 400 minis can't.

About mixing bombs, are there any spread sheads to calculate how more efficiently mixed bombing is in case of goal to asap either emtpy the planet or have a small defenseless number of colonists(200000-)?

I'm unable to think up a straightforward calculation, because adding LBU reduces amount of pop killed, but increases amount of facs and mines bombed, so the ability of planet to produce next turn defenses is hampered, which then might yield more pop killed per 2 years than with only normal bombs. What i would guess is that half LBUs half smarts is more inefficient, than just normals.
What if Robber Baron is avaible, then a bombed planet is normally depleted of minerals the same time, which also hinders defense rebuilding. Which means that the ratio LBUs/normals would have to shifted more to nomrals.

Any good rule of thumb?


And if i'm planning to use enough bombers for 1 turn kills, then pure normals is best isn't it?

Carn

Report message to a moderator

Can't point you in the direction of a decent bombs spreadsheet utility... I'll leave that to someone else..

But as for views on bomber cost - I Object, your honour!

Mineral Useage per Bomb Housing

Hull / I / B / G
Mini / 9.0 / 2.5 / 4.5
B17 / 6.875 / 1.25 / 1.25
B52 / 5.625 / 0.9275 / 0.625

So successive bomber hulls do use minerals a lot more effectively than their predecessors.

Of course, these aren't the only things to take into consideration. If you want to make a proper formula for the whole thing, then you have to not only take a look at resources (as you have done), but then also the basic armour, weight vs fuel efficiency, basic engines, and the perceived value of the extra slots.

Of course, if you start putting jammers on the spare slots, then that reduces the likelihood of being destroyed by a missile hit, and so makes B17s (for example) more resilient than the Minis...

If anybody really wants to make their head hurt, I suggest thinking about this for a while...

Just out of interest, has anybody else used used the strategy of sticking Super Cargo Pods on B17s/B52s and filling them full of pop in order to execute bomb/pop-drop missions, with any degree of success?

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Carn wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 09:04

Why should one use B-17 or B-52 instead of mini bomber in case of using non expensive engines?

IMO price per bomb doesn't matter so much, as usually you need 100-200 bombs in orbit, but several hundred (or thousands) of weapons to bring bombers there alive.

I'd say minis are more appropriate for close quarters and early attacks, but for long operations in enemy's space you need more fuel and protection. That's what the B-52 hull offers. IIRC B-17 I used in only two games. The first one was slow tech / 15 planets per player, the second one was "primitive" (basically slow tech again ) / no gates. But again, in the later I moved to B-52 after the hull was available.

I can make a list of pros/con's of both hulls. Then you decide what's more important for your way of playing.

Mini bomber
Pros:
- low tech enables early attack,
- gateable, with single bomb even through 100/250 gates,
- easily replaceable (can be built on docks and gated to front).
Con's:
- low armor and fuel,
- no additional protection,
- two designs usually needed,
- can't survive single minehit,
- IS-10 engine cost is a big portion of its price

B-52 bomber
Pros:
- more fuel,
- can mount additional protection (jammers, shields),
- with shields it survives single minehit,
- the cheapest hull per bomb,
- only one design needed,
- IS-10 engine friendly .
Con's:
- not gateable (even B-26 (half loaded B-52) is gateable with damage/losses),
- hard to gather and replace,
- can't be built on docks.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

There is one additional advantage to B52 hulls that should be mentioned.

Remember, bombs are HEAVY. Therefore, when sticking SS cloaks on a B52 hull you get overcloaking points

Ptolemy
Emperor of a Thousand Suns

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Carn wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:35

Which i obviously forgot is mixing bombs and mine field safety. Mine field safety is also useful with non exploding fields, 50 B-52 can risk a 36LY jump, 400 minis can't.

Sure you can, if you don't mind splitting them up in smaller groups and want to risk loosing some of them. They're cheap and easily replaced, aren't they?. You can even use those 400 mini's to chaff sweep.

Quote:

About mixing bombs, are there any spread sheads to calculate how more efficiently mixed bombing is in case of goal to asap either emtpy the planet or have a small defenseless number of colonists(200000-)?

Check out the Stars! Calculator, it has a bombing section.

Quote:

I'm unable to think up a straightforward calculation, because adding LBU reduces amount of pop killed, but increases amount of facs and mines bombed, so the ability of planet to produce next turn defenses is hampered, which then might yield more pop killed per 2 years than with only normal bombs. What i would guess is that half LBUs half smarts is more inefficient, than just normals. What if Robber Baron is avaible, then a bombed planet is normally depleted of minerals the same time, which also hinders defense rebuilding. Which means that the ratio LBUs/normals would have to shifted more to nomrals. Any good rule of thumb?

I wouldn't use smarts unless you have a CA helping you to reduce defenses with their OAs. I would use cherries+LBUs, either a 3/1 ratio, or possibly 2/2 ...
With a robber baron you might conside to only use cherries? Trying to save some factories/mines ... ? Play with the Stars! Calculator a bit.

Your bombing strategy might also vary depending on who you are up against, a HP or a -f ... Of course you can't build a different bomberdesign for each player.

Quote:

And if i'm planning to use enough bombers for 1 turn kills, then pure normals is best isn't it?

1 turn kills are expensive. What you can do is bring enough cherries and get done with it. They have a set value of pop that they can kill. Add those up untill you get 1100000 and that's the number of cherries you need.

mch

Report message to a moderator

Storm wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:57

Can't point you in the direction of a decent bombs spreadsheet utility... I'll leave that to someone else.. But as for views on bomber cost - I Object, your honour! Mineral Useage per Bomb Housing Hull / I / B / G Mini / 9.0 / 2.5 / 4.5 B17 / 6.875 / 1.25 / 1.25 B52 / 5.625 / 0.9275 / 0.625 So successive bomber hulls do use minerals a lot more effectively than their predecessors.

You forgot minituarization, at max tech it's this:

Hull / I / B / G
Mini / 2.5 / 0.5 / 1
B17 / 1.75 / 0.25 / 0.25
B52 / 3.125 / 0.5 / 0.375

Unless some mins are more important and cheap engines are avaible, B17 is cheapest, then comes B-52 without shields/misc then mini and then B-52 with shields/misc.
But since bomb costs are the main cost about a bomber, the actual costs differ rather slightly, B17 is 10 % cheaper than mini which is 5% cheaper than B-52.

Storm wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:57

Of course, if you start putting jammers on the spare slots, then that reduces the likelihood of being destroyed by a missile hit, and so makes B17s (for example) more resilient than the Minis...

As there are 4 minis per B-17, whatever jamming is used, the B-17 will take no more than 1.5-1.8 missles to destory, while the minis need 4.05.
Situation is only better with bomber chaff, but i do not think, that'll work with B-17s, no shields and little jamming for the res and bor cost(decide attractiveness), so against missles either minis or B-52 with chaff.

Storm wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:57

Just out of interest, has anybody else used used the strategy of sticking Super Cargo Pods on B17s/B52s and filling them full of pop in order to execute bomb/pop-drop missions, with any degree of success?

I think it's better to bring freighters along, you'll need one slot for them anyway, and LF can be protected with freighter/bomber chaff.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 01 March 2005 10:06] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Ok, most things are said, most numbers crunshed... but still I would like to add a few things

First of all someone mentioned SS cloaks can make the B52 overcloaking, which I guess does not matter as any smart SS would use his stealth-bomber-hull anyway - right?

Next thing is that we speak about minefield resistance, and with one exception (the B-17 with non-ramscoop and MT cargo pod) the B-52 is the only bomber that survives a minehit (or detonation).
As the B-52 is not gateable (unless you are IT) it is a simple trade-off between gateability and minefield resistance, which - as usual - depends on the game settings. If you are IT and the enemy is SD it is simple: use the B52 - but in most cases I personally prefere the minis.

I play non-IT with IFE (so got the mizer and can reduce the main cost for the engine) most of the time - also I believe that minis have advantages in minefields - in the example of the 36ly jump I would simply split up my bombers and see that most of them arrive at the planet - no big deal

Another issue was the usage of multiple designs, so you need 2 slots for the minis. I personally (I might be wrong here) use only one design most of the time when you run out of slots. I really like to mix packets and bombers to get 1-turn-kills (or be close to that). The case that the enemy planet I plan to attack is not in 253jy from one of my massdrivers is... unlikely

If you really need more efficient bombing, then bombing with allies is the (by far) best way to go, because bombers do their job in order of player numbers (and seperatly), so low number player can "prepare" the planet with say LBUs, while the higher number player can kill it with cherry-bombers. If you want to take over the planet intact smart bombs are great with several parties bombing (it just takes too long bombing alone if defs are up).

Anyway - what I tried to say it that a lot depends on the game settings and there is no easy way to tell which is the best way to go - as usual. But wouldn't Stars be boring if it was?

I personally pray for the MT hush-bomb and meanwhile build as many mini-cherry with mizer engine as I think I need. The main reason for me to do this is the vulnerability to enemy missiles - and all other issues are much less relevant to this (usually). There are many other ways to sniper bombers - think about the battle-board-setup trick and cheap missiles on the base. If you fight in alliances you can end up losing your B-52s _very_ quickly in such a situation against a high-init cheap starbase. Something like that... To kill bombers with beamers is always expensive for the enemy as well and much harder to achieve.

Ok, not much new stuff here - but maybe I could give some more hints...

Thanks

Robert

[Updated on: Wed, 02 March 2005 03:13]

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 07:20

First of all someone mentioned SS cloaks cann make the B52 overcloaking, which I guess does not matter as any smart SS would use his stealth-bomber anyway - right?

With "SS cloak" I think Ptolemy meant the cloak part at elec 10.

mch

Report message to a moderator

Robert wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 07:20

I personally pray for the MT hush-bomb Robert

Does hush-a-boom have a minimum kill value?
It doesn't say so in the technical description, but i read somewhere, that hush-bomb is best for one turn kill of high defense planets and that seems strange in case it has no minimum kill.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator