• The way I see it tac bombers are just a waste of money.  They cost 1 ipc more than a fighter and don’t defend as well and 1 less than a bomber which attacks at a 4 no matter what. For 63 ipcs you can get 3ftrs and 3 tacs which attack at 21 pts or can get 5 bombers that attack at a 20.  With the bombers extended range and the vastness of the Pacific ocean it would seem that the reg bomber is the superior option when attacking. Does anyone else buy tac bombers regularly?

  • I buy them over Strat bombers due to the fact that you can land them on carriers. Therefore, not only can you move them

  • Using your example of 3 fighters 3 tac buy vs a 5 bomber buy

    You looked at the offense and cost, so now look at the defense:  21 vs 5

    A Bomber group attack has range and striking power, but is vulnerable to counter attack.  Which means you need to spend money on defensive units to protect them or strike limited targets that keep you out of counter attack range.

    A Fighter tac-bomber group has less range - or the same with an investment in carriers -, but has almost equivalent striking power to the bombers and good defense in case of a counter strike.

    Each is situational.  I use both strategies together to great effectiveness.

  • @GDFTigerTank:

    You looked at the offense and cost, so now look at the defense:  21 vs 5

    And this is still disregarding the quantity of units, which is as important as the dice total of the stack.  5 bombers attacking 3 fighters and 3 tacs will only win 1/5 of the time.  If you add in one infantry to the bomber attack to even ipc and unit count, it evens the odds between them for the bombers attack, but as already posted, they’ll always lose on defense.  The number of dice you roll through a battle can be far more important than the likelyhood of each individual roll hitting.  20 infantry attacking 6 fighters has the same ipc value, and a lower dice total (20 vs 24) but the infantry should win 99% of the time.

  • Tactical bombers, don’t they get an attack boost with fighters/tanks with them? So if you think about it, they get a 4 attack, so in the 3 tactical bombers and 3 fighters vs 5 strategic bombers, the strategic bombers lose way more if defending.

  • Tac bombers should be allowed to SB air and naval bases.

    I buy some tac bombers as it is, but they are too similar to the fighter unit. Its also stupid that in order to attack air and naval bases you need land-based aircraft.

  • Clearly the 3ftrs 3tac is the more balanced force but usualll when you buy aircraft its to either attack or defend not do both. So if I want to defend I’ll buy ftrs and if attack all bombers. Granted I can see you maybe want a carrier force that you use to attack then keep alive but still on each carrier the difference is the ftr/tac group with 7att/7def and the fighter group with 6att/8def I’d prefer loading carriers with ftrs but I guess its really just preference.

  • TripleA


    it seems like no one is answering the threads question.

    japan initial purchases are transports, then subs and destroyers to keep usa back. they have enough tacs already
    china they can not purchase tacs
    uk needs to buy ground units
    anzac needs to buy cheap naval units
    usa is the only country that i would even consider a tac purchase. then give my head a shake and realize that i need more important units.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys