bomber first replay

[MadStork]

Since Uber locked the last bomber-first thread for want of replays, I would like to submit one of a recent game between myself and Rams on summer duel (not a good game for me, either early or afterwards, but such is my dedication to the cause ). Rams goes bomber-first, and I do, or at least try to do, everything that has been described on previous threads to counter, but it is completely ineffective.

I will list the things that I have gleaned on countering early bombers, and describe their success in this replay.

1. Make a scout first and send it to their base. check.

2. If you see a bomber, immediately make two AA. check.
Here is where the claim that 2 AAs "hard-counter" a bomber is proven absurd. I actually made 3. The bomber takes one out on the first pass (along with an engie). It makes another pass directly over 2 more (after taking some damage on the first pass), and still lives to raid again.

3. Dodge with your engies.
I don't think I could have dodged the first one because there was stuff in the way of my engie (the only successful dodges in my experience are moving towards the bomber-moving at a 90-degree angle to it has never worked for me), but it would have been asking a lot anyway since I first need to change my fac BO upon seeing the bomber. On the second pass, I did my best to move the engie towards where I thought the bomber would come from, but it was way off map so it was guess-work. Two engies down.

4. After AA build raiding units of your own.
Here's where I probably erred, but not egregiously. I built two engies first, because I had none at that point and needed to expand with something besides the ACU. I also sent my first tank on the wrong path and lost some time there (it was probably dumb rerouting it but I was trying to avoid the ACU). By the time either tank arrived at expansions they were dealt with by Rams' land (aided by that bomber, after taking out a third engie). This is also a big disadvantage of Sera-labs are obviously much more effective counter-raiding units. But anyway, if I had done a different BO, I MAYBE get one of those engies, at hardly any practical cost to Rams, and at the expense of delaying my own expansion.

So please feel free to nitpick whatever other errors I made (I would love more tips on this), but I think I essentially did what I'm supposed to do counter bomber-first, and Rams still gained a significant starting advantage (and doesn't even use the double-drop exploit). Even if you think I could've neutralized the strategy, the larger point is that I would have needed near-perfect strategy AND micro to even gain a neutral early-game.

I am even contradicting myself a bit here, because I previously wrote that I think it's much more of a problem on larger maps. I think I should revise and say that it's also a problem on maps without significant expansions-where most of the mass is very near the base. This makes counter-raids much less likely to succeed.

[Zock]

Good post.

Even if you think I could've neutralized the strategy, the larger point is that I would have needed near-perfect strategy AND micro to even gain a neutral early-game.

This is very true.

[Jace]

Wonderful replay

-you go land first and get too close to his base with the commander, *piff dead*. he didn't have to build any defence against that, because he has his commander.

-he goes air first, walks over your base and the commander one time and gets a dead engi, walks over the commander a second time unpunished and gets another dead engi. then sees that a third time would kill his bomber because you have build defence now, so he walks away and kills your raids and expands you couldnt air defend until now.

i dont think there is something you could have done better unless you would have gone heavy anti air without intel. actually i think that would have made your situation worse, because he went heavy ground right after the successful bomber.

you can also see, that the bomber first doesnt stall your eco that bad, like most people claim to. if you just expand normally after that you gain a huge economy advantage, while your enemy has to build defence. so he ca start to expand.

it comes down to that the bomberfirst can walk over the commander unpunished while a landfirst cant do that in any way. even if your first scout would have been an actual rush at this point it wouldnt have made a difference while the bomber actually can go in and do everything he wants.

he didnt even have to use the double drop.

it would be fair to give the commander a AAGun. problem is solved.

[uberge3k]

The only thing you did wrong was let your AAs idle in your base. If you had given them an attack order on the bomber, or moved them along the same direction of the bomber's path, the bomber would have easily died on the second pass - it only had 50 HP.

I really don't think the bomber made a huge difference to the outcome of the game. You were quite even in score after the bomber was countered; the difference was in strategy. You split your income between a lot of engineers and a bunch of smaller armies that were scattered around the side. Rams clearly had a BO in mind, going straight for T2 mex and then spamming nothing but land and pushing, easily overtaking your scattered force. To be honest, it didn't look like you had a BO for that map, while Rams did.

One last thing to note, which I think is perhaps the most important point, is that Rams is currently rated 1814, while you are rated 1717. Statistically speaking, he had a very good chance of beating you regardless of strategy used.

[Jace]

how should he have done that, the bomber was coming from offmap back. sending them into that direction would have actually reduced the time they are able to shoot.
and even if he would have got the bomber, it has done its job. it would have done its job already with the first worker and could have just circling around the map giving intel an killing expansions.

[uberge3k]

how should he have done that, the bomber was coming from offmap back. sending them into that direction would have actually reduced the time they are able to shoot.

He saw the bomber coming from behind. At that point the had two AAs idle in his base. Moving them along the bomber's trajectory would have ensured that it died.

and even if he would have got the bomber, it has done its job. it would have done its job already with the first worker and could have just circling around the map giving intel an killing expansions.

Nope. On that map, air is going to be fairly useless, as a straight up walk to your enemy's base with land is generally the best strategy. By going air first, you are putting yourself 210 + 80 mass behind from the start by building a useless air fac and single-use bomber, even ignoring the added energy cost. In an evenly matched game, those 6 tanks can easily mean the difference between a win and a loss.

The rest of my points, especially regarding score (no pun intented ) still stand.

[uberge3k]

Here is a counter replay, illustrating the relative ineffectiveness of bomber first in an evenly matched game. Note that Isen is about 100 points higher than I on the leaderboard:

78357-TAG_UBER.fafreplay

(39.82 KiB) Downloaded 113 times

[Tiptushi]

I really don't think the bomber made a huge difference to the outcome of the game.

I think who won and lost is irrelevant. Final outcome of game is affected by so many factors that have nothing to do with start BO that we rather should look at who had advantage after start clashing than who won.

After second pass of bomber Rams had 3 engies and damaged bomber (17hp) while Madstork had no engies and 2 mobile aa:s. I think its fair to call this a big advantage for Rams.

After start clashing Rams was able to rush T2 mex (got it up at around 5.00) and still defend against Madstorks countering raid without big difficulties. He got around same amount of factories at same time while going T2 mex.

One last thing to note, which I think is perhaps the most important point, is that Rams is currently rated 1814, while you are rated 1717. Statistically speaking, he had a very good chance of beating you regardless of strategy used.

Game was 1v1 ladder game so I assume it would be more reasonable to use 1v1 and not global raitings. Also, global raitings got reseted while ago while 1v1 raitings didn't so 1v1 raitings should be more accurate.

1v1 raitings for players in example replay:
28 MadStork 1552
34 Rams 1519

Judging by this I think we can speak about fairly even players here, and Madstork is actually one with higher rank, not Rams

I think one important point for this game is luck factor seen in first run. Its uncommon that UEF bomber kills 2 units on one pass, (however its not so scifi with seraphim bomber). Without that doublekill it would have died on second pass. That 17hp left was less than veterancy bonus for UEF bomber (+21hp).

And btw, I'm not even trying to defend bomberlovers or bomberhaters, just trying to defend objectivity in replayanalyzing

[Jace]

Here is a counter replay, illustrating the relative ineffectiveness of bomber first in an evenly matched game. Note that Isen is about 100 points higher than I on the leaderboard:

78357-TAG_UBER.fafreplay

That replay is worthless, the bomber is completely unused. It circles around the map for 2minutes until i drops 2! bomb actually killing 3 workers and gets shot by a interceptor out of the secondbuild! airfactory.
while that it had the chance to kill multiple engis and raidgroups!
maybe Isen searched for the perfect drop? if so, he found it after watching you expand.

loading this up and saying its a proof is an insult! i could do a heavy mechmarine rush, sending my mechs with hold fire past every engineer and then say that a mechmarine rush is complete ineffective because they dont kill anything

Nope. On that map, air is going to be fairly useless, as a straight up walk to your enemy's base with land is generally the best strategy. By going air first, you are putting yourself 210 + 80 mass behind from the start by building a useless air fac and single-use bomber, even ignoring the added energy cost. In an evenly matched game, those 6 tanks can easily mean the difference between a win and a loss.

Madstork was ahead with one mex for one minute until the bomber hit him. in minute 2 he lost advantage cause he had to defend the bomber and had no workers. after that he was always one or two mex behind for over 4 to 5 minutes. pls do the calculating youself. i think that bomber paid off pretty well.

[uberge3k]

That replay is worthless, the bomber is completely unused. It circles around the map for 2minutes until i drops 2!

Incorrect. Watch closely and you'll see that the bomber "circles the map uselessly for two minutes" because I moved the engie it was targeting out of the way, even while Isen was controlling the bomber trying to line up a shot on it.

loading this up and saying its a proof is an insult! i could do a heavy mechmarine rush, sending my mechs with hold fire past every engineer and then say that a mechmarine rush is complete ineffective because they dont kill anything

For your analogy to make sense, you would need to be able to dodge MM fire with your engies. This is not the case, which is one of the reasons why early LABs can be much more effective than early bombers.

Madstork was ahead with one mex for one minute until the bomber hit him. in minute 2 he lost advantage cause he had to defend the bomber and had no workers.

The bomber paid off only because it was not countered correctly, as I wrote in my original post. If it had been, he would have had the advantage, even with a less efficient BO.