Tac or strat?

[Monki]

Which bomber would be better in use to cause destruction? Tactical bombers or Strategic Bombers

[MushyNed]

Tactical bombers are more flexible since they allow you to do both CAS and strategic bombing. Like all things, it'll do a mediocre job compared to specialised units like the dedicated CAS plane for air support and the strategic bomber for strategic bombing.

Use tactical bombers if you lack the industry to mass produce the other two

[Monki]

So which bomber can do more damage to industry let's say

[MushyNed]

Originally posted by Cranberry:

So which bomber can do more damage to industry let's say

okay
for bigger kaboom use strategic bomber

[donalddawkins]

Strat with strategic bombing doctrine for mass damage to enemy infrsastructure and supply lines. Put them all on the enemies capital and watch it strave the entire army in a week (the game mechanics means all supply cames from the nations capital, so if the infrastructure there gets hammered, all the supply elsewhere does as well, it also led to a lot of meta game in mp where playeres would para drop a capital and surround it instead of taking it to starve the enemy out)

However, a lot of mp games ban strat bombers due to how OP they are, so:

Srat for SP games
Tactical for MP games

[PuttBlug]

Tactical bombers are a waste, use CAS if you want to cause more damage to enemy divisions, use strategic bombers if you want to cause damage to the enemy's buildings.

[andersrlarsen]

use cas for close air support as general rule. however, in areas with very large airzones, like south america, africa and asia, you will get more coverage (and therefore more efficiency) using tac instead. for late game war (1950+) you are better using tac jet instead (you cant make jet cas).
for strategic bombing, strat bombers are much better than tac (about x3-4 compared to tac), but cost is higher (x1,5).

[budisourdog]

CAS excel at close air support
Strat blow buildings up
Tactical does both, but less efficently.