Fighter Rush for Ocean Dominance

[keepngoal]

Hi all,

I have adapted well in using this technique in keeping bombers and winning the ocean's battles. A couple of thoughts behind it.

1) What to do when your opponent uses same strategy?
a) continue on with fighter rush?
b) use your fighters for close air support and land to redeploy?
2) I use airbases for quick reload of navy and typically only move two from each base to carriers so I don't run completely out in any single base.
a) good choice?
b) other ideas?
3) Most time a trap for getting their carriers close is to have subs become active ASAP to help take out the opponents battleships used as cover for fighters.

Before I would save subs for precious mass nuking to take out silos, but with the number of bombers I save by using fighter rushes, i can count on the bombers staying alive, while subs can be easily taken out. Basically one or the other is needed to win; losing subs and a good number of bombers is typically disastrous, but having a good number of either makes winning much easier... of course when you have both.... yippie!

Thoughts?

- keep.

[xander]

First off, I don't like the fighter rush. I don't think it is nearly as effective as combining the use of fighters (to shoot down bombers), battleships (to shoot down fighters), and bombers (to take out naval units). That being said, if someone lays a fighter rush on you, use your battleships to take out their fighters. That is what battleships are there for.

xander

[Gen. Ripper]

I find that if you encounter an oppenent who is roughly the same skill as you, you tend to suffer baddly

Its normally a war of war of attrition develops and the "winner" has mininmal assets to hit the other,
a good way to break this, use some bombers and task them for ICBM mode, use them against the enemy navy groups

This will mean that your oppenet wont group his fleets as much (if he/she learns that is) then its a war of manoverbiliy and you can group your forces to strike thru

[keepngoal]

First off, I don't like the fighter rush. I don't think it is nearly as effective as combining the use of fighters (to shoot down bombers), battleships (to shoot down fighters), and bombers (to take out naval units). That being said, if someone lays a fighter rush on you, use your battleships to take out their fighters. That is what battleships are there for.

xander

hmmm... what if my subs are in a forward position, right under your BS's? Does that change the effect of a fighter rush?

- keep.

[Ace Rimmer]

hmmm... what if my subs are in a forward position, right under your BS's? Does that change the effect of a fighter rush?

- keep.

No, but it would change how many subs you are left with.

[xander]

hmmm... what if my subs are in a forward position, right under your BS's? Does that change the effect of a fighter rush?

- keep.

No, not really. Using bombers and subs is more effective than using fighters and subs.

xander

[Radiant Caligula]

Excuse my french but fighter rushes are for n00bs.


Flushing out your entire fighter stock is impossible to micro and if two players met where one did a fighter rush and the other launched fewer fighters but microed them properly, the outnumbered microed fighters always win.

Fighters in a heavy naval battle do much more damage as frontline radar branches to help your massive bomber fleet in the back line kill enemy BS and carriers. The first thing I do when know enemy fleet is nearby is to launch all bombers available at defcon 3. Players who start launching fighters will almost always lose to a bomber first fleet.

[keepngoal]

I guess we have it and it is settled. Expert commentary for a fighter rush.

back to the drawing board.

-keep.