Anti air and sky menace bombers

So I just played a world map game where my ally and I, both perfect defense, were up against one sky menace dude. We didn´t stand a chance really. His bombers just bombed everything to pieces. The obvious reply to bombers would be building anti air, right? Said and done.

120/130-ish bombers up against 44 anti air and about 100 infantry? Should be a lot of slaughtered bombers yeah? Nope. Some 30 bombers survived and one little militia captured my precious capital.

So luckily I have some troops near the capital and tried to take it back. 50 mixed units, infantry, some tanks, some battleships and some bombers, up against about 50 bombers. Not even close.

I know I had the perfect defense strat and shouldnt expect too much when attacking, but we are talking about bombers defending a city here. Why are bombers harder to take out than tanks? With VTOL and lazer guided missiles with sharks on their heads...? Why do sky menace bombers have to have an insane attack and an insane defense?

And more importantly, why doesnt anti air do it´s job? Anti air costs about 5-6 times as much as infantry, but works at maybe 1.2 the rate of perfect defense infantry. That´s just a waste of valuable cash and manpower.

So, the conclusion. Make anti air more effective, or a lot cheaper, and lower the defense of bombers.

(Oh and move this topic if it is in the wrong part of the forum.)

The weakness for sky menace is a slower start with few units, they need to build up a. As two perfect defence players you would not be able to take adavtage of this and just sit and wait for him to attack to a certain extent I assume. I am a SM player but I can remember being soundly beaten by a early push by a perfect defence player who was agressive.

Seems to me either you got unlucky rolls when defending or he also used stealth bombers to help his attack as well. I can assume you have all the infantry upgrades?

BTW bombers would be a mix of fighter jets, bombers and I assume airborn troops as well. The label 'bombers' does not really describe them very well.

Sure, but why do the air wings have better defense than tanks?

Yes, the infantry was upgraded and performed about as good as the anti air units. The anti air units still cost 6 times as much.

There was no stealth. An air transport with some militia "aided" the attack, but did ofc not die and could land and capture the cap.

Prispeval King Cow, 13.02.2011 at 18:02

The weakness for sky menace is a slower start with few units, they need to build up a. As two perfect defence players you would not be able to take adavtage of this and just sit and wait for him to attack to a certain extent I assume. I am a SM player but I can remember being soundly beaten by a early push by a perfect defence player who was agressive.

Seems to me either you got unlucky rolls when defending or he also used stealth bombers to help his attack as well. I can assume you have all the infantry upgrades?

BTW bombers would be a mix of fighter jets, bombers and I assume airborn troops as well. The label 'bombers' does not really describe them very well.

This, I had 200+ militia with upgrades and guerilla and I lost them to about 90 tanks due to some unlucky rolls earlier. Sometimes you just don't get lucky, just like in real life.

Yes, but this happened on several occasions, so the "bombers" are generally overpowered, if you take their high defense into account as well. And anti air is still too expensive and does not perform well against sky menace bombers.

Bombers cost more than tanks firstly, and tanks are allot less mobile and easier to hit than aircraft. In real life the weakness of tanks are aircraft and in general aircraft>all.

It comes at the cost of higher upkeep and fewer units as long as you attack before the SM hits a critical mass of aircraft.

I'm sorry but perfect defence is just not going to do well against Sky Menace unless you really think out of the box and keep the pressure on the sky menace player up. Try and harass his towns to dammage his economy. But master of stealth would be much better for this anyway.

So basically buying expensive (more than tanks or bombers for that matter) ANTI AIR is not the way to go against an AIR strategy, since unless RUSHED, the SM player will dominate the sky no matter what?!

And I strongly disagree that tanks are less mobile than air units which require a landing strip and almost constant refuelling! You have to capture and hold a rather large area in order for planes to be effective, or you need carriers. Grounded planes have a problem defending themselves, but that is not reflected in the game. When attacking, the bombers are bombers and fighters, when defending they are also paratroopers and defensive infantry? Ridiculous, or overpowered. Yet bombers alone can not occupy a city, despite all the paratroopers they bring?! Do you see the paradox here?

When defending, anti air is the first unit to die. I'd like to have any defending land units die first in a city and then if there are only AIR units left, they should be really weak on the defense. How do bombers fight if their landing strip is occupied or under fire? With the same paratroopers that can not occupy the city in the first place?

Afterwind is quiet an abstract game, things like airfields are assumed to be available I guess this also the same for grounding aircraft ect, remember each turn is a week not a day and aircraft are already worse at defending than attacking. I do not mention AA because I do not know much about them, they are not used very much because they are a unlockable unit most people do not have.

Do you have all the infantry upgrades and did you use lots of defence lines to delay him?

I can not really agree with you because I never know if people are really being 100% accurate with these reports. Which is not always any one persons fault. It can be hard to know what is really going on. I'm sure if allot of people complain then more attention would be given to the subject but it seems in games everyone complains about everyother tatics after they get defeated. Prehaps instead of moaning you need to learn and adapt first.

Also I do not know if you ahve all the upgrades, not use defence lines, not really know the real numbers involved but a rough guess, the other player might use stealth units it can be hard as well to tell who is really attacking and who is really defending.

I mean half of your argument is that infantry weakened by perfect defence can not attack a army of bombers at similar numbers which are MUCH more expensive... You should have at least two times as many infantry that he has bombers....

Natuallary aircraft are more mobile than tanks. You dont need to rush but you do need to put pressure onto the SM player early game, yes whats so hard to understand, it should be this way for every tatic if you can.... The best advice I can give you is to play as a SM player a few games, you will then know better if it is OP and also the weakness of this tactic.

Sky menace bombers have a defense of 6. Marines got their defense lowered because they were overpowered. I try to argue the same regarding bombers.

Yes, you do not take anti air units into account. You should. Anti air should be used against air units, right? You could argue that an anti air unit would be the obvious choice of defense against air units. If they are unlockable, shouldn´t they be effective then? You could argue that an unlockable unit should be really effective, right?

Yes, I have all the infantry upgrades. No, there were no defensive delaying lines. I was counting on the anti air units and my infantry to do a decent job. They failed, over and over. No, there were no stealthed units.

I am rank 7, and my partner was rank 6 against a rank 6 opponent. We tried several different strategies but all our units were blown to pieces. We spread out, we sneaked, we tried to hit his economy. We used stealth, we concentrated anti air and infantry in defense. Nothing worked. Maybe you want to tell us how we should have learned and adapted?

You fail to see my point. How can I make myself clear? I have never said that perfect defense infantry should be able to knock bombers out, I did not count on it. I defended with anti air and infantry and I attacked with tanks, bombers and battleships. "50 mixed units, infantry, some tanks, some battleships and some bombers, up against about 50 bombers. Not even close." Quote from the first post.

I say again.

Anti air is too expensive, or to weak. You talk about how expensive units should be effective. Yes, my point too.

Sky menace bombers have a too high defense.

Marines defence was lowered partly because they also have stealth...

Anti air is just ment to top up your defence you should not rely on it totally, otherwise players who do not have this unit would have a huge disadvantage. Espically with out any defence lines.

Don't you think stronger AA + defence bonus from perfect defence + mass cheap infantry (+ defence lines?) would be a bit TOO strong which fighting sky menace players? I mean you do not even use a defence line and then when you lose the game you come here to ask for a tatic to be nerfed. Come on no defence line is a basic mistake no one should make. With that 1 extra turn you could have moved this 50 infantry into your town and won the game. You probably could have moved even more. Stop thinking that rank tells you anything about skill as well, it does not.

Really try and use SM a few games with an open mind and see how it goes.

if you attack with infantry with PD dont come on the forums and complain you lost afterwards lol

Made AA a bit cheaper and more effective against planes.

EDIT: Amok convinced me to leave defence as it was (10 against planes).

Thank you Ivan, finally a balanced reply, and thank you for implementing the very thing I was asking for!

Ok well this is annoying firstly I think my replys have been balanced, a balanced reply is not only one that agrees with you sir.
I also assume (I hope) the change was because of some mistake and or other people complaining and not just because of one person posting espically when it seems his tatics were so flawed.
In the past I have heard much more people say how usefull AA is and how it makes SM useless (in game chat sadly), this is the first and only time I have seen anyone complain about AA.

I'm not moaning about the change I know it's part of BETA and finding a balance but there are not very many SM players to post on the forums about our point of view.

Anyway lets see...

Amok convinced me AA don't need a raise in defence. However, they are now cheaper, woohoo!

Well I have nothing against trying out more powerfull AA I'm just worried if there is enouth SM players and also people using AA on the forums to give quality feedback. I know of two good SM players that already quit the SM tatic because they felt AA made it useless. (I do not agree, but this might be down to the fact hardly anyone has the AA unlock so far)


I just wonder what the end game is for this idea in this thread.
If powerfull bombers can not 'crack' open a Perfect Defence player, what can?
I do not think making it so perfect defence players can just turtle up and nothing can beat them is a good idea. SM counter is AA. The counter to PD players is tanks? Does not seem to be as targeted as AA. Oh maybe that is what a nuke is for later, heh.

No comment on the price change I might try some PD games and test it out but my first reaction is it should be fair to make some change in this area AA does seem very expensive.
It could be very hard to balance a unit that is only targeted at aircraft as no other strategy/unit is targeted in this way.

I play SM too. The problem, as I see it, is that people don't understand SM very well. I've had tank generals with huge countries get pushed back and eventually beaten by my one country, just because they constantly leave big stacks open to interception by a bigger stack of bombers, so that I can beat his units without losing much.

I've also had games where I lost my first batch of bombers due to an unforeseen event, and it's proven to be an unrecoverable loss way more often than a similar thing happening while using another strategy.

AA does not, in my mind, make bombers useless, but it does hurt. Maybe they're not that much better than a perfect defense infantry, but "not much better" is still "better" when every reinforcement counts.

SM is a tactic that needs a lot of money and a good early progression to really shine, too many people get beaten by a SM user who was left alone for 20 turns and then complain about it.

Prispeval Unahim, 16.02.2011 at 11:57

I play SM too. The problem, as I see it, is that people don't understand SM very well. I've had tank generals with huge countries get pushed back and eventually beaten by my one country, just because they constantly leave big stacks open to interception by a bigger stack of bombers, so that I can beat his units without losing much.

I've also had games where I lost my first batch of bombers due to an unforeseen event, and it's proven to be an unrecoverable loss way more often than a similar thing happening while using another strategy.

AA does not, in my mind, make bombers useless, but it does hurt. Maybe they're not that much better than a perfect defense infantry, but "not much better" is still "better" when every reinforcement counts.

SM is a tactic that needs a lot of money and a good early progression to really shine, too many people get beaten by a SM user who was left alone for 20 turns and then complain about it.

This just about sums it up. If you can stop a SM players expansion you can basically stomp them out. If he loses his first 5 bombers and 1 infantry to neutrals you can roll in with 2 tanks and take everything. They're so weak early game its not even funny.

There has to be a counter strategy in mid and late game also.

Prispeval Ludendorff, 17.02.2011 at 06:02

There has to be a counter strategy in mid and late game also.

There is, hit them on multiple fronts so they have to split their bombers. But really its the same with any strategy, let them build up and you're done for.

I usually play Blitzkrieg or Tank General so I'm kinda vulnerable for Sky Menace players. Though I don't see a problem with it. Intercept the bombers, build anti air, hit them early and of course don't let your troops stay on the same position. If you stay in a defensive position you will lose sooner or later. (But thats the same with every other strategy)
Of course the Anti Air won't keep your citys safe from bombers if he hits it with 100 of them. What do you expect? Everything else would make SM useless, as stated before from other players ITT.
I don't think AA should be stronger, it's totally fine the way it is.

Yes, it isn´t stronger, but cheaper. Would you spend a million bucks for a useless or even mediocre unit?

Prispeval Ludendorff, 17.02.2011 at 06:58

Yes, it isn´t stronger, but cheaper. Would you spend a million bucks for a useless or even mediocre unit?

I use the guerrilla warfare strategy often, so yes.

As said before, you should have rushed early. Since PD infantry are so cheap, they can simply outnumber bombers, especially considering that there was two PD players.

Anti-air have already been dealt with.

Anti-air is still ineffective, because the new combat system made it so the anti-air has the same HP as a bomber, so one anti-air is only slightly better than a bomber (10 defence vs 8 attack, both with 7HP). In the old system, an anti-air was much more effective vs bombers, especially non-SM ones, rightly so if you ask me. An anti-air is slow, expensive compared to infantry (7 defence in a city for 80 coins), useless in all other combat against all other units, and difficult to gather en masse without transports running around. So an anti-air's only use is in defending against bombers in cities, so it absolutely should excel at that job.
The problem arises in the combat system itself, but the anti-air problem could be fixed by increasing the HP of anti-air or re-introducing the old combat system (which won't happen knowing the devs).

The bigger problem in my eyes is in the bombers themselves.

With sky menace you get bombers for:
8 attack, 7 defence, 4 ARB, 17(!) range, 130 cost.
With tank general you get tanks for:
9 attack, 4 defence, 4 ARB, 7 range, 110 cost.

So for 20 extra cost you're getting a huge range over land and water (meaning highly versatile tactical use) and a high defence (even more versatile). Combine that with a stack bonus and you have a very tough stack in both attack and defence with high range. The only downside is you can't capture cities alone with bombers, which is easily fixed by adding an air transport+militia to your stack, lowering your range to 15 - still far better than 7 - and costing 400 extra. I see this as a bug; 1 militia shouldn't be able to capture a city which had 50 infantry or something in it, no matter how much you carpet bomb it. Unless the militia is called Rambo.

Because the turn system is purely luck-based, a SM user can make 5 stacks of 20 bombers + militia and capture up to 5 cities in one turn. This is incredibly difficult to counter without spamming infantry, because of the stack's high speed, high defence and the luck-based nature of intercepting units. You could have a stack of tanks/infantry ready to destroy one of these 5 stacks, but when you get there the bomber stack you're trying to counter is already taking a city 2 turns away from your stack. The stack will just keep attacking capitals and using the reinforcements to buy more bombers (the militia will never die as long as the bombers are alive, which is stupid). By the time a player can stop all 5 stacks, some 15 countries have been captured, allowing the SM user to reinforce and make more stacks, as well as making the player far weaker.

Yes, an SM user is weak early-game, but so are most other strats. Early-game success is based on so many factors that even the most skilled infantry user could lose their home capital, and by the time players have a sizeable territory the SM user's advantages become far more apparent. Tank users tend to have an advantage early-game because they can capture neutrals more efficiently and grow faster in most cases. However once both players have more income than they can spend, SM will almost always win. The high speed of their stacks as well as movement on land and water means they can zip past the enemy's defences and capture a ton of countries with little resistance. Even when the enemy manages to intercept a stack they are still up against 7 defence per bomber (compared to 4 defence per tank). Anti-air is a waste of money and seldom works against stacks.

tl;dr: bomber + transport stacks are overpowered.

So if you ask me something definately needs changing about the bombers. Perhaps lowering the HP, or reducing its defence, or making them easier to intercept (would be hard to implement but I'm sure the devs will come up with something). Perhaps rewriting the turn system to kill many birds (or bombers) with one stone. Perhaps something to prevent the 1 militia + 50 bombers scenario I constantly see. Either way, something should be done to balance SM a bit more.

Reducing their defense would make perfect sense imo. Good post btw, well put.

Well SM bombers actually cost 160 and do not have the ability to capture cities so you either need to attack within 7 range or purchase 350 air transports. This causes a much slower start in a standard 10k game as most viable countries cost upwards of 6k and the upkeep on air units will cause your income to take a hit. However I do agree that even as someone that plays Sky Menace bombers defense is a bit overpowered and I could see it dropping a point or so.

Prispeval Gigglin, 25.03.2011 at 18:37

Well SM bombers actually cost 160 and do not have the ability to capture cities so you either need to attack within 7 range or purchase 350 air transports. This causes a much slower start in a standard 10k game as most viable countries cost upwards of 6k and the upkeep on air units will cause your income to take a hit. However I do agree that even as someone that plays Sky Menace bombers defense is a bit overpowered and I could see it dropping a point or so.

Actually they cost 130. I know this because I'm playing SM now.
Early-game (before a SM user can afford lots of transports) most nearby countries are within 7 range anyway, so expanding isn't a problem using bombers and infantry. And since air transports are cheaper than normal you can go to offshore countries easier.

They could be over powerd now the problem is not many people play this strategy and since the updates I have not played allot. I dont think you can just focus on the upside of bombers with SM and at the same time ignore that other strategies have their own upside.

Keeping it in context?


Also allot of this thread is a bit out of date could we start a new discussion, I can do this and start it with a quote from TerraSleet. Also it would be good to have an update of how much strategies are played to see if SM has become more popular.

There are several things you can do about SM players:
- prevent early expansion (can be hard)
- late game: turnblock + wallfuck them, this is really important. make sure they cant continue expanding and that 100+ bomber stack sitting in a city will cost a hell lot of money, build a defensive line around every important city, take every unprotected city he has: that will cut his income.